HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Newport Beach Country Club_PA2005-140CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 17, 2011
Agenda Item: 2
SUBJECT: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway
• Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008
• Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002
• Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003
• Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003
• Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004
• Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001
APPLICANT: Golf Realty Fund, Property Owner
PLANNER: Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner
(949)644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov
INTRODUCTION
On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
application submitted by the Golf Realty Fund to redevelop the existing golf clubhouse
and tennis club. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission expressed general
acceptance of the proposed development located on the tennis club portion of the
project site (bungalows, villas, tennis courts and tennis clubhouse). The Commission did
not provide specific direction regarding the applicant's proposal as it relates to the golf
clubhouse and associated parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct a public hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment PC1) recommending to the City Council:
a) Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program;
b) Approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as
proposed by staff, for the entire 145 -acre project site;
c) Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the
applicant;
d) Approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term
Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the
Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund
November 17, 2011
Page 2
improvements to the 12 -acre tennis club portion of the project site
reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the
133 -acre golf course portion of the project site;
e) Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by
the applicant; and
f) Approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Review— Mitigated Negative Declaration
The draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, responses to comments received,
an Errata to the MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
attached to the prior reports. The Commission requested clarifications as to whether
there would be potential significant impacts to land use compatibility and aesthetic
impacts of the two (2) projects as proposed by the applicant and NBCC, Inc.
The potential land use conflicts between the two (2) projects have been adequately
addressed through NBCC's redesign of the project, which includes increased physical
separation between the proposed structures as well as enhanced landscaping to
provide adequate screening. The architectural styles proposed for the applicants' golf
clubhouse ( "California Coastal" versus "Americana Prairie ") are distinctly different and a
matter of preference, and they do not constitute a significant land use conflict nor create
incompatibility between land uses under CEQA guidelines. No significant land use
conflicts or incompatibility is anticipated.
Response to Commission's comments have been revised and attached as Attachment
PC2. Staff believes that the environmental record is adequate, complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act and all potential impacts of the project can be
mitigated to a less than significant level. If the Commission concurs, staff recommends
that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the environmental
document.
Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) — Adoption of Staff Alternative
The draft PCDP encompasses the entire 145 -acre golf club and tennis sites
(Attachment PC3). It provides use and development standards for the golf course, a
35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse including ancillary maintenance facilities, 27 hotel
rooms (Bungalows) including the ancillary spa and meeting rooms, five (5) single - family
homes (Villas), seven (7) tennis courts, and a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse. The
draft PCDP does not set forth an architectural style for any development and it does not
fix the design of the parking lot for the golf course and clubhouse. The final architectural
Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund
November 17, 2011
Page 3
design and the parking lot configuration would be a component of a Site Development
Review application.
Transfer of Development Intensity
During the October 20, 2011, hearing on the project, the owner of the Marriott Hotel
property, Host Hotels and Resorts, proposed a "use conversion solution" as an
alternative to the applicant's request for a transfer of development intensity. The
alternative approach was based upon the eliminated tennis courts' (17) development
intensity being converted to hotel rooms or building floor area. Although traffic is not an
issue, staff does not believe the conversion of tennis courts to building floor area is
consistent with the General Plan, as there is no available building floor area or hotel
room allocation in this General Plan Anomaly area. The attached memorandum
provides additional detailed analysis (Attachment PC4).
Site Development Review
The applicant has prepared two (2) comparison site plans (with and without a guard
house and perimeter fencing) to illustrate that the applicant's parking lot layout would
work with the larger clubhouse proposed by NBCC, Inc. (Attachment PC5). These
comparison site plans are not proposed or requested for approval by the applicant. Both
comparison plans provide for the larger NBCC, Inc. clubhouse and required parking. It
is not known whether the grades would work and additional information would be
necessary to potentially implement such a plan. These plans have been forwarded to
NBCC, Inc. and they have indicated that these plans would not work for them.
If the Commission wishes to consider NBCC's application for a proposed golf clubhouse
and parking lot at a subsequent public hearing, staff recommends that the Commission
approve the applicant's Site Development Review application as it relates to the tennis
club portion of the site. It would include the 27 hotel rooms (Bungalows) including the
ancillary spa and meeting rooms, five (5) single - family homes (Villas), seven (7) tennis
courts, and a 3,725 square -foot clubhouse. The golf course, including its ancillary
maintenance facilities, the golf clubhouse, including its associated parking lot, the entry
drive, and landscaping along Coast Highway would be reserved for future consideration.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The applicant's proposed vesting tentative tract map subdivides tennis club site portion of
the project site. It would create separate lots for the five (5) single - family homes, a lot for
the proposed hotel, a lot for the tennis club facility, several open space lots, and a lot
encompassing the proposed private street that would serve the hotel and homes. Findings
for approval of the map are provided in the draft resolution for Planning Commission to
consider.
Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund
November 17, 2011
Page 4
Limited Term Permit
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve only the tennis club portion of the
project site, the approval of limited term permit would only be applicable to the
temporary modular buildings proposed to accommodate on -going tennis club operation
during the 18 -month construction period.
Development Agreement
The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a
separate report,
Prepared by:
r%jsalinh Ung. Ass ate Planner
Submitted by:
James Campbell, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution
PC 2 Revised Response to Planning Commission on Draft MND
PC 3 Draft Planned Community Development Plan
PC 4 Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area or Hotel Rooms Memorandum
PC 5 Comparison Site Plans
F: \USERS \PLN \Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008- 152 \PC Staff Report.docx
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2010 -008 AND
APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADOPTION NO. PC2005 -002, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
INTENSITY NO. 2010 -003, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 2005-
003, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD2011 -002, LIMITED
TERM PERMIT NO. 2011 -004, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2008 -001, FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 & 1602 EAST
COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Golf Realty Fund, with respect to property located at 1600 &
1602 East Coast Highway, and legally described as Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No.
79 -704 and a Portion of Back Bay Drive as Shown on Parcel Map No. 79 -704, requesting
an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport
Beach Country Club. The following applications are requested or required in order to
implement the project as proposed:
a. A Planned Community Development Plan adoption to provide development
standards and design guidelines for the golf course and tennis club and their
ancillary uses, pursuant to Chapter 20.63 of the Municipal Code.
b. Transfer of Development Rights to transfer 27 hotel units from Anomaly No. 43
(Newport Beach Marriott Hotel and Spa site) to Anomaly No. 46 (the Tennis
Club site), pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policies LU4.3 and LU6.14.3.
C. A Site Development Permit to allow the construction of 35,000 square -foot golf
clubhouse and parking lot, twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square -
foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness
center, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, a 3,725 square -foot tennis
clubhouse, and one lighted stadium - center tennis court, pursuant to the Section
4.3 of the Newport Beach Country Planned Community Development Plan.
d. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for five (5) single -unit
residential dwellings, twenty (27) hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and
a private street, pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code.
e. A Limited Term Permit (Temporary Structures and Uses) to allow temporary use
of structures during construction pursuant to Section 20.60.015 of the Municipal
Code.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 2 of 32
f. A Development Agreement pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.c of the
Municipal Code which requires a development agreement as the project
includes a zoning code amendment and new non - residential development in
Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center /Fashion Island) and General Plan Land
Use Policy LU6.14.8 which requires a development agreement since the
proposed project is a mixed -use development project and the proposed five (5)
single - family units will be drawn from the 450 residential units allocated for the
Newport Center /Fashion Island.
2. The application was deemed complete on November 5, 2009; and pursuant to Ordinance
No. 2010 -21, the application is being considered and evaluated pursuant to the Zoning
Code in effect prior to November 25, 2010.
3. The subject property is designed by the General Plan Land Use Element category of
Parks and Recreation (PR) for the Golf Club site and Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and
Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) for the Tennis Club site. The project site is zoned Planned
Community (PC -47) Zoning District.
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and has the Coastal Land Use
Plan designates the site Parks and Recreation (PR) for the Golf Club site and Mixed Use
Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) for the Tennis Club site.
5. Public hearings were held on August 4, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17,
2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance
with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines,
and City Council Policy K -3.
2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period
beginning on September 20, 2010, and ending on October 19, 2010. The contents of
the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the
Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project.
3. An Errata has been prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document in
responses to comments, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft MND.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c), recirculation of the MND is not
required when new information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies,
or makes insignificant modifications to the MND.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 32
4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with
mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and
there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the
project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential
environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
as follows:
a. The project site is located within Newport Center /Fashion Island. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan designates the golf club site Parks and Recreation
(PR) and the tennis club site Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU-
H3/PR).
The PR designation allows active public or private recreational uses including
parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic
facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities.
The MU -H3 /PR designation on the Tennis Club site provides for the horizontal
intermixing of regional commercial office, hotel, single - family and multi - family
residential and ancillary commercial uses.
b. The General Plan limits total development at the Golf Club site to 35,000
square feet (Anomaly No. 74) and 3,725 square feet and 24 tennis courts at the
Tennis Club site (Anomaly No. 46). Residential is also permitted in Anomaly No.
46, in accordance with MU -3 /PR designation. The proposed new golf clubhouse
is consistent with the General Plan development limit of 35,000 square feet.
The existing 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse will be replaced with a new
tennis clubhouse of same the square footage established for Anomaly No. 46.
The five (5) single -unit dwellings will be drawn from the maximum 450 dwelling
units that are allowed in the Newport Center /Fashion Island Statistical Area
(there are unallocated 20 units remaining at this time).
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 4 of 32
d. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit
development (bungalows), the applicant is requesting a transfer of 27 un -built
hotel units from Anomaly No. 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa site) to
Anomaly No. 46 (Tennis Club site). The proposed transfer is permissible in
accordance with General Plan Land Use Policies LU4.3(d) and LU16.14.3.
e. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Golf Club portion of the project site
as Parks and Recreation (PR), and the Tennis Club portion of the project site is
designated as Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR). The
MU -H3 /PR designation recognizes the private recreational tennis courts and the
potential development of short-term rental visitor accommodations and single -
family residential units. Policy 2.1.8 -1 allows the horizontal intermixing of short -
term rental units and single - family homes with the expanded tennis club
facilities. Permitted uses include those permitted by the MU -H3 and PR
categories. MU -H3 allows horizontally distributed mix of uses, which may
include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi - family
residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, and /or buildings that
vertically integrate residential with commercial uses. PR category allows active
public or private recreational use including parks (both active and passive), golf
courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts,
private recreation, and similar facilities. The adoption of planned community
district development plan (PCDP) will ensure building design and siting
regulations will protect coastal resources, including protection of views, and
public access through height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, building bulk,
and improved pedestrian access in accordance with Policy 2.2.2 -4. The
proposed project will provide visitor - serving and recreational facilities as
required in Policy 2.3.2 -2. The proposed redevelopment of the project site is
therefore consistent with the Coastal Land Use designations.
f. The subject property has a zoning designation of Planned Community (PC -47).
This PC zoning designation was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10, as a part
of the City -wide amendment to the districting maps, in order to be consistent
with the 1988 General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code. The City later
assigned the PC with a number of 47 for tracking purposes. A Planned
Community Development Plan (development regulations), was not adopted
when the PC District zoning designation was assigned to the subject property.
The Tennis Club is governed separately by Use Permit No. 1492 and its'
subsequent amendments, which is typical when a PC does not have
development standards. No use permit was issued on the Golf Club site.
g. The applicant proposes a PCDP to provide use regulations, density, and
intensity of the proposed uses and very specific development regulations
(building height, square footage, setbacks, and parking standard) for each use,
including architectural styling and a complete internal vehicular and pedestrian
circulation system for both the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites. Because the
proposed PCDP contains detail and design regulations that are too specific and
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 5 of 32
provide inflexible standards that are inappropriate for the project implementation
and long -term administration, an alternative PCDP has been prepared.
h. The alternative PCDP contains necessary development regulations to
accommodate the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites as a single, cohesive and
comprehensive large -scale planned development. The alternative PCDP also
provides a requirement that a site development review process be completed
for construction of any new major building structure (i.e. clubhouse, residential
dwelling unit, hotel unit, spa facility, etc.), and would require consideration and
approval by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of grading or
building permit to ensure new development proposals within the PCDP are
consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the standards set
for in the adopted PCDP.
2. Transfer of Development Intensity. General Plan Land Use Policy LU4.3 lists a number
of criteria for transfer of development rights. In particular, transfer of development
rights in Newport Center /Fashion Island (Statistical Area L1) is governed by Policy
LU6.14.3. In accordance with General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.14.3, development
rights may be transfer within the Newport Center /Fashion Island with the finding that
the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the finding that the
transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
Finding:
A. The transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The transfer of 27 hotel rooms from Anomaly Area 43 to Anomaly Area 46 is
consistent with the intent of the General Plan as follows:
a. The donor site (The Marriott Hotel) has a General Plan Land Use designation of
CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the site is developed with 532 -room resort
hotel. The transfer of 27 un -built hotel units would reduce future development
potential from 611 hotel units to 584, without some future transfer of development
intensity in Anomaly No. 42. The recipient site (the Tennis Club site) is designated
MU -H3 /PR that allows commercial uses including hotels, residential uses and
recreational uses. The transfer is consistent with the MU -H3 and PR designations
and doe not increase the overall development intensity in Statistical Area L1.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pace 6 of 32
Finding:
B. The transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The twenty -seven hotel units generate 15 A.M., 16 P.M. and 221 average daily trips
based upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Rates (7th Edition).
This increase in traffic is entirely off -set by the traffic associated with the elimination of
17 tennis courts (22 A.M, 56 P.M and 658 average daily trips based upon ITE Trip
Generation Rates). As a result, traffic generated by the proposed project would
decrease by 389 daily trips, 3 A.M. trips, and 35 P.M. trips.
B -2 The design regulations for the hotel rooms set forth in the Planned Community
Development Plan will ensure that the proposed hotel use and the physical
improvements for the hotel rooms will not lend themselves to conversion to higher
traffic - generating uses.
3. Site Development Review — The applicant proposes a Site Development Review to
allow the redevelopment of the existing golf clubhouse and tennis club, pursuant to the
Section 4.3 of the PCDP.
Finding:
A. The Site Development Plan shall be in compliance with all other provisions of the
Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. A site development review application has been submitted in accordance to Section
4.0 of the draft PCDP. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis
club site meets the intent specified in Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review) of
the Municipal Code as the portion of the site based upon the plans provides a
coordinated and comprehensive project and will result in a superior built environment
thereby creating an amenity for the community. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been
reserved for future consideration.
Finding:
B. The Site Development Plan shall be compatible with the character of the neighboring
uses and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious
development of the surroundings and of the City.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pace 7 of 32
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis club site includes
California Coastal architecture, landscaping components, circulation design, all other
project components reflected in the site development review application for the
development of the tennis club site are compatible with the character of the
neighboring uses and surrounding sites. As a result, the proposed development for the
tennis club site is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the
surroundings and the City. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future
consideration.
Finding:
C. The Site Development Plan shall be sited and designed to maximize of aesthetic
quality of the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan as viewed
from surrounding roadways and properties, with special consideration given to the mass and
bulk of buildings and the streetscape on East Coast Highway.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The portion of the application that applies to the 12 -acre tennis club site provides one
and two story building masses that are carefully sited and represent a comprehensive
and coordinated plan. The size, mass and location of structures, the architectural
detailing, landscaping, circulation, and signage maximize the aesthetic quality of the
project. The proposed villas and bungalows are located over 300 feet from East Coast
Highway and adequate landscaping and open space separate the proposed
development from East Coast Highway. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been
reserved for future consideration.
Finding:
D. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access
ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional
aspects of site development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The site plan proposed for the tennis club site and layout of its buildings, parking
areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping, and other site features
maximize the functionality of the proposed uses, while avoiding conflicts between uses
and activities. The villas, bungalows, tennis club, and each of their related amenities
have been carefully designed and sited to function cohesively not only with each other,
but also with the existing adjacent golf club uses. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has
been reserved for future consideration.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 8 of 32
4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The applicant proposes a vesting tentative tract map on
the Tennis Club site to create separate lots for the five (5) single -unit residential
dwellings, twenty -seven (27) hotel units, the tennis club facility, their common open
space areas and a private street to support the propose uses. In accordance with Section
19.12.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the following finding and facts in
support of such findings are set forth:
Findings
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The project is consistent with the Parks and Recreation designation for the golf club
site and Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) designation for the
tennis club site.
A -2. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and finds it is
consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
A -3. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19.
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental
resources. The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed
development. There are no topographic /geologic constraints.
B -2. The subject site is located in Newport Center /Fashion Island and currently improved
with a private golf course (Newport Beach Country Club) and a private tennis club
(former Balboa Bay Racquet Club). Given its location which is adjacent to the Fashion
Island mixed -use of retail, office, and residential development and major road
intersections, this site is ideal for the development of recreation and mixed use
development as allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element.
Findings
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 9 of 32
nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for
the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California
Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and supports a finding that no
significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in
accordance with the proposed subdivision map.
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The proposed Tract Map is for the subdivision parcels in order to accommodate the
development of the tennis club and courts, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings,
and twenty -seven (27) hotel units on the tennis club site. All construction for the
project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place
to prevent serious public health problems.
D -2. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health.
D -3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will
generate any serious public health problems.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it
finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these
easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public.
This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of
property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been
retained for use by the public at large.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 10 of 32
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act,
if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential
development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is not
considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be
included within the land project; and (b) the decision- making body finds that the proposed
land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code.
G -2. The project is not located within a specific plan area
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been
satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
H -1. The proposed Tract Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California
Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling
efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building
Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process.
Finding:
I. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional
housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service
needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 11 of 32
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 -1. The proposed Tract Map does not involve the elimination of residential units and
therefore will not affect the City's ability to meet it's share of housing needs.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing
commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) requirements.
J -2. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the
applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest
revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Findinq:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision
conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access
and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The subject property is located in the Coastal Zone and is not located in proximity to
nor provides public access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal waters, tidelands,
coastal parks or trails. The existing recreational uses (golf course and tennis club) are
private and the elimination of 17 tennis courts does not impact use of public
recreational opportunities.
5. Development Agreement — According to General Plan Land Use Element Policy
LU6.14.8, a development agreement is required since the proposed project is a mixed -
use development project and the proposed five (5) single - family units will be drawn
from the 450 residential units allocated for the Newport Center /Fashion Island.
Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.c (Development Agreement
Required) requires a development agreement as the project includes a zoning code
amendment and new non - residential development in Statistical Area L1 (Newport
Center /Fashion Island). The development agreement includes all the mandatory
elements for consideration and includes public benefits that are appropriate to support
conveying the vested development rights.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 12 of 32
SECTION 4. DECISION.
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of
the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects
the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which
this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
2. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council adopt Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002 for the
entire project site, as depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003, Site
Development Review No. SD2011 -002 for the improvements to the tennis site only
(twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting
facility and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center, five (5) single -unit residential
dwellings, a 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse, and one lighted stadium - center tennis
court) , and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 for the temporary modular buildings
to be located on tennis site only, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C ", which
is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been
reserved for future consideration.
6. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 as attached as
Exhibit "D"
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 13 of 32
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Charles Unsworth. Chairman
23
Bradley Hillgren, Secretary
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 14 of 32
EXHIBIT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(All references to the golf course or golf clubhouse are reserved for future consideration)
sc/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Aesthetics
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant
shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a
final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division.
Tennis
The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on
Club Site:
the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating
Approval of
Prior to
Phase 2
SC -1
Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the
photometric
pstudy
issuance of
Planning
opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates
building permit
Golf Club
Division
an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land
Site:
uses or environmental resources. The Planning
Phase 3
Director may order the dimming of light sources or other
remediation upon finding that the site is excessively
illuminated.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Air Qualit
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits air
Tennis
contaminants or other materials that cause injury,
Club Site:
detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
Periodic
During
Phases 1 -4
Community
SC -2
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger
monitoring
construction
Development
the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such
during
activities
Golf Club
Department
persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural
construction
Site:
tendency to cause injury or damage to business or
Phases 1-4
property to be emitted within the SoCAB.
Tennis
Club Site:
Periodic
Phases 1-4
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets
During
Community
SC -3
requirements for dust control associated with grading
construction
Development
and construction activities.
during
activities
Golf Club
Department
construction
Site:
Phases 1 -4
Tennis
Club Site:
Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which
Periodic
During
Phases 1 -4
Community
SC -4
require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary
monitoring
construction
Development
construction equipment.
during
activities
Golf Club
Department
Site:
construction
Phases 1 -4
Tennis
Club Site:
Periodic
During
Phases 1 -4
Community
SC -5
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets
monitoring
construction
Development
limitations on ROG content in asphalt.
during
activities
Golf Club
Department
Site:
construction
Phases 1 -4
Tmplt: 03/08/11
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 15 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Tennis
Club Site:
Periodic
During
Phases 2 -4
Community
SC -6
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets
monitoring
construction
Development
limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings,
during
activities
Golf Club
Department
Site:
construction
Phases 2-4
Submit
Tennis
Adherence to Title 24 energy - efficient design
evidence of
Club Site:
requirements as well as the provision of window
compliance
Prior to
Phases 2-4
Building
SC -7
glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods
during
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform
building plan
building permits
Site:
Building Code.
check
Phases 3-4
process
Biological Resources
No significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required.
Cultural Resources
A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall
be retained by the project applicant who will be present
during the grading and landform alteration phase. In
the event that cultural resources and /or fossils are
encountered during construction activities, ground -
disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery
Tennis
shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find
Submit proof
Club Site:
has been salvaged. The area surrounding any cultural
of qualified
Prior to
Phase 2
SC -8
materials or fossils encountered during grading shall
archaeologic
issuance
Planning
also be investigated to determine the extent of the site.
al/
grading
grading permit
m
Division
Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project
paleontologi
Golf Club
Site:
construction shall be prepared to a point of identification
cal monitor
and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery,
Phase 1
along with supporting documentation and an itemized
catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a
suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any
collections shall be the responsibility of the project
applicant.
Tennis
The City shall provide an opportunity for a Native
Club Site:
Phase 2
American representative to monitor excavation activities.
Submit proof
Prior to
MM-
The representative shall be determined by the City based
of Native
issuance of
Planning
1
on input from concerned Native American tribes (i.e.,
American
grading permit
Golf Club
Division
Site:
"
Gabrielino, Juaneo, and Tongvas).
observer
Phase 1
Geology and Soils
Tennis
Club Site:
All grading operations and construction shall comply
Periodic
During grading
Phases 1 -4
with the applicable City of Newport Beach Grading
monitoring
and
Building
SC -9
Code and Grading Manual and the most recent version
during
construction
Golf Club
Division
Site:
of the California Building Code.
grading and
operations
construction
Phases 1 -4
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 16 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Tennis
Club Site:
SC-
Prior to issuance of the grading
g g permit, an erosion
Approval of
Prior to
Phases 1 -3
Building
10
control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
erosion
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
City's Building Division.
control plan
grading permit
Site:
Phases 1-4
Submittal of
Tennis
soils
Club Site:
SC-
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
engineering
Prior to
Phase 2
Building
11
submit a soil engineering report and final geotechnical
report and
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
report to the City's Building Division for approval.
final
grading permit
Site:
geotechnical
Phase 2
report
The project shall be designed to incorporate the
recommendations included in "Revised Preliminary
Geotechnical Design Parameters for the NBCC
Planned Community' (April 25, 2008) and "Report of
Tennis
Geotechnical Studies and Review of Vesting Tentative
Club Site:
Tract Map No. 15347" (May 2, 2008) prepared by GMU
Submittal of
Prior to
Phase 2
MM-
Geotechnical that address site grading, site clearing,
geotechnical
issuance of
Building
2
compaction, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral
reports
grading permit
Golf Club
Division
Site:
pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on
grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete,
Phase 1
surface drainage, landscape maintenance, etc. The
Building Division shall review the grading plan to ensure
conformance with recommendations contained in the
final geotechnical report.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Tennis
Submit
Club Site:
evidence of
Phase 2
SC-
compliance
Prior to
Building
12
All new buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements.
during
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
Site:
building plan
building permit
check
Phase 3
process
Tennis
Club Site:
Submit
Prior to
Phase
Planning
SC-
Water conservation design features shall be
evidence of
issuance of
Division and
13
incorporated into building and landscape designs.
compliance
building permit
Golf Club
Public Works
Site:
Department
Phase 2
Tennis
Submit
Club Site:
evidence of
Phase 2
PDF
Design of buildings shall take into account the location
compliance
Prior to
Building
-1
of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency
during plan
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
Site:
and incorporate natural ventilation.
check
building permit
Phase 2
process
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 17 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Submit
Tennis
evidence of
Club Site:
compliance
Prior to
Phase
PDF
The buildings shall incorporate energy- conservi ng
during
issuance of
Building
-2
heating and lighting systems.
building plan
building permit
Golf Club
Division
Site:
check
Phase 2
process
Submit
evidence of
Tennis
compliance
Club Site:
during
Phase 2
Planning
PDF
The project shall incorporate fast - growing, low water
landscape
Prior to
Division and
3
use landscape to enhance carbon sequestration and
plan review
issuance of
Golf Club
Public Works
reduce water use.
and upon
building permit
Department
Site:
field
Phase 2
verification
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to any disturbance of the construction materials
within the Golf Clubhouse and /or the Tennis Clubhouse,
a comprehensive asbestos containing materials (ACM)
and lead based paint (LBP) survey shall be conducted.
Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition
activities that will impact the ACM and /or LBP or
inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed
asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall
Tennis
be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Proper
Submit ACM
Prior to
Club Site:
SC-
safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM and
and LBP
issuance of
Phase 2
Building
14
LBP shall be followed in accordance with federal, state
survey and
demolition
Division
and local regulatory requirements federal and California
site
permit for
Golf Club
Site:
Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
inspection
buildings
and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule
Phase 3
1403, which sets forth specific procedures and
requirements related to demolition activities involving
asbestos containing materials and SCAQMD
Regulation X - National Emission Standards For
Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M - National
Emission Standards For Asbestos, which include
demolition activities involving asbestos.
During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers
shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the
Periodic
Tennis
California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which
Club Site:
provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring,
monitoring
during
During
demolition,
Phases 1-4
Building
1
15
5
respiratory protection, and good working practice by
demolition
grading and
Division
workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris
and site
excavation
Golf Club
Site:
and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in
accordance with the applicable provision of the
inspection
Phases 1 -4
California Health and Safety Code.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
Tennis
Building
SC-
applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent
Submit
Prior to
Club Site:
Division and
16
(NOI) with the appropriate fees to the State Water
evidence of
issuance of
Phase 2
Public Works
Quality Resources Control Board for coverage of such
NOI filing
grading permit
Department
future projects under the General Construction. Activity
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 18 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of
Golf Club
Site:
construction activity at a future site. As required by the
NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention
Phase 1
Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs
in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to
the City of Newport Beach for approval. The WQMP
Tennis
shall specifically identify Best Management Practices
Club Site:
(BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant
Prior to
Phase 2
Building
SC-
runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat
Approval of
issuance
Division and
17
the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a minimum
WQMP
Public Works
the routine structural and non - structural measures
radin m
gg permit
Golf Club
Department
Site:
specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area
Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of
Phase 1
the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the
assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities,
and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will establish
Submit
Tennis
BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion and
SWPPP
Club Site
Building
SC-
prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site.
Prior to
Phase 2
Division and
18
The project shall also incorporate all monitoring
Approval of
issuance of
Public Works
elements as required in the General Construction
erosion and
grading permit
Golf Club
Department
Site:
Permit. The project applicant shall also develop an
sediment
erosion and sediment control plan to be reviewed and
control plan
Phase 1
approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to
issuance of grading permit.
Tennis
Club Site:
Future site grading and construction shall comply with
Submit
During grading
Phases 1-4
Building
SC-
the drainage controls imposed by the applicable
evidence of
and
Division and
19
building code requirements prescribed by the City of
compliance
comp
construction
Golf Club
Public Works
Site:
Newport Beach.
and site
activities
Department
inspection
Phases 1-4
Land Use and Planning
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Mineral Resources
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Noise
Tennis
Club:
Show on
Phases 1 -4
During rock crushing operations, a temporary barrier
grading
During rock
MM-
using a pile of accumulated demolition debris or a
plans and
p
crushing
Golf Club
Building
Site:
3
sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight
site
operations
Division
exists between the crusher and any off -site homes.
Phases 1-4
inspection
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 19 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
Tennis
Show on
Club Site:
MM-
All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall
grading
During
Phases 1 -4
Building
4
be equipped with properly operating and maintained
plans and
construction
Golf Club
Division
muffling devices.
site
activities
Site:
inspection
Phases 1-4
Tennis
Submit
Club Site:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a construction
construction
Prior to
Phases 1 -4
Community
MM-
schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential
schedule
issuance of
Development
5
project- related and cumulative construction noise
and site
grading permit
Golf Club
Department
Site:
levels.
inspection
Phases 1-4
The construction contractor shall notify the residents of
Tennis
Club Site:
the construction schedule for the proposed project, and
Submit
Phases 1 -4
MM-
shall keep them informed on any changes to the
evidence of
Prior to
Building
6
schedule. The notification shall also identify the name
compliance
issuance of
Golf Club
Division
and phone number of a contact person in case of
and site
grading permit
Site:
complaints. The contact person shall take all
inspection
Phases 1 4
reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
Submit
evidence of
Tennis
Heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC)
HVAC
Club Site:
equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be
equipment
Phases 2 -4
shown by computation, based on the sound rating of
sound rating
Prior to
Community
MM-
the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A -weighted hted
p p g
(adjacent to
issuance of
Golf Club
Development
7
sound pressure level of fifty (50) dBA or not to exceed
residential
building permit
Department
Site:
an A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty -five (55)
areas)
Phases 2 -4
dBA.
during
building plan
check
process
Population and Housing
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Public Services
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Recreation
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Transport ion/Traffic
Prior to commencement of each major phase of
construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction
staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by
Approval of
Tennis
the Public Works Department, which shall address
construction
Prior to
Club Site:
planning
MM-
issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak
staging,
commencement
Phase 1 -4
Division and
8
traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street
parking and
of each major
public Works
parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the
traffic control
phase of
Golf Club
Department
Site:
proposed construction staging area(s), construction
plan
construction
crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of
Phases 1-4
vehicles that will occur during each phase, the
proposed arrival/departure routes and operational
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 20 of 32
SC/
PDF/
Mitigation Measure
Method of
Timing of
Applicable
Responsibility
MM
Verification
Implementation
Phase(s)
No.
safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, etc.) and hourly
restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during
peak traffic periods and to ensure safety. If necessary,
the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan
shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction
crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site
at the beginning and end of each day. The plan shall
identify all construction traffic routes. The approved
construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be
implemented throughout each major construction
phase .
The left turn pocket on Irvine Terrace at the Coast
Construct
Golf Club
Site:
MM-
Highway shall be increased in length to a minimum of
improvement
Prior to
Public Works
9
100 feet plus transition in order to adequately
or provide
issuance of
Department
accommodate left -turn movements.
equivalent
building permit
Phase 3
bonds
Utilities and Service Systems
No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 21 of 32
1:11- 311M -3Y
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 22 of 32
EXHIBIT "C"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project- specific conditions are in italics)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
NT2005 -003, Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 for the improvements to the
tennis club portion of the project site only, and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004,
stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as modified by applicable
conditions of approval.)
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 is approved for the development located
on the Tennis Club site which consists of the subdivision of five (5) single -unit
residential dwellings, twenty -seven (27) hotel units and related amenities, the tennis
club facility, their common open space areas and a private street.
3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 shall expire if the map has not been
recorded within the term of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001, unless an
extension is otherwise granted.
4. Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 is approved for the development of.:
a. A 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse and one lighted stadium - center tennis
court.
b. Twenty -seven (27) hotel units with a 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest
meeting facility, and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center.
C. Five (5) single -unit residential dwellings.
d. The 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. The
plans shall be revised to remove all representations of future development on the
133 -acre Golf Club site.
5. Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 is limited to the 12 -acre Tennis Club site and
approved for the use of:
a. Two (2) temporary modular buildings to accommodate on -going tennis club
operation during the 18 -month construction of new golf clubhouse. The modular
buildings shall be located on the existing tennis courts, shall not interfere with
the construction activities or parking, and shall be removed from the Tennis
Club site upon completion /occupancy of the new clubhouse.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 23 of 32
6. Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004
shall expire unless exercised within the term Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001,
unless an extension is otherwise granted.
7. Any substantial change to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to Site
Development Review No. SD2011 -002, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 and /or
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 or the processing of new permits.
8. A minimum of 28 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for The Tennis Club
(tennis courts and clubhouse) as provided on the approved plans.
9. A minimum of two (2) enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for
Was #A, B, and E and a minimum of three (3) enclosed parking spaces shall be provided
and maintained for Villas #C & D, as provided on the approved plans. Additionally, each
of The Villas (single -unit residential dwellings) shall be provided with an open guest
parking space which can be located on the private driveway.
10. A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for The Bungalows
(27 -unit hotel development) as provided on the approved plans.
11. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
12. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
13. Should this business or property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership,
any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this
approval by the current owner or leasing company.
14. This Site Development Review and Limited Term Permit may be modified or revoked
by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed
development, uses, and/ or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained
is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to
constitute a public nuisance.
15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and
irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall
incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the
plans shall be approved by the Planning Division and the Municipal Operations
Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground
automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement
of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon
either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent
to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 24 of 32
permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight
distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
16. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in
accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and
debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments,
replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
17. Prior to the final of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall schedule
an inspection by the Planning Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in
accordance with the approved plan.
18. Reclaimed water shall be used for all landscape areas.
19. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized to
the maximum extent feasible.
20. Watering of landscape areas shall be done during the early morning or evening hours
(between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.).
21. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways,
parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards.
22. Prior to issuance of any permit for development, approval from the California Coastal
Commission shall be required.
23. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the
specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:
24. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not permitted
outside of these hours or on Sundays or Holidays.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Between the hours of 7:OOAM
and 10:0013M
Between the hours of
10:OOPM and 7:OOAM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dBA
Residential Property located within
100 feet of a commercial property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
5OdBA
Mixed Use Property
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
Commercial Property
N/A
65dBA
N/A
60dBA
24. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not permitted
outside of these hours or on Sundays or Holidays.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 25 of 32
25. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained
to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters
or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Community
Development Department. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be
done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments
(including Water Quality related requirements).
26. Storage outside of buildings or within the parking lot of the property shall be prohibited,
with the exception of the required trash container enclosure.
27. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the
normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would
attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on-
site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to require such permits.
28. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of the Newport Beach
Country Club Planned Community Development Plan and Chapter 20.42 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress.
29. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall
conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate vehicular sight distance is
provided.
30. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Newport Beach Country
Club Planned Community Development Plan and Section 20.30.070 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within
site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or
adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" and up- lighting type fixtures are
not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures.
31. The entire development shall not be excessively illuminated based on the outdoor
lighting standards contained within Section 20.30.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination
creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental
resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light
sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare photometric study
in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The
survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines.
33. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits on the
Tennis Club site the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code
Enforcement Division to confirm control of all lighting sources.
34. Kitchen exhaust fans for the clubhouses shall be installed /maintained in accordance
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 26 of 32
with the Uniform Mechanical Code and with pollution control units to filter and control
odors.
35. The construction and equipment staging area for each phase of the development shall
be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly
maintained and /or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions.
36. A screen and security fence that is a minimum of six feet high shall be placed around
the construction site during construction for each phase of the development.
37. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in
use for each phase of the development.
38. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
39. Prior to the issuance of any building, the applicant shall pay all applicable development
fees (i.e. school, in -lieu park, fair share, and transportation corridor agency), unless
otherwise addressed separately in the Development Agreement.
40. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees,
and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages,
actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of
every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly
or indirectly) to City's approval of the Newport Beach Country Club development
including, but not limited to Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003, Transfer of Development Rights No.
TD2010 -003, Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001, Limited Term Permit No.
XP2011 -004, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, and Site Development
Permit No. SD2011 -002. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to,
damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other
expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or
proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing
such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys'
fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth
in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to
the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
41. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division
and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -
adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all
applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County
Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 27 of 32
42. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for development, a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General
Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water
Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The
project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application
check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail
measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the
project's impact on water quality.
43. Prior to issuance of grading permits for development, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to
the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement
Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
occur.
44. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post -
construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used,
stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include
frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use
of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential
sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2
WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the
WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection,
maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
45. The applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows:
Land Clearing /Earth - Moving
a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with five percent or greater silt content shall
be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil
stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications.
b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily.
C. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods
of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site
locations and cannot be controlled by watering.
d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be
covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum
vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
e. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 28 of 32
f. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 mph.
g. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained.
h. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off
when not in use for more than five minutes.
j. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered
equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible.
Paved Roads
k. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume
of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for
all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or
shall be paved.
I. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto
adjacent public paved roads.
M. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and
loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary.
Unpaved Staging Areas or Roads
n. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers'
specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all
unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
46. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for all new construction that exceeds 5,000
square feet in size, is located more than 150 feet from an approved fire access road,
and /or based on occupancy classification. The sprinkler system shall be monitored by
a UL certified alarm service company.
47. All buildings may require a fire alarm system depending upon occupancy classification.
48. Fire hydrant(s) shall be provided every 300 feet along fire access road. The number
and location of the fire hydrant shall be determined by the Fire Department.
49. Fire Department turnarounds shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet with no
parking allowed.
50. All elevators shall be gurney accommodating.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 29 of 32
51. The use or storage of portable propane heaters is prohibited. Heaters for future
outdoor areas shall be fixed and plumbed with natural gas.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
52. The Final Tract Map shall be legible, scaled, dimensioned, and complete with all
necessary pertinent information and details such as easement limits and descriptions;
annotated lot lines, centerlines, and boundary lines; signature certificates; curve and
line tables; etc.
53. The Final Tract Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88).
Prior to Map recordation, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the
County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said Map in a
manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County
Subdivision Manual. The Final Tract Map to be submitted to the City of Newport
Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not
be accepted.
54. Prior to recordation, the Final Map boundary shall be tied onto the Horizontal Control
System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9-
330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County
Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be
set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Monuments
shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
55. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved
by the Public Works Department prior to Final Tract Map recordation.
56. Easements for public emergency and security ingress /egress, weekly refuse service,
and public utility purposes on all private streets shall be dedicated to the City.
57. No structures shall be constructed within the limits of any utility easements.
58. All easements shall be recorded as a part of the Final Tract Map.
59. All applicable fees shall be paid prior to the City approval of the Final Tract Map.
60. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of
the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department prior to the City approval of the Final Tract Map.
61. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be submitted on City standard
improvement plan formats. All plan sheets shall be sealed and signed by the California
licensed professionals responsible for the designs shown on the Plans.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 30 of 32
62. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current
edition of the City Design Criteria, Standard Special Provisions, and Standard
Drawings.
63. All storm drain and sanitary sewer mains shall be installed with MacWrap.
64. All runoff discharges shall comply with the City's water quality and on -site non -storm
runoff retention requirements.
65. New concrete sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb disabled access ramps, roadway
pavement, traffic detector loops, traffic signal devices, and street trees shall be
installed along the development's Coast Highway frontage.
66. Public improvements may be required along the development's Granville Drive
frontage upon building permit plan check submittal.
67. All on -site drainage, sanitary sewer, water and electrical systems shall be privately
owned, operated, and maintained.
68. All curb return radii shall be 5 -feet (5') minimum.
69. Each dwelling unit or bungalow building shall be served with an individual water
service and sewer lateral connection.
70. All overhead utilities serving the entire proposed development shall be made
underground.
71. ADA compliant curb ramps shall be installed within the interior parking area.
72. The intersection of the public streets, internal roadways, and drive aisle shall be
designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard
Drawing STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs, and other obstructions shall
be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines
(sight cone) shall not exceed 24- inches in height and the monument identification sign
must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at
non - critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer.
73. Any damage to public improvements within the public right -of -way attributable to on-
site development may require additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way at
the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
74. The parking lot and vehicular circulation system shall be subject to further review and
approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Parking layout shall be per City Standard STD
805 -L -A and STD 805 -L -B. Parking layout shall be full dimensioned. On- street
parking spaces shall be 8 feet wide by 22 feet long. Drive aisles to parking areas shall
be 26 feet wide minimum. The one -way drive aisle adjacent to The Bungalow's
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Pape 31 of 32
concierge office and guest meeting building shall be 14 feet wide minimum with no
parking, otherwise the drive aisle shall be widen to accommodate parking.
75. Cul -de -sacs shall comply with City Standard STD-1 02-L and STD -103 -1 and shall have
a minimum diameter of 80 feet curb to curb.
MITIGATION MEASURES
76. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions
contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "A ") for the project.
Tmplt: 03/08111
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 32 of 32
EXHIBIT "D"
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Tmplt: 03/08111
Attachment No. PC 2
Revised Response to Planning
Commission on Draft MND
Response to Planning Commission Comments
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
Response to Comments - Golf Realty Fund
Newport Beach Planning Commission
August 4, 2011 (Revised November 17, 2011)
PC Comments on the Golf Realty Fund (O'Hill) project:
Comment No. f
Address the land use impacts of the two projects (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts)
Response to Comment No. 1
The relationship between the two projects ( "the GRF Plan" and "the IBC Plan ") has evolved in several
respects. In reviewing this relationship, it is important to note that the IBC Plan includes only the golf
clubhouse and the golf club parking lot, while the GRF Plan includes the golf areas, but also proposes
Bungalows (hotel units), the Tennis Club (private recreational use), and the Villas (five single family
residences) on property immediately adjacent to the golf club portion of the Planned Community.
Potential land use conflicts between the IBC Plan and the GRF Plan were considered in the revised golf
clubhouse in the IBC Plan. These revisions have resulted in greater physical separation between the golf
clubhouse and GRF's proposed Bungalows, Tennis Club, and Villas. The porte cochere in the original
IBC Plan was 260' from the GRF's closest Villa, while the revised IBC Plan shows the distance at 315'.
The nearest Bungalow structure is now proposed to be 165 feet from the porte cochere, compared to
approximately 128 feet in the previous IBC Plan. There also is a 95 -foot separation between the nearest
Bungalow and the bag drop area near the porte cochere, compared to approximately 57 feet in the prior
IBC Plan. In addition, IBC has modified the footprint of the golf clubhouse so that the nearest Bungalow
structure will be about 131 feet from the clubhouse, or approximately the same distance as the prior IBC
Plan (134 feet). When compared to the previously proposed IBC Plan, the increased physical separation
of these uses, combined with the landscaping proposed for IBC's revised golf clubhouse, would "soften"
the land use interface between IBC's proposed golf course clubhouse and GRF's proposed adjacent
Bungalow and residential uses. As a result, potential land use conflicts between the two projects have
been adequately addressed through redesign of the IBC project, which includes increased physical
separation between the proposed structures as well as enhanced landscaping to provide adequate
screening. Therefore, no significant land use conflicts or incompatibility is anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
The parking lot design of the two proposals differs in ways that the two applicants each believe are
important. The IBC Plan shows parking lanes running perpendicular to the golf clubhouse, whereas the
GRF plan shows those lanes running parallel to the golf clubhouse. The IBC Plan directs circulation for
both automobiles and golf carts from the clubhouse area down ramps to the southern end of the parking
lot in order to enter the parking lot circulation pattern. The GRF Plan provides access to the parking lot
circulation pattern at the northern end of the parking lot closest to the golf clubhouse. IBC believes that
its circulation pattern best serves the needs of its members and guests and will function efficiently and
effectively, while GRF believes that its circulation pattern is more convenient for members and guests, will
avoid congestion within the parking field and at the entrance to the Planned Community, and, therefore,
will be more compatible with other uses (such as the Bungalows, Tennis Club, and Villas) within the
Planned Community.
Another area where questions have been raised with respect to compatibility between the plans is
architectural style. The GRF Plan proposes consistent architectural style throughout the Planned
Community, including the golf clubhouse, and specifically identifies "California Coastal" as the
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
Response to Planning Commission Comments
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
architectural theme. The IBC Plan proposes Prairie -style architecture for the golf clubhouse. While the
character created by the two differing architectural styles is distinctly different, the difference does not
constitute a significant land use conflict nor create incompatibility between land uses under CEQA. The
issue of architecture is related to project design, which is subject to site plan and design review by the
City and, ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council. As previously indicated, no significant
land use conflicts and /or incompatibility would occur between the golf clubhouse proposed by IBC and the
mixed use development (i.e., bungalow /spa, tennis club, and single - family residential) proposed to the
east.
Additionally, the size and location of the golf clubhouse differ in the two plans. Cross Sections comparing
the GRF Plan with the IBC Plan illustrate the differences between the two projects. Exhibit 1 illustrates
the relationship of GRF's proposed golf course clubhouse to the existing clubhouse when viewed from the
east. Based on that comparison, the maximum height of the proposed clubhouse is 53' 6 ", compared to
the approximately 22 -foot height of the existing clubhouse. GRF's proposed clubhouse is located
approximately 424 feet north of East Coast Highway, or approximately 80 farther north than the existing
clubhouse at 344 feet from that arterial. IBC's proposed clubhouse is approximately 300 feet from East
Coast Highway and approximately 44 feet closer to East Coast Highway than the existing golf clubhouse.
When viewed from East Coast Highway (refer to Exhibit 2), GRF's proposed clubhouse is approximately
the same with as the existing clubhouse (i.e., 265 feet wide versus 262 feet wide), whereas IBC's
proposed clubhouse is approximately 44% wider (378 feet wide versus 262 feet wide). The relative
differences between the two proposed golf course clubhouses and the existing NBCC clubhouse is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Height/Width Analysis
Comment No. 2
Assess the proposed Golf Realty Fund Planned Community Development Plan
Response to Comment No. 2
The GRF Plan would amend the existing Planned Community No. 47 (Newport Beach Country Club
Planned Community), which was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10. It is important to note that No. 47
that was assigned to the PC for the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community Development Plan
was not adopted when the PC District zoning designated was assigned to the 145 -acre property,
including the Armstrong Nursery property, which is not included as part of the proposed project.
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
Existing
Clubhouse
GRF Clubhouse
Proposal
IBC Clubhouse
Proposal
Height at Peak
22 Feet +/-
53.5 Feet
52 Feet +/-
Distanced from PCH
344 Feet
424 Feet
300 Feet
Width as seen from PCH
262 Feet
265 Feet
378 Feet
'As measured from lowest existing grade directly below point.
ZWidth measured parallel to East Coast Highway.
SOURCE: Golf Realty Fund
Comment No. 2
Assess the proposed Golf Realty Fund Planned Community Development Plan
Response to Comment No. 2
The GRF Plan would amend the existing Planned Community No. 47 (Newport Beach Country Club
Planned Community), which was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10. It is important to note that No. 47
that was assigned to the PC for the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community Development Plan
was not adopted when the PC District zoning designated was assigned to the 145 -acre property,
including the Armstrong Nursery property, which is not included as part of the proposed project.
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
- - - - - - - - - - rx -SE 1171 7ri-
GOLFCOURSE
P*KING
COAST HIGHWAY
GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION COMPARISONS
\ FFAC;i COLN KI C' S
Exhibit 1
Cross-Section Comparison - GRF Clubhouse and NBCC Clubhouse
i tee aids Taal • as -,�nFd rr,,m r; aa H arwa,
�sEJOa ng Z; de
GOLF COURSE
PARKING
COAST HIGHWAY
GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION COMPARISONS � a
N L',% ?JnT Li AC! ! COL N i R) CLUB
Exhibit 2
Cross Section Comparison - GRF Clubhouse and NBCC Clubhouse
Response to Planning Commission Comments
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
The GRF Plan is intended to establish the development standards and design guidelines for the proposed
project. As originally submitted, GRF's Planned Community Development Plan (the "GRF PCDP ")
included use regulations, development density and intensity parameters for the proposed uses and very
specific development regulations (e.g., building height, floor area, setbacks, and parking) for each of the
proposed uses. (Note: The Tennis Club and Armstrong Nursery are currently governed separately by the
use permits approved for each. ) The GRF PCDP prescribes specific architectural character and design
for all of the structures, including the golf clubhouse, the Bungalows, the Tennis Club, and the Villas. In
addition, the GRF PCDP also establishes detailed standards for the internal circulation, including
pedestrian and vehicular systems proposed within the three distinct elements of the proposed project.
Finally, the GRF PCDP, as originally submitted, includes the detailed site plan, elevations, and floor plans
for each of the land use components, landscape plan and lighting plan. If adopted, the GRF PCDP will
regulate development within the proposed project.
Comment No. 3
Assess the potential impacts of eliminating 17 tennis courts
Response to Comment No. 3
According to the property owner, the licensee of the existing private Tennis Club also operates two other
Tennis Clubs. The Toluca Lake Tennis Club maintains 7 tennis courts that support a membership of 350
members, resulting in an average of 50 members for each tennis court. In addition, Palisades Tennis
Club in Newport Beach, also with 7 courts, has a membership of 224 and a per court ratio of 32
members /court. The applicant has suggested a ratio of one tennis court for each 35 members. The
current membership of the existing Tennis Club combined with the 7 tennis courts that are proposed to
remain (i.e., elimination of 18 existing tennis courts and a new "center court") would yield a ratio of 31
members per court. Based on the recommended members -to- tennis courts ratio (35:1), the "proposed"
Tennis Club could support 46 additional members, for a total of 245 members. As a result, no significant
impacts would be anticipated to occur.
As indicated in the project description and above, implementation of the proposed project would result in
the elimination of 18 of the 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property, leaving only seven
tennis courts, including one new "center court." As a private club, the existing tennis courts are not
generally available for public play. While the club has allowed the Corona del Mar and Sage Hill tennis
teams to use the facilities, use of the facilities by those teams was a temporary accommodation to allow
the schools to complete work on their own courts. Nonetheless, as reflected in the Recreation Element of
the City's General Plan, "... private facilities, Including yacht clubs, golf courses, and country clubs are
also facilities that serve residents of Newport Beach." As such, it may be true that private recreation
facilities such as the existing tennis facility could serve to "offset," to some degree, the demand for public
recreation through the availability of the private tennis courts to a limited segment of the population within
the City of Newport Beach and nearby areas.
According to the Newport Beach Recreation Element, two recreational service areas have adequate
parkland and /or recreation facilities: Service Area No. 9 (Newport Center) and Service Area No. 11
(Harbor View). The proposed project is located within Service Area No. 9 as illustrated in Figure R11 in
the Recreation Element. As of June 2005, two (public) recreational facilities exist within this service area,
including the Back Bay View Park and the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, which together encompass 19.1
acres. Based on the 2005 population within this service area, a total of only 10.9 acres of parkland is
required, resulting in a net surplus of 8.1 acres of public parkland in Service Area No. 9.
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
Response to Planning Commission Comments
Newport Beach Country Club 6PA2005 -140)
Although the existing tennis courts may provide some recreational opportunities within the service area,
the (net) loss of 17 of the 24 tennis courts would not be considered a significant adverse impact. This is
due to the fact that the ongoing use of the Tennis Club will continue to be limited to members and their
guests and, as discussed above, are expected to adequately serve those needs. In addition, the
elimination of the tennis courts is not considered to be significant in light of the Recreation Element
determination that no deficiency in parkland and /or recreational facilities exists or is anticipated to occur
within Service Area No. 9.
As evaluated in the initial study and elaborated upon in various responses to comments, implementation
of the proposed project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks and /or cause the substantial physical deterioration of any park facility. Furthermore, based on the
findings in the Newport Beach Recreation Element, the project would not require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, for the reasons cited above, the reduction in the number of
courts would not be expected to deprive the public of playing opportunities, overburden the club, or place
an increased demand on public facilities. As a result, no additional recreational facilities beyond those
identified above within the service area, including tennis facilities, are necessary within the designated
recreational service area.
Comment No. 4
Assess the aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project
Response to Comment No. 4
The character of the proposed project is illustrated in several elevations. As indicated in Exhibit 3 and
Exhibit 4, GRF's proposed golf course clubhouse reflects a California Coastal architectural style.
The proposed Bungalows, Tennis Club clubhouse, and Villas would reflect a similar character and style
as illustrated in elevations shown in Exhibit 5 (Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa) and Exhibit 6 and
Exhibit 7 (Villas - Plans A and B), resulting in a fully integrated character of each of the land use
components within the Planned Community. The architectural style for all of the proposed Villa dwelling
units will be similar to Units A and B.
A panoramic view of the ocean is available from the top of Newport Center Drive circle straight ahead
down Newport Center Drive towards Coast Highway. However, only "peek -a -boo" ocean view now exists
from Newport Center Drive across the site of the Planned Community. Referencing Exhibits 8, 9, and 10,
that narrow view occurs between the last Granville Condominium unit and the McMonigle Group office
building (refer to Exhibit 8, "View from Point 10) and after the McMonigle Group office building located at
the intersection of Newport Center Drive and the private Granville Road (refer to Exhibit 10, "View from
Point 3 "). The improvements proposed by GRF would not result in any significant visual impact on the
"View from Point 1," and only a barely perceptible change in the "View from Point 3" which would also
have a less than significant impact on the visual /aesthetic character of the area.
The GRF Plan would also result in less than significant impacts on the Public View Point in Irvine Terrace
Park. The only significant public view from Irvine Terrace Park is oriented toward Newport Bay and the
Pacific Ocean. Because the NBCC PCD is located on the inland side of Coast Highway from Irvine
Terrace Park, that view cannot and would not be impacted. Furthermore, the wall buffering Irvine Terrace
Park from Coast Highway, together with the buildings in Corporate Plaza West and the existing
landscaping, makes the Golf Club Parking Lot the only area within the Planned Community visible from
Irvine Terrace Park (refer to Exhibit 11, "View from Point 4 "). The view of the Golf Club Parking Lot would
be improved aesthetically as a result of a large landscaped berm along Coast Highway and four rows of
perpendicular landscaping in the Golf Club Parking Lot. As a result, no significant visual impacts would
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005.140)
Response to Planning Commission Comments
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
occur from this view location. Overall, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
significant visual impacts; no mitigation measures are required.
Response to Comments - Newport Beach Planning Commission
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005.140)
AVRraW11•®ICr1Q1
GOLF CLUBHOUSE
ELEVATIONS
MATERIALS
• smooth steel-troweled exterior
plaster
• La Playa Beach stone
• Gladding, McKean day roof We
blend 98 with Italian pans
and Cordova carers
• Torrance steel window system
LAN
NBCC
Funned Community
EXHIBIT
s e a 4 e 7'
ARCMrTECTURE
5
Exhibit 3
Golf Course Clubhouse Elevations
GOLF CLUBHOUSE
ELEVATIONS
MATERIALS
• smooth steel-troweled eae6or
plaster
• tz Playa Beach stone
• Gladding, McKean clay roof tile
blend #8 with Italian pans
and Cordova covers
• Torrance steel window system
KEY PLA�N
C
n.
NBCC
Planned Community
t e a r e a
EXH181T
ARCHITECTURE
5
4 OF 4
Exhibit 4
Golf Course Clubhouse Elevations
B. VIEW FROM NEWPORT CENTER OIaVE ENTRY
TENNIS CLUBHOUSE
&BUNGALOW SPA
ELEVATION
MATERIALS
-smooth steel- trovmled exterior
plaster
• Le Playa Beach stone
• Gladdinp, McKean clay roottile
blend 08mth Italian pens
and Cordova covers
• Torrancesteel vandovi system
Exhibit 5
Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa Elevations
NBCC
Planned Community
EXHIBIT
s t • a r
a.BC- �'ECTt,eE
a7 �aN+Y�.rRI'J'/�Gl
Exhibit 5
Tennis Clubhouse and Bungalow Spa Elevations
DOW n
r
g
Nadk NAN
v" ,,;jFlfi
«�a
PLAN A
0_5 1�� 9
THE VILLAS
FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS
PLAN A
7101 _ square feet
MATERIALS
-Smooth steel - troweled enenor
planer
• La Playa Beach none
• Gladding, McBean clay roof file
blend •8 with Berkeley pans
and Cordova covers
LR
I
NBCC
Planned Community
a e • • • • EXHIBIT
Exhibit 6
The Villas - Plan A Elevation
CONCE"Szvx 0N5
PLAN A
0_5 1�� 9
THE VILLAS
FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS
PLAN A
7101 _ square feet
MATERIALS
-Smooth steel - troweled enenor
planer
• La Playa Beach none
• Gladding, McBean clay roof file
blend •8 with Berkeley pans
and Cordova covers
LR
I
NBCC
Planned Community
a e • • • • EXHIBIT
Exhibit 6
The Villas - Plan A Elevation
�r
MER none PUN
e
PLAN B
A
CdhKEr nflancxs
i
i
F HE VILLAS- -- OOR PLANS & ELEVATICNS
AN B
93 t square feet
MATERIALS
-smooth stee' :roweled warier
plaster
• Le Playa Beach stone
• Madding. Mc Bean clay roof tiic
blend >8 with Berkeley pans
j and Cordova covers
NBCC
Planned Communiry
R e a EXHIBIT
2 0: 5
Exhibit 7
The Villas - Plan B Elevation
VIEW FROM POINT 1
Exhibit 8
View from Viewpoint 1
VIEW FROM POINT 2
Exhibit 9
View from Viewpoint 2
VIEW FROM POINT 3
I
Exhibit 10
View from Viewpoint 3
VIEW FROM POINT 4
Exhibit 11
View from Viewpoint 4
Attachment No. PC 3
Draft Planned Community
Development Plan
Newport Beach Country Club
Planned Community
Ordinance No.
Adopted
hnt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................ ................................................... 4
7.0 General Conditions and RenU!@ti8DG...............................
5
3.0 Land
Use and Development Regulations ............................. ........
10
31
Golf Club
10
A. Golf Course
10
B Golf Clubhouse d Ancillary U
1�
1 P Building Area
10
7 Building Height ...
10
3 Permitted /\ ill [] .~
10
4 Parking.� ...
11
5 Fencing .— .'
11
32
Tennis Club ` ..... ....�
' - - ------------
��
A. Tennis Courts .............
11
1 Number of Courts .............
11
B Tennis Clubhouse .—.—.,..,..
12
1 Building Area .............
12
2 Building Height.. h� ...............
~ .
17
��
3 Permitted /\ ill .......--...--.
17
4 P .. ...................
12
33
The ....r......................
17
...............-........—
12
2� ,..~..—.—..,..,........
12
34
The ...........................
13
��
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^�
it cilla USeS..................—.....--.'
13
3. ............ ........ .......... ,............ ..........
14
................................�
14
acs ................... ........... .....................................
14
........................—..---.—..—.
14
���
.......—..�—,�--,......�.............�
14
A—.,...............
14
B. 8|
[ds ...... ........
15
4.0 Site
Development Review ....
1 6
4P1
Purpose ...... ....... .................
16
4.7
Application ................
16
4P3
FiDdiOgS..........—.-----.........
16
4A
CODheDh3,.— ..... ...
17
4.5
PVbUCHe@hDg — ReqWiPBd NCtiC9............--,..'..'—.....
17
4,6
Expiration and Revocation Site Plan Review /\pp[VVals..
18
4P7
Fees ............. —............
18
2
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Name Exhibit Number
VicinityAerial Map ................................................................. ............................... A
Conceptual Master Site Plan ................................................. ............................... B
LIST OF TABLES
Table Name
Page
The Villas Development Standards ............. _ . 13
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (the PCD) is composed
of the Golf Club, Tennis Club, Bungalows and Villas facilities, totaling approximately 145
acres. The PCD has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General
Plan and is consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
The purpose of this PCD is to provide for the c lass ification.,and development of
coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning project with limited mixed uses,
including the private Golf Club, Tennis Club, 27 short terra rental units called the
Bungalows with a spa /fitness area, and 5 semi-custom sngle,unit residential dwellings
called the Villas.
Whenever the regulations contained in the PCD Regulations conflict with,the regulations
<,
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the PCD
Regulations shall take precedence. The Newport;Beach Municipal Code shall regulate
all development within the PCD when such regulations are not provided within the PCD
Regulations.
rd
2.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS
1. Alcoholic Beverage Consumption
The consumption of alcoholic beverages within the PCD shall be in compliance with the
State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. A use permit shall be required if the establishment operates past 11:00
p.m. any day of the week and a minor use permit shall be required if the establishment
operates until 11:00 p.m. any day of the week.
2. Amplified Music
All amplified music played after 10:00 p.m. within
interior of a building unless a Special Events Pear
3. Archaeological /Paleontological Resou
Development of the site is subject to the provisions
regarding archaeological and paleontological resoui
4. Architectural Design
shall be confined within the
Council Policies K -5 and K -6
All development shall be designed with high quality architectural standards and shall be
compatible with the surrounding uses Th" evelopment should be well- designed with
coordinated cohesive'`architecture and exhibiting the highest level of architectural and
landscape quality ift0e, ping with the PCD's, rominent location in the Newport Center
Planning Area Massmgoffsets, variation ofroof lines, varied textures, openings,
recesses, and design accents onall b91 dmg''elevations shall be provided to enhance
the architectural style. Architectural treatments for all ancillary facilities (i.e. storage,
truck loading and nloadng, antl trash enclosures) shall be provided.
5. Buildi' ,Codes
Construction shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and
the various other mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes related thereto as adopted
by the Newport Beach.Municipal Code.
6. Exterior
There shall be no exterior storage areas permitted with the exception of the
greenskeeper /maintenance area which shall be enclosed by a minimum six foot
plastered block wall.
5
7. Flood Protection
Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood
protection policies of the City.
8. Grading and Erosion Control
Grading and erosion control measures shall be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of the Newport Beach Excavation and Grading Code arid_ shall be subject to
permits issued by the Community Development Department
9. Gross Floor Area
Gross floor area shall be defined as the
surrounding exterior walls.
10. Height and Grade
The height of any structure within the PCD shall not
otherwise specified. The height of a structure shall be th
highest point of the structure and the grade directly below
sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical dista
midpoint of the roof plane, provided that no part of the r
five (5) feet above the pgrmitted height Sin the h;ei
amendments shall ;66 subject; to the review and
Development Director
11.
and
drive
development, reduce h
adjacent land uses, and
consist of a combination
Landscaping shall be p
Water- Efficient Landsca"
installed in accordan'ee
landscape architect:'*
12. Lighting — Outdoor
of a building_;, including the
exceed fifty (50) feet, unless
eubtical distance between the
In determining the height of a
nce between the grade and the
oof shall be extend more than
ght limitation zone, and any
approval of the Community
on shalltbe provided in all areas not devoted to structures,
Nalkways, .xand, tennis courts to enhance the appearance of the
eaVs. and yglare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen
preserve the integrity of PCD. Landscaping and irrigation shall
of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements.
k�r
repared in accordance with the Landscaping Standards and
ping Sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and
with the approved landscape plans prepared by a licensed
All new outdoor lighting shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to
shield adjacent uses /properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent uses /properties.
Lighting plans shall be prepared in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Section of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be prepared by a licensed electrical
[y
engineer. All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved lighting plans.
13. Lighting — Parking & Walkways
All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved lighting plans. Light standards within parking lots shall be the minimum
height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light
and glare onto adjoining uses /properties and roadways.
Parking lots and walkways accessing buildings shall be illuminated with a minimum of
0.5 foot - candle average on the driving or walking surface during, the hours of operation
and one hour thereafter. Lighting plans shall be prepared 'in compliance with the
Outdoor Lighting Section of the Newport Beach Muriic_ipal,Code and;;shall be prepared
by a licensed electrical engineer.
If the applicant wishes to deviate from this lligliting standard, a lighting plan may be
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director for
review and approval. _
14. Loading Areas for N
All loading and unloading of goods
platforms and areas shall be screened
15. Parking Areas
Parking spaces, driveways, m
areas of the parking lots shall.
the parkmg,_areas mcludmg=- -sari
the parking lots shall be, perm;
location; parking space and lot
compliancewith the Dev
Beach Municipal Code. W
16. Property 0' wner Ap
onsite. Loading
ring aisles, turnaround areas, and landscaping
free.of'dust, graffiti, and litter. All components of
.�
avmg, wheel stops, walls, and light standards of
maintained in good working condition. Access,
sions, and parking lot improvements shall be in
idards for Parking Areas Section of the Newport
Written property owner approval shall be required for the submittal of any site
development review' "application and /or prior to grading and /or building permit issuance.
17. Outdoor Paging
Outdoor paging shall be permitted at the Golf Club to call individuals to the tees and at
the Tennis Club to call points during tennis tournaments.
7
18. Sewage Disposal
Sewage disposal service facilities for the PCD will be provided by Orange County
Sanitation District No. 5 and shall be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees
as prescribed by the Sanitation District. %
19. Screening of Mechanical Equipments
All new mechanical appurtenances (e.g., air conditioning, heatiw,ventilation ducts and
exhaust vents, swimming pool and spa pumps and filters transformers, utility vaults and
emergency power generators) shall be screened from publicyiew and adjacent land
uses. The enclosure design shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. All rooftop equipment (other than vents,; <wind turbines, etc.) shall be
architecturally treated or screened from off -site views in a manner compatible with the
building materials prior to final building permit, clearance for each new or remodeled
building. The mechanical appurtenances shall be subject #osound rating m- accordance
with the Exterior Noise Standards Section of the Newportt. Beach Municipal Code.
Rooftop screening and enclosures shall be subject to the, applicable height limit.
20. Screening of the Villas from Tennis Courts
Adequate buffering between the Villas and tennis courts shall be provided and subject
to the Site Development Review process, The exterior. perimeter of the tennis courts
facing Granville Condomirnums Granville Drive, and the` Tennis Clubhouse parking lot
shall be screened bye`a minimum ten foot high chain link fence covered by a wind
screen. Wind screen shall be maintained in good condition at all time.
21. Screening of the Villas'.;Pool /Spa Equipment
All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum five -foot high block wall
plastered or otherwise textured to match the building.
22.
Temporary speciacomm,'unity events, such as such as PGA Senior Classic golf
tournaments Tea NTennis, Davis Cup Matches, and other similar events, are permitted
in the PCD, and arp�'subject to the Special Events Chapter of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Temporary exterior storage associated with approved special events
may be permitted provided it is appropriately screened and regulated with an approved
Special Event Permit.
L-1
23. Temporary Structures and Uses
Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings for construction - related
activities are permitted.
24. Trash Container Storage for Residential Dwellings-
Trash container storage shall be out of view from public
in the required parking areas. If trash container storage
public view, they shall be screened from public view. Sc
walls, and landscaping to a height at least 6 inches abov
25. Trash Enclosures for Non - Residential Uses
All trash enclosures for non - residential uses shall be pi
the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage of
Code.
26. Tennis Club Site Phasing
The phasing plan for the tennis club
bungalows shall be subject to a site d
27. Water Service
and may not be located
annot be located out of
shall consist of fences,
s of the containers.
;d and in accordance with
Newport BeachyMunicipal
tennis club, villas and
Water service to the RCD will be provided by the City of Newport Beach and will be
subject to applicable regulations permits and fees as prescribed by the City.
(J
3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
I
3.1 Golf Club
Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and
placement of the golf course and clubhouse.
A. Golf Course
An 18 -hole championship golf course and related facilities (i.e. putting green,
driving range, snack bar, starter shack, restroom faaties ,etc.).
B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary
1. Building Area
The maximum allowable gross floor -area =for'' ^a golf clubhouse building
shall be 35,000 square feet, exclusive of -any enclosed golf cart storage
areas ramp and washing area. The greens keeper /maintenance buildings,
snack bar, separate golf course restroom facilities, starter shack, and
similar ancillary buildings are exempt from this development limit.
The maximum allowable building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50
feet ia`nd shall be measured ir6accordance with the Height and Grade
definition of,.Section 2,.,0 General Conditions and Regulation of the PCD.
The following,anctllania ' usbs are allowed:
•,, Golf shop,
VM Admmistrive Offices
• Dining and event areas
• Kitchen.''`& Bar areas
• Banquet Rooms
• Men and Women's Card Rooms
• Health and fitness facility
• Restroom and Locker facilities
• Golf Club storage areas
• Employee lounge /lunch areas
• Meeting rooms
• Golf Cart Parking Storage and Washing Area
• Separate Snack Bar
10
3.2
• Separate Starter Shack
• Separate Golf Course Restrooms
• Hand Carwash Area
e Greenskeeper Maintenance Facility
• Temporary Construction Facilities
• Guard House
• Others (subject to an approval of the Community Development
Director)
4. Parking
Parking for the Golf Course and Golf Clubhouse' shall be in accordance
with following parking ratios (source: from Table 2 of;the Circulation and
Parking Evaluation by Kimley -Horn andASaociates, September 2009
for Newport Beach Country Club - _Clubhouse Imp rove met_Project):
Golf Course: 8 spaces per
Golf Clubhouse:
Dining, assembly- &,
square feet
Administrative Office
Pro Shop: 4 per 1,00
Maintenance Facility:
meeting rooms_°1_ per 3 seats or 1 per 35
1,000 "squuare feet
4 per V"000 square feet
The,"destgn, of the parking lot :and orientation of vehicular aisles and
parking spaces shall be subject;' °to the review and approval of the City
Traffic, Engin6er0nd "Gommunity Development Director.
5.
Courseperimeter fencing shall be wrought -iron with a maximum
itted height of six (6) feet.
Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and
placement of the tennis courts and clubhouse.
A. The Tennis Courts
1. Number of courts
The maximum allowable tennis courts shall be seven lighted tennis courts
(six lighted championship courts and one lighted stadium - center court).
11
093
B. Tennis Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses
1. Building Area
The maximum allowable gross floor area for the Tennis Clubhouse shall
be 3,725 square feet.
2. Building Height
The maximum allowable building height for
30 feet, and shall be measured in accorda
definition of Section 2.0 General Conditioris
3. Permitted Ancillary Uses
The following ancillary uses
• Tennis Shop
• Administrative Offices..
• Concessions
• Restroom and Locker facihties_ „_
• Storage areas
• Spectator seating
• Others (subject to an approval
Direc or
Q
its Clubhouse shall be
the Height and Grade
ulations of the PCD.
the Community Development
se and Courts shall be a minimum of 28
Master Site Plan for the general location and
The maximum allowable number of single - family residential units shall be five (5).
2. Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply to the Villas:
12
The Villas Development Standards Table
Villa
Villa A
Villa B
Villa C
Villa D
Villa E
Designation
Lot
TTM Lot #1
TTM Lot #2
TTM Lot #3
TTM Lot #4
#TTM
Lot Size
5,000 square feet minimum
Lot Coverage
65%
(Maximum)
70%
Building Height
39 feet, measured in accordance with., the Height and Grade
definition of Section 2.0 General Gonddions and Regulations
Building Side Yard
3 feet minimum
Setbacks
Building Front and
Rear Yard
5 feet minimum
Setbacks
_
Enclosed Parking
_
Space for Each
2
2
�3.
3 '�
2
Unit
Open Guest
one spaces could be located on the private driveway — No
Parking Space for
overhang to.the private street/cul -de -sac is allowed
Each Unit
3.4. The Bunaalows
A
Refer to Exhibit,
placement 11 f the
1. Number o
The maximum �.
rehtal units to be
Y.
2 `,'R.ermitted
The followin. warn
B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and
J
bungal"s, concierge'and guest center, and spa facility.
)le number of the Bungalows shall be 27 short -term guest
in a clu tered setting of single and two -story buildings.
uses are allowed:
• Concierge office and guest meeting facility
• Swimming pool and Jacuzzi
• Spa facility that includes treatment rooms, fitness areas, and snack bar
serving drinks, snacks and light breakfast and lunch items
13
3.5
3. Building Area
The maximum allowable gross floor area for the bungalows shall be 28,300
square feet with a 2,200 square foot concierge & guest center and a 7,500
square -foot spa facility.
4. Building Height
The maximum allowable building height for the
measured in accordance with the Height and G
General Conditions and Regulations of the PCD.
5. Buildinq Setbacks
The setback requirement shall be a
6. Parking
Parking for the bungalows shall be a min
proximity to the use.
Signs
A. Sign Allowance
shall be 31 feet,
>n of Section 2.0
from arvrooertv line.
34 parking spaces located in
1 0-46 (T) single or =double- faced, ground- mounted entrance
~`identification sign shall bezallowed at Newport Beach Tennis Club's
mam „entrance (Country '.Club Drive and Irvine Terrace). Total
maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square
Meet and'`shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
2. One ",(1) smgle-` or double- faced, ground- mounted entrance
identification sign shall be allowed at or near the vicinity of the
Newport Beach Country Club's secondary entrance (Granville).
Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75)
g,square feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
3. 'B,,'Oilding identification signs shall be allowed; one for each street
`frontage. If freestanding, this sign type shall not exceed a maximum
height of five (5) feet in height. The maximum signage area shall
not exceed seventy (70) square feet.
4. Vehicular and pedestrian directional signs shall be allowed. This
sign type may occur as a single -faced or double -faced sign. The
sign shall be sized to allow for proper readability given the number
of lines of copy, speed of traffic, setback off the road and viewing
14
distance. This sign type shall not exceed a maximum of six (6) feet
in height.
5. One (1) single or double faced, ground- mounted identification sign
shall be allowed at the entrance road to the Bungalows. Total
maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square
feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height and fifteen (15) feet
in length.
Sign Standards
1. The design and materials of all
Beach Country Club Planned
accordance with Sign Section 3
the Community Development;Di
2. All permanent signs shall
Community Development
3. All signs shall be, subject to the
to ensure adequate sight d
provisions of the Newport-Bead
4. Sign illumination is permitted for;:
constructed or installed-=to rotate,
P illusion of motion, in any fashic
signs in the Newport
-"District shall be in
herwise approved by
a sign
by the
of the City Traffic Engineer
in accordance with the
ial -Code.
types. No sign shall be
blink or move, or create
5. All`jpermanent signs together with the entirety of their supports,
bracesguys anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly
smamta1 legible;= functional and safe with regards to appearance,
stCUCturajA ntegrity and electrical service.
6. Temporary signs that are visible from any public right -of -way shall
be allowed up to a maximum of sixty (60) days and subject to a
tempoiry sign permit issued by the Community Development
,Department.
7 "'`If}the applicant wishes to deviate from the sign standards identified
herein, a comprehensive sign program may be prepared or a
modification permit application may be submitted for review and
consideration by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
15
4.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
4.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Site Development Review process is to ensure new
development proposals within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned
Community Development are consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan, provisions of this Planned Community Development Plan, the
Development Agreement and the findings set forth belowin'sub- section 4.3.
4.2 Application
An approval of Site Development Review, application by the Planning
Commission shall be required for the construction of any new--,structure prior to
the issuance of a grading or building permit or issuance of an approval in concept
for Coastal Commission. Signs, , tenant irhproveni6nts to any existing` buildings,
kiosks, and temporary structures are exempt frorrht b, site development review
process and subject to the applicable City's permits. The decision of Planning
Commission is the final, unless appealed in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, ri _
4.3. Findings
In addition to the genefal.. purposes setforth in sub section 4.1 and in order to carry
out the purposes of` this chapter as established by said section, the Site
Develop ment4l eyiew procedures est1blished by this Section shall be applied
according to and iri',compliance with the following findings:
1.
Pla
Plan;
with all other provisions of the
The development shall be compatible with the character of the
neighboring uses and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the
or`,cierly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City;
3. The `development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic
quality';of? the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and
properties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of
buildings and the streetscape on Coast Highway; and
16
4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular
access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper
consideration to functional aspects of site development.
4.4. Contents
The Site Development Review application shall include all of the information and
materials specified by the Community Development Director and any additional
information review by the Planning Commission in order_Jo conduct a thorough
review of the project in question. The following plans /exhibits may include, but
not limited to the following:
1. An aerial map showing the subject property, adjacent properties and
identifying their uses.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4.5
Comprehensive elevations
coordinated and complimenta
A parking and circulation plan
addition to streets and fire lane
A comprehensive,
A comprehensive
location and color
Comp ehensive to
architecture;;,;land
Iighting, and signs
Text describing dr
A statement that t
of all exterioplighting
Ian.
for new - `structures with
>ian, materials and colors.
cart and pedestrian paths in
ry landscape plan.
lighting plan showing type,
and graphics describing the design philosophy for the
ipe architecture, material and textures, color palette,
age and water quality mitigation measures.
proposed new structure is consistent with the goals,
is of the General Plan and Planned Community
ng — Required Notice
A public hearing shall be held on all site development review applications. Notice
of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing
date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll
or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to
owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior
boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to
obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required
by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in
17
not less than two (2) conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten
(10) days prior to the hearing.
4.6 Expiration and Revocation Site Development Review Approvals
1. Expiration. Any site development review approved in accordance with the
terms of this planned community development plan shall expire within
twenty -four (24) months from the effective date of final approval as
specified in the Time Limits and Extensions Section of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission
has specified a different period of time or an extension is otherwise
granted.
2. Violation of Terms. Any site dev
with the terms of this planned
revoked if any of the conditions
are violated or if any law or ordini
3. Public Hearing. The Planning Commi<
any proposed revocation after giving
least ten (10) days '�pnorn. to the
recommendations to the City Council.
within sixty (60) days after-receipt of`tl
Commission. k .r
4.7. Fees
The applicant shall_pa
ew approved in accordance
development, plan may be
ich site development review
:d in connection - therewith.
0- n shall hold a public hearing on
nintten notice to the permittee at
heanrjg, and shall submit its
The City�Gouncil shall act thereon
e recommendation of the Planning
as established by Resolution of the Newport Beach
aah. application for Site Development Review under
MM
W
Attachment No. PC 4
Conversion of Tennis Courts
to Floor Area or Hotel Rooms
Memorandum
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: James Campbell, Principal Planner Twca4�rt�l�/
Date: November 9, 2011
Re: Newport Beach Country Club — Golf Realty Fund Application
Conversion of Tennis Courts to Hotel Rooms
General Plan Consistency Determination
During the October 20, 2011, hearing on the project, the owner of the Marriott Hotel
property, Host Hotels and Resorts ( "Host "), proposed a "use conversion solution" as an
alternative to the applicant's request for a transfer of development intensity. The alternative
approach is based upon the assumption that the eliminated tennis courts' have a
development intensity that can be converted to hotel rooms or building floor area. Host
asserts that sufficient traffic capacity exists, that there is no limit to the number of hotel
rooms in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center), the conversion would not set a precedent, and
there is no apparent constraint on conversion to a building (floor area). Although traffic is not
an issue, staff does not believe the conversion of tennis courts to building floor area is
consistent with the General Plan, the basis of staff's conclusion is described below.
Traffic
The applicant's proposed 27 -room hotel generates fewer average daily trips and peak hour
trips than the traffic trips attributable to the 17 tennis courts that would be eliminated'. The
net effect is an overall reduction of trips and the avoidance of any significant traffic impact2.
Staff concurs that the conversion of tennis courts to hotel rooms would not create a traffic
impact and no mitigation would be necessary.
' Traffic and Parking Analysis for Newport Beach County Club, Clubhouse Improvement and Tennis
Improvement project, Kimly-Horn and Associates, August 2009.
2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Beach County Club (PA2005 -140), Keeton
Kreitzer Consulting, September 2010.
1
November 9, 2011
Hotel Limit within Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center)
Host states that there is no overall General Plan limit to hotel rooms within Newport Center;
however, staff believes that this assertion is only partially correct, because the construction of
any new hotel rooms must be consistent with the overall non - residential development
intensity established for Newport Center. There are two sites within Newport Center that
have a specific allocation for hotel rooms; the Marriot Hotel property and the Island Hotel
property. The MU -H3 land use category also provides an additional 65 rooms. Despite these
specific allocations, other commercial sites within Newport Center are allowed to construct
hotels provided the zoning or planned community development regulations permit hotels and
the property has building floor area that is sufficient to accommodate the proposed hotel.
Precedent
The project site is within Anomaly Location #46, which specifically calls out a limit of 24 tennis
courts and 3,725 square feet of building area. Staff believes the proposed conversion would
set a precedent for other property since the conversion would create building floor area that
is not provided in this Anomaly Location by the Land Use Element, as discussed further below.
No Constraint to Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area
Staff disagrees with Host's assertion that there is no constraint to converting tennis courts to
hotel rooms or building floor area. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU4.1 establishes
maximum development intensities3 through the Land Use Maps (Figures LU1 through LU15),
specific land use categories (Table LU1), and the Anomaly Table (LU2). Development of the
project must be consistent with the site's land use classification and may not exceed
applicable development intensity limits.° However, Policies LU4.3 and 6.14.3 allow for
transfers of development intensity from one site to another within a Statistical Area provided
the intent of the General Plan is maintained and there are no traffic impacts as a result. In the
simplest terms, a recipient site may exceed its specified development intensity limit to the
extent that the donor site is reduced to ensure that the total development intensity of the
3 Development intensity identified by Policy LU4.1 are maximum limits for development and cannot be
considered an "entitlement" until a vested right is conveyed either through a Development Agreement or
entitlement approval and construction. Development is subject to other applicable policies of the General
Plan and Municipal Code as well as other applicable government regulations.
4 LU4.1 establishes maximum non - residential development intensities in five (5) ways; 1) floor area, 2)
floor area ratios, 3) hotel rooms, 4) theater seats, and 5) tennis courts.
K
November 9, 2011
larger Statistical Area is not exceeded. Statistical Area L1 represents Newport Center and
includes the project site.
The Tennis Club portion of the project site is classified "MU- H3 /PR" by the Land Use Maps.
The dual classification allows uses and development limits specified by both the MU -H3 and
PR classifications. The MU -H3 classification allows for the horizontal intermixing of regional
commercial office, hotel, multi - family residential and ancillary commercial uses. Within the
project site, residential uses may be developed as single family units, but must be allocated to
the Anomaly Location through the approval of a Site Development Plan or Development
Agreement. A maximum of 65 hotel rooms and 450 residential units are allocated to the
various properties designated MU -H3 within Newport Center in addition to those
development intensities specified in Table LU25. The PR designation applies to land used or
proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both
active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and
courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. There is no applicable maximum density or
intensity limit of for public uses. Private uses in this category may include incidental buildings,
such as maintenance equipment sheds, supply storage, and restrooms, not included in
determining intensity limits. For golf courses, these uses may also include support facilities for
grounds maintenance employees. "Other types of buildings and developments are limited as
specified in Table LU2."
Table LU2 establishes two maximum development limits for the project site (Anomaly
Location H46):
1) 3,725 gross floor area (GFA) and
2) 24 tennis courts.
These development limits reflect the existing "built' condition of the Newport Beach Tennis
Club.
Conclusion
In summary, staff believes the proposal to convert eliminated tennis courts to hotel rooms or
building floor area does not create a traffic impact; however the proposed conversion does
S The 65 hotel rooms and 430 residential units were entitled to the Irvine Company with the adoption of
Development Agreement No. DA2007 -002 and allocated within the North Newport Planned Community,
and therefore, zero hotel rooms and 20 residential units remain for entitlement to any property classified
MU -H3.
3
November 9, 2011
increase development intensity above the limit established by the General Plan for Anomaly
Location #46. The proposed 3,725 GFA tennis clubhouse is expressly allowed in Table LU2 and
the proposed 5- single family homes are expressly allowed by the MU -1-13 land use category
provided in Table LU -1 of the General Plan. The General Plan allows the proposed transfer of
27 hotel rooms through approval of a transfer of development intensity, and the applicant
has duly filed such an application
Staff believes that the only other appropriate alternative to allow the 27 hotel rooms to be
constructed in Anomaly Location #46 is through the review and approval of a General Plan
_u IeII-I
4
Attachment No. PC 5
Comparison Site Plans
09 November 2011
Golf Realty Fund
One Upper Newport Plaza
Newport Beach, California 92660
So BY
OMM JN\� t 9 November 2011 15:53 i
r�
M E M O
D��E�oPM�N�o3 SA job #9602
t
Cjpt OF NE�O�
Attn. Robert 0 Hill I ROHQGolfRealtyFund.com
Regarding: Newport Beach Country Club
Newport Beach, California
From Leland Stearns A/Sfr r04f
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Attached is a revised Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 responsive to Lee & Sakahara's comment letter
dated November 2, 2011.
In my professional opinion, 1) Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 show that the IBC Golf Clubhouse and the
GRF Golf Parking Lot Design can easily work together with IBC's cooperation and 2) GRF's Golf Parking Lot
design shown on Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 is a much better aesthetic and pedestrian solution than
IBC's golf parking lot.
Below is a detailed response to Lee & Sakahara's letter with their comments shown first in black followed by
my responses in blue italics.
➢ Plan indicates 334 parking spaces but actual count is 327 plus 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard total
count = 332 spaces
Please see the attached feaster Plan Compromise 9 and 10 where an additional 7 parking spaces
have been added and 5 spaces in maintenance yard eliminated for a total of 334. (Parking
Required is 244 spaces) If the GRF Golf Parking Lot design is adopted GRF has agreed to make
available to IBC the non - exclusive parking easement over Corporate Plaza West for weekends
and holidays for an additional 554 additional parking spaces.
➢ Plan does not address existing access easement. If easement is maintained, this will further reduce parking
spaces.
The Frontage Road Easement has been terminated. Planning Commission at their hearing
indicated that they unanimously desire a A4aster Plan without the hazardous and unsightly
Frontage Road. If Frontage Road remains the primary loss will be to the significant landscape
buffer along PCH and traffic safety.
Stearns
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway/ Laguna Beach, CA 92651 1949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 /www.stearnsarchitecture.com
9 November 2011 15:53 2
➢ Plan does not allow semi - trucks to maneuver in the parking lot. No staging areas for major events.
Please see the LSA Study and Stearns Architecture prior Major Tournament Staging Plan
demonstrating that trucks can maneuver in the parking lot and staging areas for major events
can be accommodated.
➢ Plan reduces the upper level prime parking by 32 spaces.
The IBC plan has approximately 80 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF has 57 cars in
the upper level parking area. The GRF plan makes all the parking better and does not have the
significant grade difference between prime golf parking and secondary parking shown in the IBC
plan requiring stairways with an extensive number of steps from the very large secondary parking
area. Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 has 2 additional parking stalls adjacent to the Golf
Clubhouse.
➢ Plan provides only one sidewalk in the parking lot. Travel distance to the sidewalk at the east parking lot is
approximately 290' and approximately 230' at the west parking lot. This layout will encourage members to "cut
through" the landscaped islands and between cars (shortest path to the front door.
Two more pedestrian sidewalks have been added in attached Compromise 9 and 10. The Master-
Plan Compromise 9 and 10 is more pedestrian and golf cart friendly. (See the LSA Study)
➢ The primary access to parking from the Porte Cochere is offset requiring two turns to access parking lot.
With both the GRF and the IBC plans there are two turns. With Master Plan Compromise 9 and
10 there are two turns tvhen leaving the Porte Cochere and going to the parking area. With the
IBC's schematic plan there are two turns when leaving the parking area and returning to the
Porte Cochere.
➢ Plan encroaches 10' -20' into the golf course at the 18th green area.
Please see the revised Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 which eliminates encroachment.
➢ Plan encroaches into Maintenance Yard.
Please see Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10, which eliminates this very minor encroachment.
➢ 5 spaces in the Maintenance yard should be deleted. This space is allocated for golf course maintenance bins.
See attached Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 where the 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard
have been deleted.
S t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com
9 November 2011 15:53 3 22
➢ Due to the terraced parking concept, taller plant material will be required to effectively conceal the automobiles.
See attached section.
With the terraced design the goal is not to conceal the cars but to mitigate the "Sea of Asphalt"
and to create a far more aesthetic environment and public view from PCH. Much of the time the
parking lot is mostly empty.
➢ Plan indicates reduced service yard.
Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10 with no reduction to Maintenance
Yard area.
➢ Plan indicates an 85' driveway along Coast Highway between NBCC and the Nursery. City may have some issues.
Please see Master Plan Compromise 9 and 10, which eliminates the 85' driveway and is now
identical to IBC's Preliminary Site Plan.
➢ Orientation of the Clubhouse has changed.
The Clubhouse has been very slightly rotated. See the dashed line on the attached GRF Master
Plan Compromise 9 and 10.
s t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsa(chitecture.corn
IIIIIIIIII I i
pm� A16M
/� s
O
O
p
•z Fr
� HH
I
pp
V
G6l
IIIIIIIIII I i
pm� A16M
Ln
JIlHMIII "
3.ek IM3 1
Correspondence
Item No. 2a 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
Newport Beach Country C1U�
Costa Mesa, California 92626 -1925
Tel +1.714.540.1235 Fax -1.714.755.8290
PA2 0 0 5 -14 0
www.lw.com
L AT I" I A M& WAT K I N S LLP
FIRM /AFFILIATE OFFICES
Abu Dhabi
Moscow
Barcelona
Munich
Beijing
New Jersey
Boston
New York
Brussels
Orange County
November 7, 2011
Chicago
Paris
Doha
Riyadh
Dubai
Rome
Frankfurt
San Diego
Hamburg
San Francisco
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Houston
Silicon Valley
Newport Beach Planning Commissioners
London
Singapore
Newport Beach Planning Commission
Los Angeles
Tokyo
Mad rid
Washington, D.C.
City of Newport Beach
Milan
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Proposed Transfer of Development Rights from Newport Beach Marriott Hotel
(Anomaly 43) to Newport Beach Country Club (Anomaly 46);
Proiect File No. PA2005 -140
Dear Commissioners:
Pursuant to your direction at the October 20, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, we
met on October 28 with Planning Director Kim Brandt, Assistant City Attorney Leonie
Mulvihill, Principal Planner James Campbell, and the applicant's attorney, Tim Paone, to further
discuss a potential use conversion. Your staff was very generous with its time, and has been a
pleasure to work with.
We believe we have reached a solution that provides significant benefits to the City,
allows the Tennis Club project to move forward as planned, and preserves the development
rights for 27 hotel units at Anomaly 43. We have taken the step of preparing an analysis of the
Use Conversion methodology to demonstrate that the Use Conversion is consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Code, and to provide the Planning Commission, staff, and the applicant
the opportunity to consider the Use Conversion at the hearing. Although staff has expressed .
some skepticism, we have heard no objections that, in our view, would place a Use Conversion
outside of the discretion of the Planning Commission to recommend, or outside of the discretion
of the City Council to adopt. An Alternative Report for your consideration is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and explains why a use conversion is legal and is good policy.
Additionally, as we said at the October 20 hearing, we believe the Use Conversion is the
fairest outcome given HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host ")'s substantial interest in the 611 hotel
units assigned to Anomaly 43 (of which the project applicant proposes to use 27 to support its
project). To underscore the fairness of our proposed solution, and our standing to suggest such a.
solution, we have enclosed as Exhibit B hereto a brief outline of the relevant history for these
611 units.
Newport Beach Planning Commissioners
November 7, 2011
Page 2
LAT HAM &WATKINS«^
We are submitting these materials today for your review and assessment, and so they may
be included in the packet for the Planning Commission meeting on November 17, 2011. We
look forward to the meeting and answering any questions you may have. In the meantime, we
will continue to work with staff and the applicant with the goal of securing consensus on a use
conversion. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 755 -8168 to discuss these comments.
y truly your
v'
Paul N. Singarella
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
cc: Ms. Kim Brandt
Ms. Leone Mulvihill, Esq.
Ms. Carol McDermott
SD \810615.1
EXHIBITS A AND B TO NOVEMBER 7, 2011
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP LETTER RE:
Proposed Transfer of Development Rights from Newport Beach
Marriott Hotel (Anomaly 43) to Newport Beach Country Club
(Anomaly 46); Project File No. PA2005 -140
TAB A
Conversion of Use
Alternative Report and Findings
Project Setting:
The subject property is approximately 143 acres in size and currently improved with a private
golf course (Newport Beach Country Club) and a private tennis club (former Balboa Bay
Racquet Club). The subject property is generally bordered by East Coast Highway to the south,
Jamboree Road to the west, Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center to the north, and Corporate
Plaza West to the east and south. The tennis club (Tennis Club site) is located at the southeast
corner of the subject property while the golf course (Golf Club site) occupies the remaining
westerly side of the property. The Tennis Club site is presently improved with 24 tennis courts, a
3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse and 125 surface parking spaces.
The Golf Club site is presently improved with a 6,587 -yard, 18 -hole golf course and related
practice facilities, a 23,469 square -foot clubhouse, a 6,050 square -foot golf cart storage barn, a
2,010 square -foot greens keeper building, and 420 surface parking spaces. Main vehicular access
to the subject property is from a private drive way (Country Club Drive) that connects to East
Coast Highway at Irvine Terrace Drive, a signalized intersection. A secondary access is provided
from Newport Center Drive via Farallon Drive.
Project Description:
Golf Realty Fund, the land owner, proposes a Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP)
for the redevelopment of the existing private golf course clubhouse, parking lot, and tennis club.
Additionally, the PCDP provides for the conversion of 17 tennis courts at the Tennis Club site to
five (5) single -unit residential dwellings "Villas" (which are part of the Project, but which are not
part of the conversion analysis) and 27 short-term lodging units "Bungalows."
Background:
Golf Realty Fund previously identified a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as a means of
converting the tennis court area into the 27 short-term lodging units. Host Hotels and Resorts,
the owner of the transferor site, has indicated that it opposes the transfer and intends to put to use
through a consensual transfer, or its own development, the 27 hotel units that would be the
subject of the TDR proposed by the applicant. At the October 20, 2011 Planning Commission
hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff, Host Hotels and Resorts, and the applicant to
review a Conversion of Use alternative for implementing the Project that is consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Code. It has been determined that a use conversion is consistent with
the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Accordingly, the Project can be modified to remove the TDR approach and substitute in its place
a Conversion of Use methodology which achieves the same result as the previously proposed
TDR. Either the TDR or the Conversion of Use process achieves the same results, but the latter
methodology results in additional benefits to the City discussed in the findings below. Both
strategies are in compliance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. This report reviews
the Conversion of Use approach upon which the approval can be based.
Conversion of Use:
The TDR methodology in the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Chapter 20.46 (New Code)
includes the Conversion of Use of non - residential development intensity: "If the requested
transfer includes the conversion of non - residential uses, the application shall also identify the
quantity of entitlement, by use category, before and after the transfer (Newport Beach Zoning
Code 20.46.040)."
The TDR or Conversion process was created to ensure that development intensity was consistent
with transportation infrastructure capacity in a given area. The General Plan acknowledges this
concept within the Newport Center area at General Plan Policy LU6.14.3 - Transfers of
Development Rights:
"Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the
City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the
transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts."
Therefore, Transfer or Conversion of development rights must be traffic neutral and follow the
Zoning Code procedures in chapter 20.46. In this case, a TDR is not needed because there are
enough existing traffic trips and intensity already on the site such that a Conversion of Use may
occur.
Methodology and Analysis:
The proposed Project has been grandfathered under an earlier version of the Zoning Code.
However, the Zoning Code —both the previous version and the current version — allows Planned
Community Development Plans to conflict with and take precedence over the Zoning Code.
As such, the Planned Community Development Plan can be amended to include provisions that
parallel section 20.46.040 of the current Zoning Code discussed below. This will allow the
conversion to be governed by a standard that meets the intent of the General Plan and Zoning
Code and assures that conversion does not generate traffic or intensity that would have potential
negative environmental impacts.
The project proposes to convert 17 tennis courts to a hotel type use. As noted in Zoning Code
Section 20.46.020, conversion of use is permissible within all zones of the City as long as the
findings in the Zoning Code can be made. Use conversion procedures are found in Zoning Code
Section 20.46.040, and require the Planning Department to conduct a traffic analysis and
intensity analysis to ensure that the project does not impact the local transportation network.
Traffic Analysis:
2
The tables below illustrate the traffic trip generation rates for the existing and proposed uses.
Note that the trip generation rate for a golf course is based on the number of golf holes (18) and
the rate for a tennis club is based on number of courts (24). Tennis clubs are a high traffic
generator based upon ITE Trip rates; the loss of 17 courts gives the project a reduction of daily
trips and AM/PM peak hour trips. Inclusive of the hotel units, there is a net reduction of 389
daily trips for the entire development. Therefore the conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel
units is trip neutral and will not result in a net negative impact on the overall circulation system
in the immediate area given the overall reduction in daily trips.
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use
Rate Type
Size /Unit
AM Peak
Hour Total
PM Peak
Hour Total
Daily (Total)
Golf Course
ITE
Holes
2.22
2.74
35.75
Tennis Club
ITE
Court
1.31
3.35
28.7
Hotel
ITE
Room
0.56
0.59
8.17
SFR
ITE
DU
0.75
1.01
9.57
Existing Use
Land Use
Rate Type
Size /Unit
AM Peak
Hour Total
PM Peak
Hour Total
Daily (Total)
Golf Course
ITE
18 Holes
40
49
643
Tennis Club
ITE
24 Courts
31
80
929
Total
ITE
27 Room
71
130
1572
Proposed Use
Land Use
Rate Type
Size /Unit
AM Peak
Hour Total
PM Peak
Hour Total
Daily (Total)
Golf Course
ITE
18 Holes
40
49
643
Tennis Club
ITE
7 Courts
9
23
271
Hotel
ITE
27 Room
15
16
221
SFR
ITE
5 DUs
4
5
48
Total
68
94
1183
Intensity Analysis:
Zoning Code Section 20.46.040(D) states that, "if the transfer request involves the conversion of
uses, the Director shall perform a land use intensity analysis to determine the floor area that
could be developed with and without the transfer. For purposes of this analysis, theater use shall
be allocated fifteen (15) square feet per seat. Hotel use shall be allocated the number of square
feet per room at which it is included in the General Plan. When the General Plan does not specify
intensity for hotel rooms, it shall be as determined by the Director."
The Project includes the conversion of 17 existing tennis courts with an average floor area of
2808 square feet to 27 hotel units. Regulation tennis court dimensions are 78' x 36'. To remain
conservative in the analysis, the square footage number used is only inclusive of the court
dimensions and does not include edge area and areas for observation within the fenced tennis
court area.
The proposed Project is located in General Plan Anomaly 46. General Plan Table LU2
designates Anomaly 46 with 3,725 square feet and 24 tennis courts. Table LU2. does not assign
numerical square footage intensity to the tennis courts and allows ancillary uses without
designation of square footage. Therefore, the square footage associated with the tennis courts
was determined as described above. The tennis club is also located within the PC — Planned
Community zone which allows for flexible development standards to achieve a superior project.
As noted in Zoning Code Section 20.46.040(D), when the General Plan does not specify an
intensity for certain uses, that intensity may be determined by the Planning Director. As such,
the PCDP text can be amended to specify what is implicit in the General Plan: that the tennis
courts have intensity equal to their area, which is at least 2808 square feet per court.
Similarly, Table LU2 does not assign a square footage value to hotel units. As noted in Zoning
Code Section 20.46.40(D) the hotel room intensity may be specified by the Planning Director if
not specified in the General Plan. In this analysis an intensity of approximately 1,045 1 square
feet has been assigned to the hotel units.
The Tennis Club Site
(Tennis Clubhouse & Courts, Bungalows &Villas)
ME i prim pments
, ;
Floor Areas . ft.
Component
Floor Areas . ft.
Component
Clubhouse
3,725
Clubhouse
3,725
24 Tennis Courts
67,3922
7 Tennis Courts3
19,956
27 Bungalows
28,219
Bungalow Spa
7,4902
Concierge & Guest
Meeting Facility
2,1702
5 SFR
N/A
Total sq. ft
71,117
61,560
As shown in the table above, the proposed Project will reduce the existing floor area of the
Tennis Club facility by approximately 10,000 square feet. The Project is therefore consistent
with the development intensity of the site.
The Planning Director previously designated each Bungalow unit with 1045 square feet
of intensity in the August 4, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report.
2808 sf / court
17 of 24 courts will be demolished; and one new stadium court will be constructed.
lg
Green Light Analysis:
Charter Section 423 also known as "Greenlight" requires that any major amendment to the
General Plan be put before voters. Conversion of Use and TDR already are established within
the General Plan and the Project does not require a General Plan amendment. Therefore
Greenlight does not apply to either TDR or Use Conversion methodology used to achieve the
proposed Project.
The spirit and intent of Greenlight is to carefully consider major changes in traffic, density or
intensity caused by development. Significant increases in traffic, density, and intensity in
Greenlight are defined as "100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units (density), or
over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity). A As shown in the analysis above, the proposed
Project will be trip neutral, only adds 27 bungalow units, and proposes no increase in the
intensity on site. The Project not only is exempt from Greenlight, it falls below the thresholds
which require review under the spirit of Greenlight.
Findings:
Zoning Code Section 20.46.050 provides that the Planning Commission and City Council make
certain findings to allow the conversion of use. As stated above, this standard can be
incorporated into the PCDP text. The findings can be made and are evaluated below on the
following basis:
A. The reduced density /intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City, for
example:
1. The provision of extraordinary open space, public view corridor(s), increased
parking, or other amenities;
2. Preservation of an historic building or property, or natural resources;
3. Improvement of the area's scale and development character;
4. Reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; and
5. More efficient use of land.
The conversion of use reduces the overall number of trips being generated at the Project site,
creating a reduction in projected traffic congestion. In addition, the conversion of use will
preserve visitor serving units in the Coastal Zone, which is considered a public benefit by the
City as well as the California Coastal Commission. The conversion preserves development
intensity in the L -1 statistical area providing future significant benefits to the City through
additional transient occupancy tax revenue, and additional economic activity created by that
anticipated intensity. The future new revenue can be used to support core city services like
police, fire, parks and recreation, and library services which provides benefit throughout the
City. The Tennis Club facility also represents an in -fill development site. By constructing hotel
units on an already developed area, the project will preserve natural resource areas that otherwise
Charter Section 423
may be developed with hotel units. Finally, the floor area used for the hotel units is less than that
of the current tennis court facility representing a more efficient use of land.
B. The transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and
would not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer and the
proposed uses and physical improvements would not lend themselves to conversion to
higher traffic generating uses;
As shown in the analysis above, the conversion of use will not result in any adverse traffic
impacts, because peak hour trips and total trip generation will be less than the existing use. In
addition, the 24 -court tennis facility including ancillary uses amounts to intensity than the
proposed project and therefore the conversion represents a reduction in intensity from the
existing uses.
C. The increased development potential transferred to the receiver site will be compatible
and in scale with surrounding development and will not create abrupt changes in scale or
character;
The proposed Project will maintain the tennis court use on site and add hotel and single - family
units that are compatible with adjacent uses. The site currently supports single - family residential
units adjacent to the golf course, while several different properties in the Newport Center include
hotel units. The Project proposes single -story bungalow style hotel units which will be
compatible with the architectural style of adjacent residences. Therefore, the Project will be
compatible in scale with the surrounding development and will not create an abrupt change in
scale or character.
D. The receiver site is physically suitable for the development proposed taking into
consideration adjacent circulation patterns, protection of significant public views and open
space, and site characteristics, including any slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive
resources. (Ord. 2010 -21 § 1(Exh. A)(part), 2010)
The proposed conversion is physically suited to the site, because it will provide a more compact
footprint for the facility, creating a more economical use of the land. The reduction in traffic
trips generated by the proposed Project will not change or interfere with existing circulation
patterns. The project proposes low rise development which will not impact any public views or
site characteristics. The Project is an infill development site, and therefore sensitive resources
are not present.
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 28
December 13, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3208
rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums
900 Newport Center Drive
(PA2004 -169)
APPLICANT: Lennar Homes
The applicant is requesting the proposed residential project deliberation be continued to the
January 10, 2006 City Council meeting. The request was necessary in order for the applicant
to finalize their discussions with the Newport Beach Country Club regarding the interface
between the golf course and the proposed residential project.
Prepared by:
R salinh M. Ung
A sociate Plann
Attachment: Applicant's Letter
Submitted by:
a.( --
Patricia L. Tbmple
Planning Director
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 28
December 13, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3208
rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums
900 Newport Center Drive
(PA2004 -169)
APPLICANT: Lennar Homes
On November 22, 2005, the applicant requested a continuance to December 13, 2005. The
request was necessary in order for the applicant to finalize their discussions with the Newport
Beach Country Club regarding the interface between the golf course and the proposed
residential project.
As of December 2, 2005, Lennar Homes and the Newport Beach. Country Club have had
several meetings. While these meetings have been productive, they have not reached a
conclusion as of yet. The applicant, however, is expecting to have a resolution to present to
the City Council at the meeting.
Prepared by:
Rosalinh M. Ung
Associate Planner `
Submitted by
i r�.Ucr..
Patricia L. Temp](
Planning Director
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
COU14 IL AGEMDA
P10.
Agenda Item No. 13
November 22, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3208
rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Santa Barbara Condominiums
900 Newport Center Drive
(PA2004 -169)
APPLICANT: Lennar Homes
ISSUE
Should the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the applications
listed below to allow the development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently
developed with an outdoor tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the request by
adopting Resolution No. 2005 - for General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, LCP Land
Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract
Map No. 2004- 004(16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, Coastal Residential Development
Permit No. 2005 -004 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005 - 071067) and
introducing Ordinance No. 2005 - for Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005-
003, and passing the ordinance to a second reading for adoption on December 13, 2005-
DISCUSSION
On November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 6 ayes (one recused) to recommend
approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The project involves the following
discretionary applications for the City Council to consider:
• General Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre site from
Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family Residential.
• LCP Land Use Plan Amendment - Change the land use designation of the 4.25 -acre
site from Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial to Multiple - Family
Residential (1990 LCPLUP) or from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density
Residential (2004 LCP).
Santa Barbara Condominiums
November 22, 2005
Page 2
• rlannea l.Ommun1W Ueyelopmeni rlan I em /iaopiion ana yyalyer or minimum /lcreaCL-
Rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District; adopt a Planned Community
Development Plan to establish use and development regulations; and consider a waiver
of the 10 -acre minimum land area requirementfor Planned Community District adoption.
• Subdivision - Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property from the 13.79 -
acre Marriott Hotel development. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.25 -acre property
for condominium ownership.
•
Traffic Stud —Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
• Coastal Residential Development Permit — For the construction of 10 or more new
dwelling units within the Coastal Zone.
The project consists of 79 residential condominium units with eight different floor plan options,
ranging from 2,363 to 4,018 square feet in size. Access to the new residential development will
be via two driveways from Santa Barbara Drive. The project is designed with two subterranean
parking levels, and 201 parking spaces for residents and guests. The minimum building front,
side, and rear setbacks proposed for the development are 15, 7 and 13 feet respectively.
Land Use Element
The current designation is Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial and the
residential condominium project is consistent with the proposed Multi - Family Residential land
use designation. The two percent (2 %) reduction in APF designation in Newport Center
proposed by the project is not a significant loss of opportunity for commercial /office uses as
the site is being used for tennis courts and is an ancillary use to the existing hotel and club. In
making its recommendation for approval, the Planning Commission believes the project to be
compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course, and nearby residential and office uses.
The proposed residential project would add an additional 79 units to the Block 900 — Hotel
Plaza area, an increase from 67 to 146 units. The existing Marriott Hotel currently has 532
rooms (79 rooms below the total 611 room allocation). The hotel could conceivably construct
the remaining 79 rooms on the adjacent site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the
remaining rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area.
Housing Element
To be consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan Housing Element,
the project is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) to low and
moderate income households. The applicant is proposing to enter into an agreement with the
City to provide these units off -site, within the City's limits. The agreement will be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director and will be executed and recorded
prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a building or grading permit
for the proposed project. The Planning Commission required the affordable units to be
constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the
project.
Santa Barbara Condominiums
November 22, 2005
Page 3
Charter Section 423 Analysis
Amendment
Area
# of Dwelling
A.M. Peak Hour Trips
P.M Peak Hour Trips
Units
Pacific Republic
2,400 s.f. (80%
0
4.0 (80% of 5)
4.0 (80% of 5)
GP2001 -003
of 3,000
_
Newport Sports
Museum
1,240 s.f.(80%
0
4.0 (80% of 5)
4.8 (8096 of 6)
GP2004 -001
of 1,550
Proposed
79
39
35
Amendment
Total
3,640 s.f.
79
47
1 43.8
As indicated in the preceding table, the project with "prior amendments" does not exceed the
100 peak hour trip, 40,000 square foot or 100 dwelling unit thresholds and a vote pursuant to
Charter Section 423 is not required. Should the City Council approve the proposed
amendment, it will become a "prior amendment" that will be tracked for ten years.
The proposed changes to Statistical Area L1, Block 900 -Hotel Plaza and the Estimated
Growth for Statistical Area L1 Table are shown as Exhibit "A" of the draft City Council
Resolution (Attachment A).
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
The 1990 LCPLUP designates the site for Administrative, Professional, & Financial
Commercial. A change in land use would result in a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to
be potentially used for office uses consistent with the APF designation. However, within the
Newport Center, there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the two percent (2 %)
reduction proposed by the project is not a significant reduction.
The City is in the process of adopting a new Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed CLUP
tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on December 13, 2005, has the site
designated for Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV-8) uses. This designation was applied due to
the existing use of the Marriott Hotel complex. The change in land use designation from CV -B to
RM -C (Medium Density Residential C) is necessary for implementation of the proposed
residential development and would reduce the land available for visitor - serving commercial uses
by 4.25 acres. Although a reduction in area occurs, the opportunity to construct the remaining
hotel room entitlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and it could be constructed nearby within
the portion of Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone. The property is not
located in close proximity to coastal resources, coastal recreational uses or the water and the
project would not impact the adjacent visitor - serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory
tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity.
Planned Community District
The applicant desires approval of a Code Amendment to change the zoning designation of
the subject property from Administrative, Professional & Financial to Planned Community
(PC) District.
Santa Barbara Condominiums
November 22, 2005
Page 4
The Zoning Code requires that PC's be a minimum of 10 acres to ensure that the project
would take advantage of the superior environment provided through coordination of parcels
that can result from large -scale community planning, would allow diversification of land uses
and would include various types of land uses. A waiver is sought because the property is
4.25 acres in size. The proposed PC District does not strictly meet the intent and purposes
for a PC adoption as the project is a single use less than 10 acres. Although when
considering it in the larger context of the Newport Center area that includes a mixture of
shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential
developments, the proposed PC allows the site to be developed with flexibility to allow the
project to integrate within Newport Center to create a superior environment.
Proposed Development Standards
Density
79 units 18.59 units per gross acre
FAR
1.90
Building Height
65 feet maximum
Building Front
Setback
15 feet minimum (varies) I
Building Side
Setback
7 feet minimum (varies)
Rear Setback
r13 feet minimum varies
Parking
2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5
space for quest
The proposed draft Planned Community text for the proposed development is shown as
Exhibit "A" of the draft Ordinance (Attachment B).
Parcel and Tract Maps
The applicant requests an approval of a parcel map to divide the 4.25 -acre project site from the
Marriott hotel complex for financing and development purposes. Lot No. 1 is 4.25 acres in size
to be devoted for the proposed residential project and Lot No. 2 contains the remaining 9.54
acres to continue to be occupied by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The subsequent Tract
Map is proposed for condominium ownership of the 79 unit project The required findings for the
proposed maps have been met in accordance to the City Subdivision Code.
Tragic Study
A traffic study has been prepared for the project pursuant to the TPO and its implementing
guidelines (Appendix D of the Mitigated Negative Declaration), CEQA analysis for cumulative
projects and intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will
result in a net increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle trips during morning (AM)
peak hour and 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. Fourteen (14)
intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The TPO
analysis resulted in nine (9) out of fourteen (14) study intersections that exceed the one -
percent threshold. ICU analysis was performed on these intersections and found that the
project related traffic does not cause an unsatisfactory level of service at any of these
Santa Barbara Condominiums
November 22, 2005
Page 5
intersections and no significant impact occurs and no improvements are required at these
intersections. The 9 intersections will operate at LOS D or better during peak hours.
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP)
A Coastal Residential Development Permit is required when a project proposes to create 10 or
more new residential units within the Coastal Zone. Affordable housing is required to be
provided on -site if it is determined feasible to do so. The Planning Commission found that
including the affordable units within the project was not feasible. Consistent with the previous
Housing Element discussion, affordable units will be provided off -site within the City.
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The document was initially prepared to evaluate the project with traditional zoning of
Multiple - Family Residential, followed by a 30-day review period from July 15 to August 15,
2005.
Since then, it was determined that the most suitable zoning designation for the property
would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the size,
scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental
impacts, and therefore, does not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An
addendum has been prepared to address the change in the zoning designation including two
additional mitigation measures (3.3.N and 3.3.0), required by the Planning Commission, to
address the traffic and air quality impacts pertaining to exporting of materials from the subject
property to the dump site. They have been attached to the MND for the City Council to
consider.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300
feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing
consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this
meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Ro1 alinh M. Ung Patricia L. Temple I
Associate Planner Planning Director
Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution
B. Draft City Council Ordinance
C. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 1681 (Without exhibits)
D.
E.
F.
G.
Santa Barbara Condominiums
November 22, 2005
Page 62
Excerpt of the draft minutes from the November V, 2005, Planning
Commission meeting
Planning Commission Staff Report from the
attachments)
Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial
Public Comments & Mitigation & Monitoring
Project Plans'
November P, 2005 (Without
Study (Errata, Response to
Program attached)'
' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office.
EXHIBIT 2
C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C:
3 ,
1
k'
C!'.� iCil AGENDA
1?' 1 122 5
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY and
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for the proposed
SANTA BARBARA CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Rosalinh M, Ung, Associated Planner
(949) 644 -3208
Prepared by:
David Evans and AssociateA Inc.
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92123
Dustin Fuller, Project Manager
(858) 614 -4360
Draft: July 15, 2005
Environmental Analysis (continued)
a zoning designation of APF and the proposed LCP would designate the site as CommerciaWisitor
Serving (CV) to better reflect the existing land use (Hotel). The proposed Project would require an
amendment to the existing LCP /LUP to change the current land use designation from APF to MFR or
an amendment to the proposed LCP to change the proposed land use designation from CV to MFR,
should that plan be certified by the California Coastal Commission.
(Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Aerial Photograph, Newport Beach LCP, Newport Beach p
Draft LCP, and Site Survey)
A. Would the Project physically divide an established community? ,
No Impact The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 4.25 acres located along Santa
Barbara Drive currently developed as tennis courts. The proposed Project involves development of a
multi - family residential area with open space and recreational areas. Currently there is a multi - family
residential development located northeast of the site across Santa Barbara Drive. The proposed
Project would not extend into or through this development. Additionally, the other surrounding land
uses, including commercial uses, would not be affected or divided by the proposed residential
development. The proposed Project would not divide an established community. N
(Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Site Survey) !!
B. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than 5igniflcant Impact. The proposed Project would involve a general plan amendment,
LCP and zone change to after the land use allowed on the proposed Project site. The current
General Plan land use designation on the proposed Project site is Administrative, Professional,
Financial (APF). The general plan amendment would change it to Multi - Family Residential (MFR).
According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, this land use category has been applied
where multiple dwelling units are allowed on a single subdivided lot. Smaller condominiums and
other individually owned attached housing projects are also given this designation. Further, this
category allows for either single ownership or condominium development.
The change in land use designation from APF to MFR to accommodate the proposed
development would not be in conflict with the Newport Beach General Wan because the site
would be developed in accordance with the Development Policies of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with Policy A, as it encourages a
diversity of land uses so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches,
and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each resident of the community.
Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with Policy D as it doesn't block public
views and with Policy I as it is not located within a flood hazard area. The proposed residential
development within the Newport Center area serves to implement these policies.
I
r
Santa 8aibara Condominiums Page 3 -3&
Initial Study and MND
•
0
•
•
l ,
•
•
0
•
•
Environmental Analysis (Continued)
i
\� � \/� PmmC/NUnc �\ va a f,. f _ •' {x'7x'•�1/� F�\
iCO> ti.:•M�
souse C;lya Ne 10 h
Project Site
Block 900
CaiD Pc:O i !�� kp by
Vc' C
eL
Santa Barbara Condominiums Project
Newport Center Statistical Area Map Figure
3 -2
Santa Barbara Condar dniums
Initial Study and MND
Page 3 -37
Environmental Analysis (continued)
Swn.e' CiN al Nevmort CCOU �
Santa Barbara Condominiums Project
Land Use Policy Map
Figure
3 -3
Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -38
Initial Study and MND
EXHIBIT 3
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
• November 3, 2005
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
F-
L
r
L
Page 1 of 35
file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005
INDEX
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn
Commissioner Tucker was recused and appeared on the dais at 9:00 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney
Rich Edmonton, Transportation and Development Services Manager
James Campbell, Senior Planner
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary
any Lawrence, contract planning consultant
David Lepo, contract planning consultant
UBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 28, 2005.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM NO. 1
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of October 20, 2005.
Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve the minutes as amended.
Approved
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn
Noes:
None
Absent:
Tucker
Abstain:
None
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: Bayside Residential Planned Community (PA2004 -072)
ITEM NO.2
919 Bayside Drive
PA2004 -072
he project involves the redevelopment of the Newport Marina Apartment complex
Recommended
ocated at 919 Bayside Drive. The existing 64 -unit apartment complex, located on
for Approval
pproximately 3.92 acres, will be demolished and replaced with a 17 -unit, gated
file: //14: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
eidential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 individu
�sidential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly
aol and shade structure, 2 landscapetopen space lots. Private streets are proposed.
:quest to re -zone the site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to PC (Planne
ommunity) is sought, which is accompanied with Planned Community Developme
Ian text that will establish development and use standards for the proposed project.
Coastal Residential Development Permit is required to ensure compliance with 1
wernment Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) and the Housing Element of the Gene
an. The project includes the demolition of existing structures, grading, installation
lities, private streets, landscaping, site lighting, site walls, storm water improvemer
blic access easements and upgrades to the public right of way adjacent to 1
)lect site.
avid Lepo of Hogle Ireland, contract planner, gave an overview of the staff rec
Ling that this item was first heard in August. During that hearing, the Plann
mmission raised several issues and asked staff for a review. One of the issr
ncerned the subdivision of water surface in the bay. The City Attorney advised s
it those properties that were on the surface of the water included originally in
bdivision Map could not be included in the Map and could not be subdivided, c
ire to be taken out of the area that was ultimately included in the Tentative Tr
ip. As a result of that determination, the land area and the water area were redue
the point that the Development Overlay that had been proposed for this parttct
rperty reduced the lot area for the development to comply with the maximum 40%
as coverage that applies in the Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone. l
derlying land use designation is multi- family residential and the overlay was goinc
applied to the zoning to allow for the development of single family homes. With t
termination, and absent the Planned Residential Development Overlay, s
ncluded the best procedure was to prepare a Planned Community Text and char
zoning on that particular site to Planned Community, leaving the underlying Ic
e designation in the General Plan as multi- family residential. Therefore, we are h
light with a proposed Planned Community Text and a proposed Zoning Amendm
change the land use designation to Planned Community. With that the Planr
�sidential Development Overlay goes away as does the Use Permit that was requii
development pursuant to the Planned Residential District.
he noted:
. The Planned Community text includes development standards and conditions
approval that address the issues raised at the last meeting. Those issues are:
. Land Use designation and zoning of multiple family - the concern was that tl
might be an attempt to develop more than one unit on each of the residential
being created by the Tentative Tract Map.
. Concern with the MFR zoning - somebody might try to develop three stories
up to 35 feet in height. Staff has included a development code section in the
text and conditions of approval in the PC text that clearly state one unit for e
of the residential lots not to exceed 28 feet in height.
. Concern that setback between the new property line wall at Bayside Drive
not adequate. Staff has included conditions and standards in the PC text
require a minimum of four foot setback between the right -of -way at Bayside
Page 2 of 35
file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 111/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03 /2005
and the new property line wall that would allow for a minimum of 4 feet
landscape area then the wall and then 10 feet of yard on the private property
of the Bayside wall. The right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the private prop
side of Bayside Drive varies from 1 -2 feet to 6 feet, so the affect will be that tt
will be between 5 1/2 and 10 feet of actual landscape setback between the b
of the sidewalk at Bayside and the new property line wall.
.
Concern with the setback of the private driveway serving all the residences. Staff
has proposed that where there is a single story element adjacent to the driveway
a minimum setback of 5 feet be provided; where there is a two -story element,
10 foot setback be provided. That is included in the development standards o-
the PC Text.
.
Concern with sidewalks adjacent to the private street within the tract. Staff
determined that since this is a private, gated community, the sidewalks would
be necessary. Conditions are included in the PC text.
. Other conditions of approval deal with access to the water and easements
the floating dockway.
. Landscaping was a consideration, particularly the piece of property that adjoins
this site on the n/w corner of Bayside that does not belong to the property owner
it belongs to the City. The decision was the Planning Director shall have the righ,
to approve a landscape plan for this property including having the Homeowners
Association maintain that property. This is included in the conditions of approva
in the PC text.
. Concern of noise and noxious effects from the boat yard across the channel ha
been addressed in the provision that requires the applicant to submit a form to
provided to the lessee of the lot informing them of those concerns.
. There will be no dedication of lots F and G on the surface of the water to the City.
. Design amenities that the applicant has asked be included are indicated in
staff report and deal with fences, hedges, walls, arbors, trellises, fire places
barbecues.
. The action asked for tonight is for approval of the Negative Declaration
revised copies of the first two pages (distributed) resulting in reference to
Planned Residential Development rather than the PC text; the Tentative T
Map, the Code Amendment changing the zoning of the site to PC Plar
Community and adopting a Planned Community Text; a Coastal Reside
Development; no traffic analysis will be required as this resulting project will f
less traffic impact to this site.
rmissioner Cole asked why should the Planning Commission consider the
this site.
Lepo answered that the Planned Community text allows for a mix of uses with
site. It allows the City to make certain that those different uses are compatible wi
another in this development. This site is to be re- developed with single fam
ies to replace an apartment building and the use of the PC text is to make sure it
]rated with what is there now including the condos to the east, single family hom
Page 3 of 35
file: //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21 /2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/0312005
the west, and the commercial across the street. You have the opportunity to use
text to make sure that the access to the waterfront is maintained and enhanced 1
me of the conditions of approval. He then noted other areas where a similar proc
s occurred.
Hawkins asked what the smallest parcel is that the PC text has
to?
r. Campbell noted the smallest size was 4 acres and this is 3.92 acres.
issioner Hawkins asked about the analyses of the land use impacts of the pr(
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and are the changes reflected in the revi
uts? The project as proposed now will have impacts due to the change in
going from multi - family to Planned Community, is there an analysis of that?
Lepo answered the physical changes associated with this development w
lyzed as well as consistency with plans. We have noted that the undedy
feral Plan Land Use designation of mufti- family does included single family uses
proposed here. Therefore, this plan is consistent with the General Plan and the
does allow development of single family homes. As far as policy document <
i documents, it is consistent with that change in the front. Physical imps
xiated with physical changes are no different than what was analyzed.
ssioner Hawkins asked about the change in the Project concerning the
and how those changes were or were not reflected in the Mitigated Ne:gi
ition for the Project.
Lepo noted this can be adjusted for technical accuracy.
Campbell noted:
. The land use section mentions the PRD Overlay in the initial study and we
make the change to agree with the project description. Referencing a hanc
he continued.
. The marina was permitted in 1973 as a commercial marina with parking.
. Subsequent addition to the apartments in the early 70's eliminated that p
and the City conditioned the Parcel Map that created those additional unit
that the marina would only be used by the Upland properties (project site,
Condominiums and the Shark Island yacht club).
. If this was to be continued as a commercial marina, parking would have• to
provided.
. The original draft conditions maintained that this marina would be operated
by those Upland properties.
. Staff has changed their position on this matter and with the applicant's appro%
we are requiring that the slips in front of this project site be used only for 1
residents of this project and discontinue the policy of sharing with the other t
properties. Change to the condition has been made to specifically require that
reflected in amended condition 22. This restriction is to be noted on the map a
Page 4 of 35
file :HH:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
in the CC and R's and in the Planned Community Text.
Public access - The PC text in condition 34 requires the applicant to execute
agreement that ensures public access as identified be maintained permanently
well as an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement. T
dedication will be on the property that they actually control as the exist
walkway is on property owned by the Irvine Company. If the access is elimina
in the future because it is now on somebody else's property, we would then N
this offer to dedicate and the easement that could be moved landward of
Irvine Company property onto the applicant's property. Should the access acr
the Irvine Company submerged land be eliminated, then we could require it to
relocated six feet closer to the bulkhead creating a new floating walkway at t
location and then ensure that access across the docks is still maintained. T
offer of dedication will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit i
prior to recordation of the map.
The applicant is required to obtain a new Harbor Permit. The historic transfers
this particular permit has been discontinuance or 'murky'. So, we want to cle,
this up with a new permit in the applicant's name which then would be transfers
to the Homeowner's Association upon its creation so that the Homeowne
Association controls the Harbor Permit and then the rights to use the docks wot
be transferred with the sale of the individual leaseholds. The residents will be t
only ones able to use those slips and therefore it will be a private manna.
. He then noted condition 10 has a changed reference to the improvements on
docks.
. Condition 12 has a reference as to who owns those improvements as
by the applicant.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted the term 'landward' shows direction. The
18 feet between the bulkhead line and the actual physical bulkhead that is wal
d the submerged land is owned by the underlying owner and is under the control
s applicant. What this does is repositions that walkway onto the land that t
plicant and the property owner control. If The Irvine Company decides that in t
ure the docks can not be tied into the submerged land, which we don't expect
ppen, then the applicant would be required to move the floating walkway six A
ser to the bulkhead to be used for public access.
irperson Toerge noted that the map shows an existing bulkhead at the
If the floating walkway was moved 'landward', it would be on the land.
Campbell explained the tract boundary runs along the bulkhead because staff
want to subdivide those submerged lands and make them part of leasehold
ie of these lots. He then discussed the boundaries.
Aaron Harp noted that on the map it is referred to in two ways. It is referred to
US Bulkhead line and next to that a notation referencing existing bulkhead Ii
:h runs along side where the floating walkway is now.
Campbell noted a change will be made to clarify as the intent refers to the
.head line. Discussion continued.
Page 5 of 35
file: /114:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
Harp noted the reason for this condition is to resolve the issue of the fact that
may is currently not on the proponent's property, it is on a third party's who has
:s. This offer is done in case of the loss of the right to have it on the third p
rerty, then they could shift it over.
iissioner Eaton asked about the enhancements to the existing walkway and
are covered; precedence for free- standing fireplaces.
Lepo noted if those are the improvements that are required, then that plan
to be reviewed and any changes to conditions will be made.
In Campbell noted the free - standing fireplaces issue would require a Modificatioi
'ermit in most cases because a fireplace would be higher than three and a half feet.
'he Zoning Administrator could not come up with any current permitted free standing
replaces in bulkhead locations. Free - standing barbecues have been done, but not I
)ot high chimneys.
)mmissioner Hawkins noted the slip provision and the walkway provision
oblematic and presented a scenario. He suggested that there is a better way to
is in the conditions such as requiring the applicant to go ahead and get that easem
rer the existing walkway so that you don't have this potential problem.
r. Harp answered that if the Irvine Company revoked the right to have the walkway
ey would probably also revoke the right to have the slips. The main intent of the
mdition is to ensure that the public has access to walk along, not so much as tc
:cess the slips. Typically, we don't make a condition where a third party approval ie
.cessary. A condition could be edited that the offer to dedicate, or obtain, eas e ments
ereby giving the option of one or the other, that way you are not conditioning it on a
ird party.
nuing, Commissioner Hawkins asked what sort of agreement is there now for
!d use of the slips. Is there a written agreement?
Campbell answered that there is not necessarily an agreement but the City in t
I's as a condition of the Parcel Map that is underlying this piece of property arrang
it be done. So, we are requiring it to be that way. Staff does not know if there is
vate agreement between the entities. The adjacent Cove Condominium has a ve
nilar provision with its Tract Map that the Coves and the Yacht Club get to use wt
front of them as a shared arrangement. That was required of that development
72. When they added on to this project, they took away the parking that w
finned for the commercial marina so they recognized there was not parking. Th
ain extended the same kind of shared relationship that was started with the first ti
)perties (Coves and Shark Island Yacht Club) to encompass all three properti
cause there is one Harbor Permittee which is The Irvine Company at the time; tt
is the arrangement of the City.
Harp noted he concurs with the analysis.
McDermott of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, noted
ig contained within a PowerPoint presentation:
An aerial of the project site depicting the property line as mapping the
ownership; however, the area controlled goes out 18 feet seaward of the ex
Page 6 of 35
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/2112005
Planning Commission Minutes 1 ] 103/2005
bulkhead. The US bulkhead is seaward 18 feet of the existing bulkhead.
control was granted to the applicant through a Grant Deed from The Ir
Company. The submerged land portion is not subdivided and that is why
property line is shown on the land portion of the site and not out 18 feet.
. The project consists of replacing the existing apartments with custom home
and the bayfront public walkway. We are ensuring that public access is prov
and enhanced.
. In the event that this were to be removed and the walkway was moved, then
would allow for some additional water area that would allow for slips of a slight
different configuration. That would have to go through the City and the Coast
Commission in order to occur. We understand that
. If has been confirmed that the triangular piece of land at the end of the walkway i
owned by the applicant. The walkway will be straightened out allowing fc
landscaping and a sign that enhances the availability of the public walkway. It wi
also provide for ADA access.
. The existing walkway will be enhanced by the remounting of lighting along It
existing handrails and the removal of the cleats that allow for the side ties. V
will construct an additional hand rail so there will be handrails on both sides with
clear access of 6 feet along with the handicap access ramps.
. She noted a submitted letter indicating the dock walkway meeting the intent
requirements of the Coastal Act, the Subdivision Map Act, the Calif(
Constitution as well as the City's Local Coastal Plan.
. Two exhibits showing grade elevations of the proposed homes on the Pr
Bay Front and the North Bay Front facing Balboa isiand were discussed.
. An exhibit showing the vehicular turning areas on lots 9 and 15 was discussed.
. A Harbor Permit requires the boat slips to be operated as a residential mar
and restricted to these lots. We accept that condition and understand it. T
Permit will be transferred to the Homeowners' Association with the provision
maintenance and permanent public access.
. The site plan depicting the gating at the entrance with public access along
entire site was discussed.
nmissioner Eaton noted the concern of more open space between Bayside C
I the homes to be outside of the walls as opposed to behind the walls. If
nmission agrees to have 10 feet outside the wall and allow a 5 foot setback bel
wall, would that be agreeable?
McDermott answered that they had agree to a 10 foot setback behind the wall,
Commission had determined at the last meeting, and also we would have
mum of 4 feet along the street. We have found out subsequently that where
assumed the property line was immediately behind the existing sidewalk
aide we found that the City's property line varied and we had between 2 and 6 h
nd the sidewalk before the property line. What we discussed with staff is that 1
Id have an agreement that would allow us to landscape the City's property
Page 7 of 35
file: //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21 12005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
unction with our property and add 4 feet to that. It would result in between 2 and
of existing area that can be landscaped adding 4 feet to that so it would 1
Teen 6 and 10 feet of landscape area along that frontage. Allowing the 110 fo
ack for the property owner would set the homes further away from Bayside: Drip
that is what we would prefer.
m Toerge asked about the heights of the pads and if the conditions
with those.
McDermott answered the text in the PC refers to these conditions. She noted
language describes the existing conditions so that they would be replicated with
r development. She offered to clarify the language if it would be helpful.
1. Campbell noted the Tentative Maps show pad elevations and they are within ten
the existing elevations. The interior pad elevations are not included. Referring
m 9 on handwritten page 30, it was decided that this language will be re- worked
;lude the existing conditions and the interior lot pad elevations.
Cole asked about the landscape on the parkway on Bayside Drive.
Campbell noted that we will add a provision about the landscape in the conditions.
Henn asked about the floating walkway and the docks. Is
association responsible for the maintenance of the walkway and
McDermott answered that is correct.
3mmissioner Henn noted that if The Irvine Company decides there can not be
ilkway over their property I clearly understand the concept of moving the walkway
feet, but, doesn't that raise perhaps an untenable burden on the homeowne
sociation to have to move the walkway and the docks because they are responsit
r the maintenance of the docks and the walkway? It seems the solution as propose
es not make sense and I would propose to add an 'or' to that the applicant wot
ek to get an easement from The Irvine Company to maintain the current positionii
the walkway and the docks.
McDermott noted this could be a burden on the homeowners association. T
is we have various documents that have given us the right to this. We think t
ce of losing that right from The Irvine Company because of the way they ha
ted those rights, is minimal. However, the City wanted a fail safe and as a result
we felt we could live with the condition as it was written. To the extent we <
i' to re -do the Harbor Permit and possible relocation of docks would be done
.rate action.
Harp noted they have a significant argument that they have the right to maintain
kway as is. What we were looking for was a condition that basically the City d
have to be involved with rights issues.
imissioner Henn noted that if their rights do seem to be substantially, but pert
absolutely defined, it seems reasonably like it wouldn't be a big leap for
ament to be granted.
Page 8 of 35
file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21 12005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
Harp answered that it may have been the intent for The Irvine Company to give
rights to it so it may not be difficult for them to obtain the easement but there is t
riction as far as posing obligations where a third party needs to consent to it
is why we didn't leave it as just an easement alone.
Hawkins, referring to condition 12, asked who will own
McDermott noted their request was to add language, 'leased or owned' because
ownership condition and lessee condition.
Campbell noted we can use the language that is suggested.
missioner Hawkins noted he was in favor of that as some of the utilities can
A by separate companies. He wants it to be clear that the ownership is not
as the lease is held by the HOA and there will be no liability to the City.
rson Toerge noted his notes from the last meeting (with a straw vote) show tl
access was to be widened concurrent with an offer of dedication of land as
of compromise. He asked why there wasn't a dedication of land and tt
I is for 6 feet widening.
McDermott noted that the width of the dock was based on the Coastal Commis:
erence that structures not be added to increase the shadow that goes over
ar which would effect the life of the plant material and /or the setting of the wit
lives in the water. Our thought was that if we could effectively increase i
oving the obstructions that perhaps that met the intent of what the Commission
Jng for. So, we added to the safety and to the width without actually widening
k, which would then necessitate a separate Coastal Development Permit for I
Harbor Resources and the Coastal Commission. It was our proposal in the he
would meet with what you were asking for, but ,it clearly did not increase
sical reasons for those reasons.
tinuing, she noted that she did not understand that the straw vote indicated
ig support for a dedication of land. When we worked with staff and the C
mey's office there was a sense that provided we strengthen the access, that may
met the intent of what the Commission was saying. Perhaps you need to seek tf
flcation, but that is the way I read it.
imissioner McDaniel noted the condition referring to minimal lighting.
Ilection about the discussion on the widening would be to have some lighting
it would be useable as opposed to just security.
McDermott answered that the intent was to make it so minimal as to be both s
I attractive at night time. It is such the people along Balboa Island facing i
perry, or people who live in proximity on our side, don't want a lot of lights do
re. The intent was to place them on the dock railing in such a way that they wo
out of the way from a walking standpoint but provide the appropriate amount
t. It is clearly the intent to make it safe and appropriate for those purposes. We c
R with staff to make sure that happens.
comment was opened.
Page 9 of 35
file: //HAPlancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
comment was closed.
Toerge then identified key topics for purposes of organizing the discussion:
1. lateral access - land or floating
2. setbacks
3. landscape plan and architectural guidelines
4. tum- around designs for lots 9, 15 and 3
5. include in the PC Development Regulations the disposition of Lot A
6. pad elevations
7. FAR and how to calculate
8. improvements allowed in the setback areas
9. condition 4 regarding drainage on the property
missioner Hawkins noted:
1. Lighting study that is approved by the City.
2. Ownership or lease verbiage in condition 12.
Toerge addressed the first issue, lateral access:
. The issue of lateral access is whether it is provided on land or on the lloatinl
access and whether the floating access is adequate and meets the requirement;
of the Coastal Act. He then cited from the Coastal Commission summary of staf
report Chapter 3, 43.3.1.1 -11. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate
an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causinc
or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easemen
shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landwarc
to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection o
sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe
of bluff). This tells me the access has to be on land, regardless of what other
people have suggested. He then discussed the possibility of redevelopment o
the subject and adjacent properties. He disagreed with the applicant's assertior
that there is a remote chance that the Cove condominium development wouk
ever be redeveloped. He countered that the Cove Condominium development wil
certainly be redeveloped at some point in the future because 'ever is a long time.
He pointed out that just 10 short years ago the thought that the subject project
which contemplates the demolition of 65 high end rental units to be replaced with
17 custom home sites, was at that time considered infeasible. Who is to say
when the Coves and the Newport beach Yacht Club will be redeveloped, enablinc
a continuous land based bay front walkway from Bayside Drive to the Marine
Avenue bridge? He then referenced an exhibit depicting the lateral coasta
access easements throughout the City, sever of which currently end in dead ends
but one day will connect to one another. This body is responsible for planning anc
file : //H:1Ptancomm120051110305.htm
Page 10 of 35
11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11103/2005 Page 11 of 35
this chairman is attempting to do that with this by requiring this easement across
the land enabling it to connect with other land based bay front easements that wil
be developed in the future. Staff then showed the exhibit that was explained am
discussed. In conclusion, he noted it is the Commission's responsibility for the
benefit of the community to follow the Code and to maintain this lateral access of
the land despite for it's potential in the short term, to look somewhat disjointed.
There are some people who don't want to walk down a ramp to use the access.
(he gave examples). His objection to the floating access is that it is not consisten
with our charge to uphold the requirements of the Coastal Act as they apply tc
new development. As I recall the straw vote taken last time, the Commission
voted for 10 feet in width and an offer of dedication on the land so that some poin
in time when future land access was available it could be built on the land.
imissioner Henn noted his recollection of the straw vote did not include
iirement for a conditional dedication on the land for the walkway, but perhaps sl
verify that one way or the other.
Harp noted it may be best to take another straw vote on this issue.
mtinuing, Commissioner Henn noted that the floating walkway is a superior solutic
the location of a walkway on the land. If the walkway is located on the land with
ad end at the far end, there will still be a ramp. The language in the Local Coast
in may or may not be the same language. I am sure there will be a sentiment for
ig time that we preserve and enhance public access to the shoreline and I agree
it. As to the specific language that interprets that thought, that may change ov
ie. For all of those reasons I am less concerned that the walkway be located
Nided for a dedication on land.
immissioner McDaniel noted as a member of the Local Coastal Committee he ii
ite aware of how much they have gone through to have access available to water fo
eryone here in Newport Beach. I am happy that we have the access so long as it is
:It lit, the fact that it is no longer 10 feet wide, I can accept that. I just want it wick
ough so that everyone can use it and enjoy that aspect. Whether it floats, landwar(
seaward, I don't care, it is access and adequate to me. I am happy with the way it is
)mmissioner Cole noted his concurrence with comments of Commissioner McDaniel.
its project provides significant access both vertical and lateral. The enhancement;
oposed are good ones and will create an attractive walkway for the community. It is
large burden to ask the applicant in effect to what would basically be a redesign o
e entire plan when the alternative seems to be relatively reasonable and attractive.
missioner Hawkins noted the previous comments. He stated that the City's D
I Coastal Plan Section 3.1.1 -11 requires an offer to dedicate an easement
c lateral access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing
rse public access. What we have here is existing adequate public access t
are enhancing. I don't believe we can make those findings. I would be concert
it requiring the access on land due to the proximity of the public acca
sdiately adjacent to a residential community. He affirmed he is in favor of
ng walkway with the enhancements.
imissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the other Commissioners. He added
this project wilt have to go in front of the Coastal Commission and if
pretation of their language is different than our interpretation, then the applic
file: //14:1Plancomm\200511 1 03 05.btm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 12 of 35
Will have to deal with that.
and slips.
immissioner Cole affirmed with staff that the residents of the Cove Condoi
mplex can not rent the slips associated with this project due to the limited ava
parking and that anyone who is currently renting slips will have to move.
tissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the irrevocable offer to dedicate (IOD)
access easement for a floating walkway landward. He suggested the followii
age to comply with the suggested changes by the City Attorney: "The applica
record either an irrevocable offer to dedicate a public access easement for
g walkway landward of the bulkhead line (to be identified) or, an easement ov
:isting floating walkway" The alternative is important to have.
Harp noted the language will be re- worked if the Commission allows for the opt
an easement in the existing condition as opposed to the irrevocable offer
in Toerge noted the two bulkhead lines need to be clearly identified
to prevent further confusion.
agreed.
from Bayside.
Eaton noted the following:
. Referring to the exhibit he stated that at one point the setback is zero at the
end and along the entirety of lot 1 on the east end it is actually 1 1/4
whereas most of the project setback is 5 -6 feet total.
Frontage along Bayside is important and he wants to have at least 10 feet
between the City right -of -way and the property in front of the wall without h;
to require the houses to be moved further back.
He suggested language, "Without requiring additional home setbacks
requiring at least 10 feet of landscaping be provided between the back of
sidewalk in front of the wall."
Toerge asked about the disposition of the current City trees on site now.
Campbell answered those trees will be removed to put in the
Henn asked who is correct? The applicant stated that then: was between 2 and
of distance between the sidewalk and the property line; or, is Commissioner Eat
71s. Temple noted Commissioner Eaton is correct in the sense that at exactly one poin
he sidewalk and the property line are co- terminus and it is at the far western part of th
roperty. For the greater portion of the property it is a minimum of 2 feet. Lot 1
astedy of the entrance appears to be 1.25 feet for that stretch.
file: / /H:\Plancomm \2005\ 110305.htm 11/21 /2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
McDermott noted that 1.25 is accurate and that at the westerly end the way
i their landscaping and the property line connect with the enhancement of 1
caping where the sign will go, that point where it reaches zero is expanded it
we are going to be providing anyway. So, it is not zero at that point in effect. C
)sal is 4 feet plus the 1.25 at the easterly end and then it gets larger as it gc
resulting in a total width of 9 -10 feet at some points.
visions of the landscape being 10 feet from the sidewalk with 3 feet setb
the homes. Following the discussion a straw vote was to approve as proposed.
the landscape plans and the architectural design scheme.
a discussion, the straw vote was to designate the Planning Director
review of the turn- around plans for lots 9 and 15.
McDermott, referring to the exhibit, explained lot 9 at the southwesterly comer
site configuration.
,ing a discussion on the driveway lengths, turning radii, and distances it v
that a condition is included whereby the Public Works Department will review
al circulation and parking scheme that will be conducted by the applicant.
Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted the reason the condition is there is
pure that the standards the City require are to be met. What is shown for the first I
y be suitable, but the one shown for the second lot is rather contorted as it is off;
n the garage door and makes the backing maneuver like an 's' curve.
irperson asked if the lot configuration had to change to accommodate this, we
then come back to the Planning Commission?
Campbell answered it would depend on the nature of the change. This lot could
le wider to accommodate and it could be determined to be in substar
formance and would not need to be brought back. However, if there was a lar
nge to the plan, staff would make that judgment after review of the plan.
s. McDermott added that they will be happy to work with the Traffic Engineer in
resolve the issue.
Commission agreed.
i Toerge noted in the PC Development regulations for the use of lot A
i page 29 does not include lot A. Should it be included in this table
for the use that is planned for?
Campbell answered this can be done. It is referenced on handwritten page 29
Statistical Analysis that refers to lot A as a common recreation area and it
:ribed in the project description that all the lettered lots are common and
ided to accommodate common amenities and other improvements and are r
Dlopabte for residences. We could do something if you want. It was determined r
Page 13 of 35
file: //H:1Plancomm12005\110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 14 of 35
Building pad elevations to be within 112 foot of existing grade.
Commission was satisfied.
floor area ratio issue.
Campbell affirmed that the floor area is calculated by deducting from the gross
is, the setbacks and then multiplying it times the FAR. The proposed FAR for
ect is 1.75.
oner Eaton noted the language was not in the PC text, which becomes
document.
Lepo noted it was on handwritten page 29 in footnote 2.
2 -foot walls.
Campbell answered the provision is the exception to the height of fences and wa
�re the front wall of the house could extend perpendicular to the side property Iii
i the front wall of the house to the side property line a maximum of 12 feet. It is
litectural feature the applicant wants to provide.
Temple added that this type of feature has become very popular with side
inces. The material used for these features would be R2 rated.
and barbecues 4 feet in setbacks from side yards and/or
,ner Henn clarified that this also includes the ability to build a 10 -foot hig
Staff clarified. He noted that would not be appropriate due to safel
McDaniel noted he could not support this.
i Toerge stated this should be subject to a modification permit. To
approval here is not the appropriate maneuver.
Campbell noted that built -in barbecues are typically taller than the maximum heig
are fairly common with the outdoor living spaces people are providing. It is
imon modification request and are permitted more often. The fireplaces are
gent matter. Staff is not comfortable with those either and feel that modificatio
nits should be required. However, adding the low built in gas barbecues that a
V common, staff asks that this be included as they generally do not present a
merits.
Toerge noted there is a mechanism for the fireplaces to be reviewed
Henn suggested that any structure above five foot would require
Campbell noted this can be established with the PC text regulation.
file: //H:\Plancomm\2005\1 10305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
could accommodate that and the typical barbecues meet that height.
would be regulated.
Temple noted this has come up during discussion with the Councilmembers.
:tion has been given to staff, but much commentary has been given to allo,
lecues up to a limit height of 5 feet.
wing a discussion on permanently installed
aces will be dealt with separately through th e
foot height with a four foot setback from
mission agreed.
4 - on site drainage.
barbecues, it was determined th
modifications process and up to
the property line would not. TI
drain pipe apparent at low tide water source is undetermined. Staff offered it n
a storm drain and following a brief discussion noted that all requirements and W.,
ality Control Board and NPDES regulations will be met so that no drainage will
> the bay.
access completion.
noted, and the applicant agreed, that there will be a condition including
time and prior to the certificate of occupancy.
ditlon 12 suggested language change.
on -site common area improvements such as parks, docks, entry gates and entry,
-site drainage sanitary sewer, water, and electrical systems shall be leased
ned, operated and maintained by the HOA.
missioner Hawkins noted his concern of the lighting on the floating dock and of
idual residents that may create spill /glare problems across the bay. He asked
come up with a condition.
Temple noted there is a condition of approval in the City's standard requirement
icing a Photometric Study to make sure that light spillage and glare are addressed.
nmissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the environmental document. He asked
Planning Commission agreed that land use analysis will include the change for tt
text? The Commission agreed.
Temple noted staff will prepare an addendum and have it completed for
Lepo noted the following changes during the Commission's discussion to
.d in the motion:
. Environmental document language will be edited on pages 26 and 27.
. Changes on the handout materials: Conditions 10, 12, 22 and 34 changes will
made.
Page 15 of 35
file : //H:1Plancomm\2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 16 of 35
1 . U.S. Bulkhead line determination.
• Add /changeldelete provisions where previously called for applicant to landscal
and maintain the weed lot that is now part of the applicant's lot.
• Add condition requiring applicant to landscape area at Bayside Drive on lots
and D as maintained by the HOA.
• Planning Director will review landscaping and architectural design guidelines.
• Quantify condition requiring Public Works to approve the turn arounds for lots 3,
and 15.
• Pad elevation - language in PC text as in Tentative Tract Map.
• Provision in PC text relative to barbecues within 4 feet of property line and up to
feet in height.. No fireplaces.
• Added condition requiring enhancements on dock in reference to the exhit
regarding timing.
• An irrevocable offer of dedication will be provided regarding the frontage area.
ion was made by Commissioner McDaniel, using the recommended language
with changes proposed by the Commission, to recommend approval of Cc
:ndment No. 2005 -007, Use Permit No. 205 -026m Tract Map No. 2004 -001 (T
15323) and Coastal Residential development No. 2005 -001 to the City Council.
irperson Toerge noted that this is a quality project; however, the City has
lation to follow the Coastal Act and given my interpretation of it, I won't
)orting the motion.
- sioner Henn asked if we are violating the terms of the Coastal Act by
as proposed.
r. Harp answered the language is added to the plan. The focus is whether or not th(
sw shorefront development is contributing or causing adverse public access impacts.
ie determination could go either way. This will go to the Coastal Commission to
)proval /denial and they will require what access they deem appropriate if differen
an City's determination. It is not a violation to proceed with this action.
yes:
Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Hawkins and Henn
oes:
Toerge
bsent:
Tucker
bstain:
None
k • k
Following a brief intermission the Commission resumed with Commissioner Tucker
taking his place.
John Walter Velardo (PA2004 -274) ITEM NO. 3
3809 Channel Place I PA2004 -274
file: //li:\Plancomrn\2005 \110305.htm 11/21 /2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03 /2005
Page 17 of 35
jest a Variance to the maximum allowable floor area and minimum required open space Approved
ie construction of a 988 sq. ft. residence on a 1,034 sq. ft. lot. The application also
ests a Modification Permit to allow the proposed residence to encroach within the front,
and rear setbacks.
r. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the property is presently
aveloped with a two -car garage and the applicant wishes to construct a 2 -story
.sidence with a 2 -car garage on the ground floor and it will be approximately 988
auare feet in total area. The variance is required due to the application of setbacks to
e subject property resulting in no buildable area. A modification for setbacks is also
iquired due to the fact that the lot has physical difficulties in facilitating construction of
iy kind. There are reasonable arguments to both approve and deny the applications.
Certificate of Compliance had been granted to this property as required by the
ubdivision Map Act; however, it does not grant any particular development rights and
does simply indicate that the lot can be financed and sold. What needs to be
atermined, at this time, is the design and amount of square footage, and the location
`the building that is appropriate for this lot, or is something smaller for this lot or
aving the lot as is with the existing two -car garage as developed.
Toerge asked about the Certificate of Compliance.
Harp answered that a Certificate of Compliance is a remedy for properties that are
nveyed in violation of the Map Act and in essence is a means to bring a property into
mpliance with the Map Act. However, it is not an optional item for the City to issue.
st because a Certificate of Compliance has been issued does not give them the right
develop a property, or have a right to a building permit, it simply brings them into
mpliance with the Map Act so that they can sell or lease the parcel. No development
hts are given.
;loner McDaniel asked about a letter received regarding water pipes under this
connecting to another property.
Campbell answered there is a water line under the garage itself that serves the
scent property that is the portion of the larger lot that was subdivided off in 1960. A
ate easement had been created with this transaction for the southerly three feet of
lot. The project, as proposed to be redeveloped, would create the three foot
>ack and maintain that water line free of obstructions. The project does adhere to
private easements of 1960.
missioner Tucker asked about the lot and what can be done with it. We have a lot
has effectively been created out of something that was not legal to begin with, now
Bone has come forward asking for a variance to build on this legal lot. Isn't that oui
;tion that something can be built on it before we worry about what it is? How did it
ime legal, assuming it is zoned? Are you saying you wouldn't be able to build on it
r. Campbell answered that if there was a project that could be built on this lot without
variance, or a setback modification, we would be issuing a permit for that structure.
ou can build on it, but in this case, a variance and modification pen-nit are required.
Temple noted that there currently is a two-car garage on the property. That
alopment, while it doesn't comply with the setback requirements or the floor area
s just as the proposed home and new garage does not, it does exist and doesn't
file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 0 5.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 18 of 35
!et a building permit in order to stay in existence. In and of itself it does represent a
able economic use of the property and can be rented to anyone in the neighborhood
provide supplemental parking, and /or sold to one of the bayfront property owners
d used to support that bayfront development through an off-site parking agreement
d allow the actual bayfront structure to be expanded in floor area. There are other
iys to use the property economically without building a house on it.
immissioner Toerge noted that if we didn't need a variance then somebody could
me in and apply for a building permit. The lot is a legal lot that we would have to
;ue a permit for it.
s. Temple answered yes, but because of the absence of any buildable area today, if
by tore the existing garage down, they would need a variance for anything.
)mmissioner Tucker noted there are other lots in the City where the Districting Map
es one way and at the end of the block and the house is oriented another way you
d up with zero building area as well. It is a legal lot and to me this is why you do
riances because you can end up with no building area on a legal lot and the question
what is reasonable?
John Velardo, applicant, noted he has owned the property for 23 years. It has
en his dream to build a beach house on it for his family to use. They have hired an
:hhect and will be complying with the City's requirements and will be maintaining the
me footprint as the existing garages. There will be no larger dwelling than is there
w. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has read and understand the conditions of
proval.
>mmissioner Tucker noted an email from James Hazelton who contended that the
ilding of this house would somehow deny access to his garage. Would staff confirm
a answer to the email.
Campbell noted that the location of the structure is not within the private easement
�a that is for the benefit of the adjacent property. Now, does the proposal create
me other impediment that the owner might feel, I don't know, but the building itself is
t in the easement area. The two garages (referring to the one proposed and the one
the abutting property) come at 90 degrees to each other, so the only time they
wld conflict is if they were to be used at the same time.
Campbell added a condition relative to the interior dimension of the garage needs
be rectified as it is off by 6 inches. The plans will need to be revised to assure a
nimum interior depth as required by the Municipal Code.
)mmissioner Hawkins asked what the current use of the garage is.
Velardo answered the current use is storage, no vehicles are involved.
iblic comment was opened.
argie Kirstein, property owner of 505 and 505 112 38th Street, referring to the vicinity
tp, stated her properties are the ones most affected by this project. She noted her
position to this project:
. The setbacks are extreme and do not allow for any kind of air space.
file: //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 0305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
• The density, which originally was one lot, will now have three units on the original
R2.
• This lot does not meet the 1,200 square foot minimum, and, at one point this
development comes within 12 inches of the property line and sidewalk.
• There is a right to develop the property, but not to just any standard the owner
wants.
• The garage space is currently rented.
Prince, resident and homeowner, noted the following:
• Both he and his brother support this application.
• The island as a whole will benefit from this upgrade.
comment was closed.
iissioner Cole asked about the third finding for a variance, if this is a granting of a
it privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. The
area of approximately 988 square feet that is below the floor to land area ratio
!d in the vicinity, is that correct?
Campbell noted staff looked at other properties in the area and calculated the floor
i to lot area ratio of those houses as a way to compare the amount of floor area
ig requested. What is proposed is proportionally lower and would support the
ing that the approval is not the granting of a special privilege to the property owner.
lissioner Cole asked if this was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
intial property rights of the applicant. This has been operating for 20 some odd
as a garage with the same basic use, is that correct? I am trying to make the
Is that are important to grant the variance.
Campbell noted this garage has been there since 1960 with the same basic use
has never changed.
3irperson Toerge referring to condition 7 says that, ....... the garage shall remain
iilable for parking of vehicles at all times....' There is very little storage in the house
4f, and I think that condition should be enhanced to, '....shall only remain available
the parking of operable and legally registered vehicles at all times...'
Velardo agreed that would be acceptable.
Tucker noted:
• Variance requests are usually received to redo a structure.
• It is necessary for a substantial property right.
• How this came into existence, they are all over town, but compared to other
variances, this one certainly falls within that category.
• The question is, is it too much house for the space involved?
• It passes the test that we typically apply.
Jon was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the variance request and the
iification permit for PA2004 -274 with the conditions attached with the changes of
minimum interior depth of the garage is per the Municipal Code and to have
dition 7 stipulate that it is operable, registered vehicles being parked in that garage.
Page 19 of 35
file: //H:1Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 20 of 35
;ommissioner Eaton noted we have had a number of applications where the back ends
f lots have been quartered off. This lot is different from those as they have been done
efore the Map Act took affect so they were grandfathered and therefore, not illegal at
e time of 'cutting'. This lot is one of the tiniest lots the Commission has seen and is a
angular and therefore less useable. It is further encumbered by two different
asements. My concern is that if we validate what has occurred here, that someone
oes out and cuts of illegally their lot, then someone (a subsequent) buyer applies for a
ertificate of Compliance, which makes it legal to transfer or at least finance or lease.
Vhy wouldn't this be a precedent to someone else looking to do a similar transaction?
would hate to encourage that scenario and therefore I do not support this application.
imissioner McDaniel note he agrees with the previous comments. He added that
r variances have been granted on properties that had a house already on it and
were applying for some type of parity to make it something useable. This one is
rent where it has always been a garage and I think they have viable economic use
this does not take away anything that they had before. I think this would set a
edent and therefore am not in support of this application. It is a congested area
it is my opinion that the garage will be a living space, with a ping pong table, then
etc. I don't think it will be used for parking in this congested area.
;sioner Tucker asked if somebody decided to pare off their lot and sell and
it to somebody else, would we have to issue a Certificate of Compliance under
version of the Subdivision Map Act?
Harp answered was answered yes.
Campbell added that if there was a project to develop with that scenario, then staff
ild condition that Certificate of Compliance with all current standards of the
division Code.
r. Harp added that if there was a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and the owner
,ked for a Certificate of Compliance, the City would have to give it to them. Whether
not you have to let them develop, you don't. Basically you do not have to give them
variance or a building permit. However, you condition the project to comply with the
jbdivision Map Act. There are other penalties with doing it that are not tied to the
artificate of Compliance. Because this is an undersized lot, they need a variance
;cause right now they can not build anything on it. Whether you give them that, it is
wr discretion. It is not a 'takings' issue because they are already using the lot for a
;rage that has a viable economic use.
followed.
iairperson Toerge noted that there are some extraordinary and exceptional
cumstances here. In terms of the substantial property rights, it is zoned residential, i'
not zoned for "garage ". In order to enjoy that substantial property right, allowing the
iplicant to build a house for residential purposes seems to be consistent with that. I t
consistent with the Code and does not damage anybody or creates any safety
;ues. He is support of the motion.
Cole noted he agrees with the Chairman and is in support of the
(Commissioner Henn noted we do not have the perpetrator before us, I am sympathetic I I
file J /HAPlanconun120051110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 21 of 35
o the current owners situation. I visited the site and I don't believe the proposed plan
s inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
01ammissioner Tucker asked what year the Map Act was adopted.
4hrr. Harp answered that it was 1971 when it was actually codified, but it goes back to
e 1800's.
Mr. Campbell added that the City established subdivision standards and in 1959 the
Code was changed to require parcel maps reviewed by the Commission if the lots that
ere suggested didn't meet the minimum parcel size, which this lot does not. This
ivision would have required a map in 1959 if the division happened in 1960.
Commissioner Hawkins noted that the finding on the certificate of compliance say that
you issue the certificate but the Planning Director states that the above described real
property does not comply with the applicable provisions, nevertheless, pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act what we are creating is an identifiable parcel that we can track.
The arguments presented tonight are very important, but this parcel is too small and
Newport Island has a host of problems that this project would exacerbate and so he
can not support the motion.
yes: ole, Toerge, Tucker and Henn
Eoes: Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins
bsent: None
bstain: None
Brookfield Homes (PA2004 -251) ITEM NO.4
1301 Quail I PA2005 -251
ookfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi- family residential condominium units Continued to
hin 7 buildings that will be 45 feet in height with floor plans ranging from 900 -1,950 December 8,
uare feet on a 3.7 -acre site located at the southeast comer of the intersection at 2005
ruse street and Quail Street in the Airport Area. A General Plan Amendment is
)posed that would change the land use designation of the property from Retail
:rvice Commercial to Multi- Family Residential. An amendment of the Newport Place
finned Community is sought to change the use of the site from a 304 unit extended
iy hotel to multi - family housing. The changes to the Planned Community district
julations will establish use and development regulations for the proposed
ndominium project. A tentative tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the to
establish 86 condominium units.
Lawrence, City's consultant case planner for this project, gave an overview of
report, noting:
. Proyect consists of 7 buildings up to 45 high within a 'U' shape with garage
located partially below grade.
The applicant is asking for Commission comments and questions and then
continuance to November 17 for further review and a forwarding of
recommendation to the City Council.
. The project will be changed from a retail and service commercial to a m
residential designation.
file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 22 of 35
. The zoning amendment would add provisions for residential development to th
Newport Place PC regulations. These residential standards were derived by sta
from the submitted site plan as shown on the wall. II
. The changes would include from a hotel to a multi - family residential, reducing I
building height from 60 to 45 feet, and establishing development standards
accommodate the project as submitted. Reduction in building height and ove
use will have positive benefits in terms of building mass and traffic generation.
. The setbacks from Quail Street and Spruce Street average about 13 feet.
setbacks may not be enough to provide visual relief and adequate lar
buffering. The interior of the project is taken up by paving and building a
which does not leave ample room for landscaping.
. The 217 space garage and other parking spaces provided on site, meet the
Zoning Code numerical standards. Those spaces include 72 tandem garage
spaces. If the spaces provided do not satisfy that demand in actual usage, there
is no permitted on- street parking on surrounding streets to absorb the overflow.
Therefore, if there is overflow, parking facilities for adjacent office developmen
may be impacted.
To address these concerns, In August of 2005, the applicant commissioned
parking study for the project by the IBI Group. That study concluded that bas
on the requirements set forth by the City of Newport Beach, this project v
supply sufficient parking to meet the estimated demand generated by resider
and guests.
He noted that in addition to the benefits of the project listed in the report,
applicant has submitted arguments in favor of the project and are attached to
report as exhibit 3.
. The central issue of this project is the land use. Is it appropriate and desirable
establish residential land use at the proposed location? That issued is address
by the pros and cons contained within the staff report.
. Project design is secondary to the land use issue. If appropriate, the
design and setbacks if acceptable, warrant approval.
. The opportunity to provide in -fill housing opportunities near a major er
center and to improve the job housing balance in the area is a powerful
in favor of the project.
• Because of the concentration of office and commercial uses, the area is hear
impacted by peak hour traffic at present. The change in land use would result
less peak hour traffic generation than the existing hotel designation on t
property.
• Potential problems are inherent in establishing a residential designation on o
parcel surrounded by office and commercial development without a coordim
plan for a residential development in the airport area.
. Staff asks the Commission for public input and deliberate on the analysis
continue this item to November 17th to allow further consideration of the or
file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
and the forwarding of a recommendation to the City Council.
Campbell added:
. Staff prepared and placed a memo about the traffic study. We discovered that wE
used the wrong trip generation rates for the study prepared for the project. It ove
predicted a.m. traffic and under predicted p.m. traffic (less than a dozen trips).
We prepared an analysis and arrived at the same conclusion that there would bi
no impact to traffic.
. There is a set of CC and R's for Newport Place, which presently prohibit this la
use in this area. The applicant would need to seek and obtain an amendment
those CC and R's, which is the group owners would all have to agree to (70 %).
. Staff believes the central focus for tonight is the land use if appropriate then
on to the design and other technical points.
Henn asked:
. Is it premature to be discussing this project as we are in the midst and in
advanced stage of considering a General Plan update, which includes this
as one of the critical study areas for land use?
iairperson Toerge answered that we have had a project such as this that is 'outside
the box'. For instance we had a preliminary presentation with the Lexus Dealershif
>ject and other relatively complicated projects in an effort to give the applicant ant
iff some direction as to how we are leaning so they do not pursue a path and spent
kff and applicant time pursuing a path that the Commission does not agree with.
ey are appropriate for that reason.
McDaniel noted that if this did not happen then the item gets contin
Tucker asked:
One of the things to be covered at the next General Plan Update land i
session will be the airport area. Why shouldn't we wait until the policy decision
housing in the airport is made?
• He asked for a color /materials board, a marking of elevations and a copy of
roof plan.
• He then asked why Spruce Street is a four land street.
Lawrence said he would provide the exhibits requested at the next meeting.
Edmonston answered that Spruce Street was planned to go over the freeway
i the Spruce Street that is now blocked off.
itinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted the prohibition against street parking,
ild have one lane there to accommodate street parking and be quite comfortable
Page 23 of 35
file: //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 24 of 35
I is . Edmonston answered the concept at that time of development was no on -stree
rking and that was the standard in terms of actual demand. It could be explored an one of the issues being looked at in the General Plan update as a residential use that
uld accommodate changes to the streetscapes, whether parking or wide parkways,
Temple added that if an abandonment or lane reduction might be appropriate, tf
' could look at the Circulation Element with the thought of an amendment
)mmodate this process.
Tucker noted:
• Tandem parking has always been an issue for the Planning Commission.
• The applicant needs to explain why this item should be determined prior to
General Plan update; would this be the development plan the applicant would
forth if there was no Green Light.
. Has the Fire Department looked at the internal street circulation? He
answered yes.
. The wall along Quail Street looks to be very close to the units as well. What
the wall look like?
missioner Eaton asked if the TPO traffic study needs to be approved and, if so,
mission needs to see the study. What would the City and /or the CC and
ire if this parcel was developed in accordance with its current designation as ho
r. Lawrence answered that the current designation of hotel using the front setback
minimum of 17 1/2 feet average 30 feet, the comer lot side is a minimum of 14 1
at average 27 feet, and the interior side would be a minimum 10 feet. The avera,
wld be 30 feet for the front, which would be Quail, possibly Spruce, and for the Qu
itside, the same at almost 30 feet.
Phillip Bettencourt, speaking for the applicant, noted the following:
• This application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change to conv
the vacant, industrial site.
• The site covers approximately 3.7 acres and includes affordable housing.
• There will be easy access to recreation, businesses, shopping and freeways.
• Traffic impacts are less than significant with modes mitigation.
• Airport noise contours - we are beyond the 65 CNEL Contour Zone although
conditioning for all buildings is recommended and accepted by the applicant.
• We are consistent with the John Wayne air loop and we are waiting for receipt
our final FAA clearance.
Bartlett of Brookfield Homes, noted the following:
file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 111/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 25 of 35
i This project is an opportunity for the City to see a transformation of residential)
I land use into the airport area. He gave a brief description of his company.
. The Quail and Spruce Streets elevations are an important factor in siting th
buildings close to the street and will contribute to the street scene that will
maturing over the years.
. Referring to an exhibit, he noted the importance of the buildings orienting
the streets.
. Setbacks and vertical and horizontal separation from the right -of -way appear to
into the context of the site.
• We have a materials board that include stucco, wood siding, brick and
roofing.
• He noted the garage and tandem parking that provide for 217 spaces, of which
are tandem garage spaces within the same unit, and 167 covered spaces
additional flex space on garage level to be used for storage, home office or w
areas.
• He then explained the building unit diagrams on the various levels.
. Referring to the site plan he noted the gate access /autocourt
accesslpedestdan access.
• He then referred to the common park area.
• 17 of the 86 units are proposed for affordable housing to moderate income units,
and is a critical element in the consideration.
• This site is designated as suitable for residential development.
• He then enumerated residential uses within commercial uses in the City.
• He then noted the proximity to commercial and freeway systems.
• Benefits of the project are smart growth and new urban strategies, reduction of
traffic, this is a first step in mixed use for the airport area as well as the affordable
housing aspect.
. Our next steps are to respond to your concerns. We have some items with
Airport Land Commission and the FAA that will be dealt with as well as
concerns needing to be mitigate from the Negative Declaration as well
concerns from the Council considerations.
. There are pros and cons to this project, but this project allows for a high de
project at 23 units per acre that is consistent with the threshold of the Green I
Initiative, has no traffic impacts, no noise impacts, close to infrastructure
services. This is a modest step in the right direction for mixed use in the ai
area.
file : //H: \Plancornm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 Page 26 of 35
. Would we propose a bigger project if there was no Green Light? I don't think youl
could get a quality, bigger project here on this site for sale without increasing they
density and sacrificing what you want to do in a'for sale' project.
Foley, President of Brookfield Homes, noted:
• Market demand for housing - lower maintenance housing closer to places of
interest and travel are high in demand.
• The growing sector of young professionals who want to live closer to their work.
• Population growths along with job creation creates demand for housing.
• This project presents an opportunity for high quality convenient housing close to
places of work and benefit the community.
Comment was opened.
?I Klanian, resident, noted his support of the project as it is will be quiet at nigh
the airport shuts down and the street is not highly traveled. If the buildings are
ucted with sound proofing, the air - conditioning will be suitable to keep the noise.
D such as myself do not want the maintenance of a yard and this would be quite
Owen, noted his support of this project due to the proximity of the airport
amenities.
Minter of Los Angeles and speaking for Brookfield noted they have receiu
in support of the home ownership prospect. He distributed the letters not
its such as proximity of home to work; ownership possibilities, and creation
without using expensive land.
n Light, one of the owners at the property at 1401 Quail Street, noted his opposil
the property:
• The only exit from this project is directly across from his property.
• No on- street parking so overflow parking will be onto his parking lot.
• Impact of trash - we have commercial trash containers on site and there will
illegal dumping.
. We have single story building and if we chose to develop the property into a mi
story project, which is allowed, this sets up a situation where there will be
homeowners complaining that the project doesn't fit in the area. Now, we will
precluded from developing it within the original guidelines due to these
homeowners coming up with problems of shadow, parking, etc.
. He referred to a letter sent to the Commission and asked that these issues
addressed.
comment was closed.
file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 1.1121/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11103/2005 Page 27 of 35
`Commissioner Eaton asked if all the garage spaces were part of the condo sale to the
units and do some of the units only have one car garages, etc.?
Bartlett answered:
. 5 units have a single car garage with approximately 250 square feet of flex
on the same floor. There is an assigned second space that is uncovered ac
or as close to that unit as possible.
. In the twelve unit building there are 9 of the same type of units that have
garage spaces, although they are separate but covered.
. 36 interior spaces are tandem.
. There will be a homeowner's association that will enforce the use of the
spaces due to the high density of this project.
rperson Toerge then read the rules for extension of hours regarding new age
s being introduced after 90:30. A vote was taken to extend the time for the
on the agenda.
;r Eaton asked if the City is facing any deadlines under the
Act?
Temple answered no, this is a legislative act and is not subject to the
amlininq Act.
Eaton noted his concerns:
. This application needs to be viewed in the context of at least the
policies in the airport area land use General Plan update element.
. We may want to wait for the full Roma study which deals with how residential
fit in to the airport area.
. Setbacks - parking- allocation of open space - noise on balconies on the Bristol
Street North, may be problematic.'
mmissioner Hawkins stated he agrees with the previous concerns adding:
• Planning where this fits with the existing plan and the Roma study;
• CC and R's for the PC text;
• This application may be premature;
• If this project is approved, what happens with the Green Light issues.
Temple noted the complete charter section 423 analysis is on page 7 and S.
nmissioner Cote noted:
file: //H:\Planconun \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/2112005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 28 of 35
• Providing in -fill housing is a positive thing.
• Land use issue needs to be discussed.
I
• Parking is a concern.
• The design looks good.
mmissioner Hawkins asked how many trips are available for other developmen
ier the Charter Section 423 analysis.
Temple answered that is on page 8 in the second chart that shows the
alopment that has been approved.
Campbell noted the project would take 86 units out of the 100 trip threshold. V
Id then track 80% of those 86 for the next ten years against any other general ply
:ndments requesting residential units in the airport area. The existing land use of
room hotel and this project generates less traffic than that therefore the n
case is zero.
Toerge noted:
. Need to look at the affect of the no -street parking and the allocation of
parking.
. Noise contours from all sources and potential allowable uses on adjac
commercial properties should be considered in the design of the project on
locations.
. Traffic saving amenities may be offset from its distance from schools, parks
readily available grocer shopping and the like.
. Setbacks are a concern and he would like to see the ratio between the curre
setbacks and allowable building heights compared to the setbacks and heights
the proposed structure.
The process for the General Plan update is important.
e The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is important and needs to be reviewed.
nissioner Tucker noted his concurrence with all previous Commissior
vents noting that the land use is a threshold issue and it may not be just
le of the use but the intensity of the use as well. He would like more informa
iat the project will look like with materials board, colors, elevations, wall detail
already on the site.
McDaniel, noted:
e He is please with the affordable housing aspect of the project.
e Concerned with the tandem parking issue.
file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 111/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 31 of 35
to below 2400 miles each day. The dally haul truck trips shall not excesd�
` 2400 miles during demolition and excavation activities.
Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included in both
son Toerge, referring to page 4 of the Errata, questioned the accuracy of
coverage of 100% less setback represented in the chart.
Temple explained that appears to be allowing coverage to the buildable area of
airperson Toerge asked it the construction works parking was addressed in the EIR?
was answered, no.
Fuller noted that generally during construction, the workers park on the site.
ever, there is no formal analysis.
Temple stated this is not a matter of environmental review, rather it is a matter
Building Department and the Public Works Department as the grading plan
roved and the project building permits are approved. If there is a thought thi
it be a parking problem, we would ask the contractor to identify how that would
caged so there would not be on- street impacts.
ring, Chairperson Toerge noted there is a discussion on what to do when
leave the site. Considering the water quality issues, could we specify
ng is the means of cleaning the street and disallow hosing down the streets.
Temple answered yes.
Jerson Toerge, referring to page 346 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the housing stock and vacancy percentage.
Temple answered there is a very high vacancy rate because of the high number
and homes; turnover in the rental stock, and that is what the Census tells us.
alee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, n
the Marriott Hotel has been going through an extensive renovation. As part of
rt they seek to acquire a Residential Development on the property adjacent to
;I on land utilized as tennis courts. This would provide an opportunity to bring
sale' homes in the Newport Center. She then introduced her team members.
sd that Lennar has reviewed all the conditions in the staff report and mitig2
asures and are in agreement to all.
White of Government Solutions, noted the following during a
. Aerial photo of the site location.
As part of the Marriott renovation it became apparent that the tennis courts
no longer being used.
. The proposed project is 4.25 acre site with 79 luxury condominiums.
file://14:\Plancomxn\2005%110305.htm 11121/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 32 of 35
. The proposed project will be going through the Coastal Commission for their
f determination following approval of the applications.
• This is a unique residential opportunity in Newport Center.
• We are requesting that we have a maximum height of 65 feet while we
allowed up to 375 in the high rise district.
• The FAR on the site is 1.9; which includes the 100% subterranean garage.
• We have 201 spaces provided, 198 required, which is 2 spaces per resident w
1/2 space per guest.
• The guest spaces are equally distributed throughout the garages to coordinate
the units they are intended to serve and are not grouped in one specific area.
• The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in June of this year
reviewing a number of areas such as air quality and no significant impacts were
identified as a result of the project.
• The surrounding neighbors would be the Colony Apartments across the stree
the Marriott on one side, and the country club on the other side.
• We are having on -going discussions with the country club on coordination, sale
disclosures and CC and R's protect both the residents and the golf course.
tin Buchta, MVE, speaking for the applicant, noted the following on the project site:
• Site is constrained on the Santa Barbara edge by 15 -20 feet of grade fall to tt
golf course edge.
• The building will be stepped up with a 2 and 3 story Type 5 construction over or
level of a parking garage.
. The architecture is Mediterranean style with smooth stucco detailing, p
surrounds on the windows, wrought iron detailing on railings and Juliet ba
and Mediterranean inspired roof details with built up fascias.
. The Santa Barbara edge has the pedestrian linkages to Fashion Island
entries to the buildings. There are wide expanses of glass and expanded c
at the lower level.
• He then explained some of the various unit layouts and floor plans.
White continued:
• This project has been in the planning and design phase for two years.
• It has received review and approval of The Irvine Company.
• It is compatible with the surrounding uses.
file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 33 of 35
. The site has two entrances off Santa Barbara for both residents and guests.
• There are two entrances off the promenade where both residents and guests
park.
• There are several access points from the units where residents and guests
egress to Fashion Island.
• She then noted exhibits views taken from a third story building and how
buildings will look along Santa Barbara, as well as from the golf course.
• They have received many inquiries as to potential buyers.
• This is a 4.25 acre site with nearly 2 acres of open space.
Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted the applicant has agreed to a condition
;y will locate 16 units of affordable housing somewhere in the City of Nev
ach. The agreement will be in place approved by the City Attorney by the issu
the certificate of occupancy.
immissioner Eaton asked about the parking designation of visitor parking; ac
strictions.
Buchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor parking designations.
ris White added that residents' parking will be behind gates and that the CC and I
to be crafted in such a way that restrict residents to only park in those spaces
as they are not able to lease those spaces out and that guest parking is specifics
ked and will be designated as 48 or 72 hour stipulation for guest parking. Guy
Jng will not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The parki
Is will be clearly marked with what building a driver is going to and spaces a
Is will have signage or something on the pillars. Guests will have some type
ne security box to be buzzed up into the building.
Cole asked what the feature that separates the golf course from
White answered that the building itself in a lot of the places acts as a fence; wher
building is open there will be a fence between the golf course and the property
ending on what the edge looks like, some of those units are 34 feet above grad
t is so they likely won't need a fence, but, in other places the golf course he
,essed their desire to have a fence. We are working on something that will b
.nable to both Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The building
approximately 15 feet back from the property line.
Commission inquiry, Ms. White noted:
They will be working on sales disclosures and CC and R's with regard to
errant golf ball and the safety rules.
. The architects are looking at special types of window materials.
. The rotunda effect are end units and allow for floor -to ceiling windows in the ends I
file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
units at that location.
e There is no common room as the residents will have the use of the Marriott.
comment was closed.
Toerge asked:
• Clarified the terminology used in the draft resolution.
• PC regulations - segregate or include a breakdown of the livable floor area an
the parking square footage so that it is clearly shown why they are over the FAR.
• Condition 39 looks to be describing a problem but not a condition.
• Condition 81 - idling of construction vehicles for 5 minutes only then they are t
be shut off.
Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building and we estat
suggested FAR in the Planned Community text to support the proposed project.
Ung noted that the condition was drafted such that the applicant has the option
%r re- locate or move it further away from that. It was agreed for condition 81.
imissioner Henn clarified in the agreement for the affordable housing, those u
be identified and available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for
Temple answered staff would want this at a minimum to be assured that they
ally in place before the City would allow occupancy.
Hawkins noted this should be made a condition.
Harp noted that this will be incorporated into the agreement and add it to
ioner Hawkins noted condition 15. The parking plan needs review
of the Public Works Department and City Traffic Engineer.
Edmonston answered that condition 46 covers review by the Traffic Engineer.
Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge recommend approval of General PI;
%mendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 20C
)01, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map h
?005 -014, Tentative tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, a
,oastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the City Coun
ind approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -169 subject to the findin
and
None
Tucker
None
Page 34 of 35
file: //H: \Plancomm\2005 \L10305.htm 11/21/2005
Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005
F-
L
Page 35 of 35
•,rs
DDITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
City Council Follow -up - none provided due to late hour.
Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developmen
Committee - none provided due to late hour
Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update
Committee - none provided due to late hour
Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan
Certification Committee - none provided due to late hour
Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - non
provided due to late hour.
Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - Commissioner Cole discussed the meeting that was held with
the City Attorney, Chairperson Toerge, Jeff Goldfarb of Rutan and Tucker and
Building Director Jay Elbettar regarding the Narconon intensification use and the
ramifications of both Federal and State legislation that govern these facilities.
Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for
action and staff report - none.
Project status - none provided due to late hour.
i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Cole will be late at the nex
meeting and Chairperson Toerge will be leaving early.
ADJOURNMENT: 12:15 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
BARRY EATON, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
00
file : //H:1Planconun1200 511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005
Page 3 of 21
be lost and they Could be cbnsbucted nearbywithln the portion of Newport Conterthat to kxaeed
within the Coastal Zone. - -
WHEREAS, the Citya General Plan Indicates that the City shall malntain suitable and
adequate standards for landscaping, sign control, site and, building design. parking and
undergrounding of utilities and other developmerd standards to ensure that the beauty and
char of existing residential nelghborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office
projects are aesthaticelly pleasing and compodbla with surrounding.land uses. The proposed
PC Text contains one classification of lend use and provides the development standards for
the entire subject property. The draft PC Text Contains development regulations for the
subject site which Includes definitions and Information Concerning requirements for
development site Coverage, building height, setbacks, off -Street parking, vehicular access,
signing, lighting, storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the project would be
oompatibte with the sumxindig land uses consistent with the objectives of the land Use
Element
WHEREAS, to be consisient with the Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the CWs
Houslrg.Elemoot the project Is required to provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (18
units) for affordable Income, households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant is
requesting that the affordable housing provision be off-sMe, at an approved location within it*
City. as affordable housing Is not feasible at the subject site. AccoMkg to the applicant, the
project's Home Owner's Association fees are expected to be a minimum of $1,500 per
month, which is a substantial multiple of the statutory mortgage payment limits for affordable
housing when combined with acquisition coats and taxes. With this provision, the applicant
will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units off -site within
the City$ limits. The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Atfomey and will.
be executed prior to the recordation of tract map or Me Issuance of a building or grading
perk for the proposed project.
WHEREAS; an approval of the project Is Implementing Housing Program 3.2A that
allows the City to conalder and approve rezoning of property from non - residential to
residential uses when appropriate to extend housing opportunities to as many renter and
owner occupied households as possible In response to the demand for housing in the City.
WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendments to
be reviewed to determine d the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling units
thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by the public Is required. This project has been
reviewed In accordance with Counct Policy A -18 and a voter appmvai Is riot required as the
project represents an increase of 39 — AM. and 35 — P.M. peak hour trips for a new 79
dwelling unit development. These Increases, when added with 80% of the Increases
attributable to two previously approved amendments, result kh a total of 47 — A.M. peak hour
trips and 43.8 — P.M. peak hour utps; 3,8411 square feet of non- residentlel floor area and 79
dwelling units do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote.
WHEREAS, the project is located within Newport Carder where public services and
infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development Additionally, all applicable
improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code
are to be satisfied by the applicant.
3/7
Page: 16
Page 4 of 21
WHEREAS, the paddng requirement for a mutltple4an y residential Yoned project is
two spaces per unit, Including one covered, plus 0.6 speoae for .guest .parking for
developments of four or more units. A tote; of 168 spaces are required for the residences and
a minimum 61 40 spaces are required for guest parking. A total of 201 spaces are proposed
to serve the project, and therefore, the project meets the parking requirements of the
Municipal Code. In addition to the provision of adequate as -site perking, the project is
conditioned that the parking designs meet all City requirements regandtng parking stall width,
depth, grade, and alsle•tundng radii.
WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the Clry Subdivision Code, the following
standard Wings must be made to approve Ste Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map.
1. The proposed Tentative Maps are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision
Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Comiftlone of
approval have been included to ensure compliance with Titre 19 and the Subdivision
Map Act.
2, Lilt 1 of the Parcel Map Is being proposed for the residential development and (a of
sufficient eke for the Intensity of development and the site Is physically suitable for the
project. The project provides an adequate number of parking spy as required by
the Zoning Code. Access to the alte can be provided through the proposed driveways
along Seats Barbera Drive. Additionally, no earthquake faults were found' orFske.
There is no known incidence of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence. Ilquefacllon,
or collapse on-eke or near the she; (however, existing solls will be required to be
excavated and re-compacted to create stable ail condtdwis, to support the proposed .
developmenL The Implementation of mitigation measures identified In the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential impacts. The site Is,
therefore, physically eunable for development.
3. Lot 2 of Parcel Map is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of
Administrative, Professional d Financial Commercial. Lot 2 is riot proposed fo new
development and this parcel wed continue to be used as a hotel and it Is of suf rtent
site to support its existing use.
4. Under the proposed Parcel Map, Lot 2 does not Include arty Improvements and the
development of Lot 1 as a residential use is not expected to cause serious public
health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices.. No
evidence Is known to exist that would Indicate that the proposed subdivisions will
generate any serious public health problems, Alt mitigation measures will be
Implemented as outlined In the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection
of the public health,
6. No public easements for access through, or use of, the property have been retained
for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that
serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the
proposed project
eX. I
A /7
Page: 17
Page 5 of 21
6, Title 24 of the Untmm Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and eouUng efffolehcy standards depending on location and climate. The
Newport Beach Building Deparbnent enforces The 24 compliance through the plan
check and field inspection processes.
7. The proposed subdivision facilitates -the creation of 79 new residential units. The
provision of 18 affordable units will assist the City In meeting Its housing needs as
Identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to
serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
8. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use
of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
requirements.
9. The proposed subdivision Is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject to the
tentative maps is not presently developed with coastal related uses, coastal.
dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. The project is consistent with the
City's 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the recently modified and
approved LCPLUP that will replace the 1990 cerfified LUP. The subject she to be
subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, and does not provide public access to
coastal resources; therefore, no Impacts to coastal access are anticipated. Recreation
policies of the Coastal Act require that eke reaources for waterwrfented recreational
aobvltes that cannot be supplied inland must be protected, These policies prioritize
waterodented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaauture
end wateronanied recreational support fatties. The project site proposed to be
subdivided Is not suitable for water- orlented recreational activities dire to its size and
location, approximately 1.6 miles from the shoreline.
WHEREAS, the antra project is located within the Coastal Zone and requests the
construction of 79 units. Pursuant to Chapter 20.88 of the Zoning Code, when a project
proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, etfiohllable housing must be
Included within the project unless it can be determined Infeasible. The Housing Element of the
General Plan determines the number and type of affordable housing that Is required. In
accordance with the Housing Element, 18 affordable housing units would be required to be
provided.
WHEREAS, a Traffic Study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the
supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPQ and is Implementing guidelines
(Appenobt P of the Mitigated Negative Declwatlon), CEQA analysts for cumulative projects and
Intersection capacity utilization (ICU), and General Plan analysis. The project will result In a net
Increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 vehicle tops during moming (AM) peak hour and 39
vehicle trips during the aRemoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed
project will not cause a significent Impact at the study area Intersections; therefore, no
Improvements are required at these intersections.
6�, /
5/-7
Page: 18
Page 6 of 21
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been
prepared. In compliance with the Environmemel Quality Act (CEQA); the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City Council Policy K3: The Draft MND was circulated for public comment
between July 15 and August 15, 2006. Comments were received from the Califorhta Coastal
Commission, Airport Land Use Commission and Mr. Terek Saleh of Costs Mesa. The
contents of the environmental document, Including comments on the document. have been
considered In the various decisions on this project Since then, it was determined that the
most appropriate zoning designation for the property wouid be PC (Planned Community).
This new zoning designation does not affect the size, scope or design of the project that
would polentially create additional physical environmental Impacts. As result it has been
determined that the MND adequately dewAbes the potential impacts of ilia pmled and does
not require additional recirculation and review of the MND. An addendum has been prepared
to address the change in the zoning designation and made it a part of the MND.
WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed
project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known
substantial adverse affects on human bebrgs that would be caused. Additionally, there are no
long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative
impacts anticipated In connection with the project. The mitigation measures tMentifled are
feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a leas than significant level. The
mitigation measures are appfled to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval.
WHEREAS, Genenl Plan Amendment No. 2004-005, Planned Community Development
Plan No. 2005003, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004004
(I lln4), Traffic Study No. 2005002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005004
shell only become effective Upon the approval of LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005.001
by the California Coastal Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2005-071067); approve
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00.5 by amending the Land Use Element Statistical Area
Lt, Bock NUiotel Plaza and the Es6m_ated Growth forStabstical Area L1 Table of the General
Plan as depleted in Exhibi •A' and Land Use map in Exhibit °B', LCP lard Use Plan
Amendment No. 2005-001 by revising Land Use map as depicted in Exhibd'C, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2006-014, Tentative Trod Map lib. 2004.004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2006
002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005004, subject to the conditions of
approval listed in Exhibit *D`
6I- I
r /-7
Page: 19
Page 7of 21
This resolution shell take effect Immedlately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City
Council of Newport Beach at a regular meetng held on the I Vn day of January 2006 by Ills
following vote to wit
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS aefferaaa, Selicb, aoeaneky, aidgeway. Daigle,
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS aichola. Mayor Webb None
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS Rom
MAYOR
ATTEST:
s y.
��! ;/Jim ` � i. •� ?`� {.
67R. I
7/7
Page: 20
n
RESOLUTION NO. 20o6• 26
A:.;RES,OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH oECLARWG THAT LOCAL COAST PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT NOS, 2005.001 AND 2000 -001 ARE INTENDED TO BE CARTED
OUT IN FULL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the City Council approved Coastal Land Use Plan
Amendment No. 2005001 changing the coastal land use designation of a 4.25-acre site locates
at 909 Newport Center Drive from CV-8 (Visitor - Serving Commercial) to RM-C (Medium
Density Residential) allowing the development of 79 residential condominiums.
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the Council approved Coastal Land Use
Amendment No. 2006 -001 changing the coastal land use designation of a 14.25 acre she
located at 4650 West Coast Highway from RM -B (Medium Density Residential) to OS (Open
Space) to facilitate the development of a public park.
WHEREAS, the approval of these two amendments should have included a finding
that the amendments are intended to be carried out in full conformance with the California
Coastal Act and they should have spaded when the amendments become effective.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
Section 1. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Nos. 2006.001 and 2006-001 are intended to
be carried out In full conformance with the Callfomia Coastal Act.
Section 2. Coastal Lend Use Plan Amendment Nos. 2005.001 and 2006-001 shall take
affect automatically upon Coastal Commission action unless the Coastal Commission proposes
suggested modifications. In the event that the Coastal Commission proposes revisions, the LCP
Land Use Plan Amendments shall not take effect until the Cy Council adopts the Commission
suggested modifications.
Section 3. This resolution shalt take effect immediately upon adoption.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the
28th day of March 2006 by the following vote to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS CuEry, Se,11 h Roeansky, Ridgeway,
Daig a, Nichols, Mayor Webb
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS --
ABSENT,COUNCILMEMBERS r
MAYOR
—fY " r i I • /4��'�IC.�GG�_ OF NaV.
CITY CLERK
�kX1A
Page: 21
COASTAL COMMiSS10N
/ IP9 / -04 A07
EXHIBIT #
PAGE_-L—OF -?.
EXHIBIT 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 oceangate, suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 008024302
(502) 5905071
T 14a June 21, 2007
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
FROM: Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director, South Coast District (Orange County)
Teresa Henry, District Manager, South Coast District
Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning, Orange County Area
Ryan Todaro, Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB -MAJ -1-06
Part A (Marriott Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums)
SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT
DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTAL
The amendment that is the subject of this report was submitted as part of a package
with other Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments. This report deals only with "Part A" of
the amendment. Part A of the amendment consists of a request by the City of Newport
Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by
tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density
Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. (Part.8 of
the amendment was acted on separately at the Commission's July 2006 hearing, and
Part C was retracted, in part because the City Council had not authorized its original
submittal.) The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of
condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. A
corresponding coastal development permit application (5-07 -085, Lennar) has been
submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Commission staff recommends that the Commission DENY the proposed City of
Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and
APPROVE the amendment subject to suggested modifications. The motions to
accomplish this are found on Page 3.
The major issues raised by this amendment request are adequate provision of visitor -
serving commercial development and public access. The proposed land use
designation change from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential
would have an adverse affect on priority visitor- serving opportunities in the area.
Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. However, with
the adoption of the suggested modifications, which include a new Land Use Plan policy
that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor- serving land, the
proposed land use designation change would not have an adverse affect on priority
NPB -MAJ -1-06 (Part A)
visitor - serving opportunities in the area. The mitigation fee shall be for the protection,
enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State
Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority
land use In Newport Center. This mitigation fee would fund Phase 2 of the ongoing
Crystal Cove Alliance restoration effort of the Historic District at Crystal Cove State Park
and which is presently contemplated to provide for the completion of the Outdoor
Educational Commons (Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13),
Cottage 5, Cottage 45, the garages and creek restoration.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For further information, please contact Ryan Todaro at the South Coast District Office
of the Coastal Commission at (562) 590 -5071. The proposed amendment to the Land
Use Plan (LUP) of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Is available
for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the City of Newport
Beach Planning Department. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department Is
located at 3300 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach. Homer Bludau is the contact
person for the City of Newport Beach, and he may be reached by calling (949) 644-
3000.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02 approved January 10, 2006
2. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -26 approved March 28, 2006
3. Vicinity Map (Newport Center)
4. Land Use Map
5. Vicinity Map (Crystal Cove State Park)
6. Site Map (Crystal Cove State Park)
7. City of Newport Beach letter
Page: 2
I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 9 -06 (PART A)
Motion #1
"i move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1-06 Part A as submitted."
Staff Recommendation for Denial
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the land use
plan amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolutions and findings.
The motion to certify as submitted passes only upon affirmative vote of a majority of the
appointed Commissioners.
Resolution for Denial
The Commission hereby DENIES the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and adopts the findings stated below
on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and is not in
conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Certification of
the Land Use Plan amendment would not comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act as there are feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would
substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result
from certification of the land use plan amendment as submitted.
Motion #2
7 move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A if modified as suggested in this staff report."
Staff Recommendation for Certification
Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of
the land use plan with suggested modification and adoption of the following resolution
and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an
affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.
Resolution for Certification with Sunaested Modifications
The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1-06 Part A
for the City of Newport Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth
below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications
will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested
Page: 3
complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible
mitigation measures andior alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen
any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the
environment.
II. PROCEDURAL PROCESS (LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEW)
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for land use plan amendments is found in Section 30512 of the
Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP amendment if it
finds that it meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter
3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, Section 30512(c) states: "The Commission shall
certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets
the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision
to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission.
B. Procedural Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13551(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a local
government's resolution for submittal of a proposed LUP amendment must indicate
whether the local coastal program amendment will require formal local government
adoption after Commission approval, or is an amendment that will take effect
automatically upon the Commission's approval pursuant to Public Resources Code
Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. The City of Newport Beach's submittal indicates
that this LCP amendment, if approved as Submitted, will take effect upon Commission
certification. Approval of the amendment with modifications will require subsequent
action by the City.
III. BACKGROUND
The Land Use Plan (LUP) for the City of Newport Beach was effectively certified on May
19, 1982 and comprehensively updated October 13, 2005. The subject amendment
was initially submitted by the City of Newport Beach on March 6, 2006. On March 15,
2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City of Newport Beach that the submittal
was incomplete and that additional information would be required to complete the
submittal. City staff submitted the information on April 14, 2006. On May 18, 2006,
Coastal Commission staff notified the City that the amendment request was complete.
The Commission approved a request for a one -year (1) time extension of the
amendment on June 13, 2006, which gives the Commission until July 13, 2007 to act on
this submission. Part B of the amendment request, which involved a change in the
Page: 4
land use designation of another parcel from Medium Density Residential to Open
Space, was approved by the Commission on July 12, 2006. Part A of the amendment
request is now being submitted for Commission action. Part A involves a change in
land use designation at 900 Newport Center Drive from Visitor - Serving Commercial to
Medium Density Residential.
IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Newport Beach approved this segment of the Land Use Plan amendment
request (Part A) through a City Council public hearing on January 10, 2006. The item
was originally scheduled for the Council hearing of November 22, 2005, but the item
was continued to the December 13, 2005 hearing and finally approved on January 10,
2006. It was approved through City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02, which approved
General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 and Local Coastal Plan Amendment 2005 -001
(Exhibit 1). Prior to either the City Council approving the LUP amendment request, or
the Planning Commission voting to recommend that the City Council do so, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 2005. Notice was provided
for both entities' hearings. Notice of the City Council's public hearing was mailed and
posted on November 14, 2005 and published in the local newspaper on November 12,
2005. The City Council approved a subsequent resolution (Resolution No. 2006 -26) on
March 28, 2006 to correct procedural deficiencies in the original resolution related to the
Coastal Act requirements (Exhibit 2).
One letter of opposition was received at the local level. The letter expresses concerns
about increased density at the subject site. No oral comments were received during the
public hearings held at the local level.
V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Staff recommends the following suggested modifications to the proposed LUP
amendment be adopted.
Suggested Modification #1
Add the following new Land Use Plan policy to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Visitor- Serving
and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.1 (Commercial) of the Coastal Land
Use Plan after existing policy number 23.1 -7:
2.3.1 -8 LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 part A) to the Coastal
Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in
size, designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center to a
residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate for the
loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for the
protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses
Page: 5
at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in the amount of
$5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land
use in Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of any coastal development permit granted for any residential project
within the newly designated area and to an entity, identified by the
permitting agency, capable of implementing the mitigation at Crystal Cove
State Park. Until paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
coastal development permit, the amount shall be increased every July 1st
by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage change from the
year 2007 in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers
as determined by the entity that grants the coastal development permit.
The addition of this new policy may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies
when the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's
suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy
numbers. The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares
the final LUP for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections
13544 and 13544.5 of the California Code of Regulations.
Suggested Modification #2
The City shall submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in
Chapter 2, subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use
change approved by the Commission through this amendment.
VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED, AND FINDINGS
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED
A. Amendment Description
The proposed submittal consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change
the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the
Marriott Hotel from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900
Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. Approximately 9.54 acres of
Visitor - Serving Commercial (VC) would remain on site in Newport Center after the land
use designation change. The proposed land use change would allow for the
construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject
property.
Page: 6
D. Findings For Dental
The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows
Site Description and Land Use Desionation
The proposed land use redesignation will affect only one site -900 Newport Center
Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County. The 4.25 -acre site is located in the
Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, inland of Pacific Coast Highway (Exhibit
3). The site is currently operated as a private tennis club used by members and guests
of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a
clubhouse and ancillary uses on the property. The property owner proposes to
subdivide the subject site from the larger hotel parcel and develop a 79 -unit
condominium project.'
The site is currently designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B) in the City's Certified
Land Use Plan, as depicted in Exhibit 4. The site is surrounded by a golf course to the
west and north, hotel development to the south, and commercial offices to the east.
Coastal Act Policies
As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis.
The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
and prioritizes visitor - serving commercial development over residential development.
The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and
recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving
development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following:
Section 30213 states, in pertinent part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred.
Section 30222 states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall
have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development but not over agriculture or coastal - dependent industry.
'Coastal Development Permit Application 5 -07 -085 (Lennar), which seeks authorization to develop the
condominium project, will be considered by the Commission at a subsequent hearing.
Page: 7
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan
2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor - serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to
visitor ,serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for
agriculture and coastal - dependant industry.
2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide public
recreational opportunities.
Proposed Change in Land Use Designation
The proposed amendment (NPB MAJ 1 -06, Part A) involves a request to change the
land use designation of a 4.25 -acre area of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel from
Vsitor Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential at 900 Newport Center
Drive. No other properties are subject to the proposed land use change.
The proposed change will have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities
in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. The
City indicates, however, that the loss of CV -B designated land at this location will not
have an adverse affect on visitor - serving commercial or recreational activities.
According to the amendment request, "ftjhe property is not located in close proximity to
coastal resources, coastal recreational use or the water and the change in land use
does not impact the adjacent visitor serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory
tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity." Although the
tennis courts are not typically considered a "coastal dependent" activity, tennis is a
recreational activity, and the site is part of a larger commercial facility (Marriott Hotel)
that serves visitors to the coast. Thus, although currently operated as a private tennis
club serving only members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, the club is
nevertheless a visitor - serving recreational offering. In addition, the hotel is located in
close proximity to popular visitor destinations, such as the Newport Dunes, Balboa
Island and the beach. The site is located in a highly visible, well - traveled location and
could potentially support some form of commercial and/or recreational development in
the future. Re- designation of the site for residential development now results in lost
future opportunity for expanded, enhanced or even lower cost visitor - serving uses at the
site.
The City states that the loss of this visitor - serving commercial site as a result of the
requested amendment would not significantly reduce the amount of visitor - serving land
in the City. The City concludes that the project represents a 2% reduction in visitor
serving uses based on a table showing the portion of land currently designated as
visitor serving commercial and what will remain after the 4.25 -acre site is re- designated.
The table is replicated below.
Page! 8
1/
Visitor Serving Conunercial Designation
Amount of Land
CV -A 0.5 -0.75
7.65 acres
CV -B 0.5 -1.25
42.90 acres
NeyTort Coast Planned Commurd
153.00 acres
CITYWIDE TOTAL:
203.55 acres
Less project
-4.25 acres
REMAINING CITYWIDE TOTAL:
199.30 acres
2% loss of CV-B)
The City included the Newport Coast Planned Community in the above- referenced
tabulation. However, Newport Coast is covered by a segment of the County of Orange
certified LUP and is not within the boundary of the City of Newport Beach certified LUP.
As such, the 153.00 acres of visitor serving commercially designated area referred to in
the table is not covered by the LUP that is the subject of the current amendment
request. In actuality, the 4.25 -acre loss represents an 8.4% [4.25/(7.65 +42.90)1- -not
2 % -- reduction in visitor- serving land in the portion of the City covered by this LUP.
In addition, the subject site is one of only five sites designated Visitor - Serving
Commercial (CV) in the City's certified LUP. Many land uses that are in fact visitor -
serving are located within the General Commercial (CG) or Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) designation and could thus cease to provide a visitor- serving function. According
to the LUP, [6he CV designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and
services intended to primarily serve the needs of visitors of Newport Beach." Hotels,
and their ancillary development, clearly fit this designation and should be protected
consistent with Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. The LUP includes policies that
encourage visitor- serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational
opportunities. Although the tennis courts are part of a private club, they are available
for use by hotel guests. Hotel guests are typically members of the public that are
visitors to the area-
The agent for the corresponding CDP application states that the tennis courts are
underutilized and replacing the courts "does not remove a publicly accessible, widely -
used recreation facility from the coastal zone." The Commission acknowledges that the
property owner is in no way obligated to retain the tennis court use of the site.
However, under the current land use designation, the site can only be developed with
uses allowed under the CV designation. Commercial development of the site could
serve potential visitors to the coast. The location is conducive to commercial
recreational development and consistent with the adjacent hotel use and the nearby
commercial development. Residential development at the subject site would serve no
purpose to members of the visiting public and could potentially establish a precedent for
residential conversions in the other CV designated areas.
As submitted, the proposed land use conversion proposed as Part A of the City's
amendment request is inconsistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which
requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities be "protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided." The proposed amendment will also have an adverse affect
on the priority "visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities" to be provided under
Page: 9
.i
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, Part A of the amendment must be denied,
as submitted.
C. Findings for Approval with Suggested Modifications
The Commission hereby rinds and declares as follows:
Coastal Act Policies
As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis.
The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
and prioritizes visitor- serving commercial development over residential development.
The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and
recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving
development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following:
Section 30213 states, in pertinent part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred.
Section 30222 states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall
have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agriculture or coastal- dependent industry.
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan
2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor- serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to
visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for
agriculture and coastal- dependant industry.
2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor serving and recreational developments that provide public
recreational opportunities.
Mitigation to Replace the Loss of Visitor - Serving Recreation
In order for the proposed land use conversion from Visitor - Serving Commercial to
Medium Density Residential to be found consistent with the Coastal Act, it must be
appropriately mitigated since the proposed land use change would allow for residential
development on the subject property, which is not a priority use within the Coastal Zone.
The proposed amendment is a project specific request. A corresponding coastal
Page: 10
development permit application (5 -07 -085) for the construction of condominiums at this
location has been submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing. It should
be noted that with this corresponding project, Marriott's property would not lose any
entitlement to the 611 rooms allowed on the site (currently, according to the applicant,
there are 532 rooms with a 75% occupancy).
Ideally, the loss of area designated for visitor serving uses should be offset by re-
designating some other equivalent or superior area within the City that is designated
with a low priority land use, to a visitor serving use. The applicant (Lennar) for the
corresponding coastal development permit application undertook an extensive search
for potential visitor - serving properties within the coastal zone in Newport Beach to
mitigate for the change in land use. in reviewing sites of similar size, the applicant
determined that no properties were suitable, the result of Newport Beach being nearly
built -out. In addition, the applicant determined that the acquisition of individual parcels
totaling 4.25 acres was not an attractive prospect; while residential property could be
acquired, this would result in sporadic rezoning, incompatible uses adjacent to existing
uses and proved economically unfeasible given the property values in Newport Beach.
As a result, Lennar, in consultation with the City, proposed an alternative; to pay a fee to
mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land. The proposal is to provide funding for the
protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal
Cove State Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars). This mitigation
fee would off -set the loss of the priority land use in Newport Center and provide funding
for Phase 2 of the ongoing effort by State Parks and their concessionaire, Crystal Cove
Alliance, to restore the Historic District within Crystal Cove State Park. Phase 2 is
presently contemplated to include the completion of the Outdoor Educational Commons
(Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13), overnight
accommodations in Cottage 5, Cottage 45, and the garages and creek restoration
(Exhibit 6). Therefore, the Commission is requiring a suggested modification that would
implement this alternative. Suggested Modification #1 would require the City to add a
new Land Use Plan policy that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of
visitor- serving land. The policy includes provisions to adjust the mitigation fee to
account for inflation. Implementation of the mitigation requirement would be carried out
through the coastal development permit process.
The Crystal Cove Historic District is a 12.3 -acre coastal portion of the 2,791 -acre
Crystal Cove State Park, which is located along the southeast coast of the City of
Newport Beach. The federally listed Historic District is an enclave of 46 vintage rustic
coastal cottages originally built in the 1920's and 1930's nestled around the mouth of
Los Trancos Creek. It is one of the last remaining examples of early 20th century
Southern California coastal development.
California State Parks has completed Phase I of the restoration of the Historic District,
which provides cottages for visitor services, educational and community programs, a
restaurant, and 13 cottages for overnight use by the public. Cottages available for
Page: 11
overnight rental include studios, one- and two- bedroom houses, and hostel -style
dormitories.
Restoration of these historic cottages represents a significant opportunity for lower cost
visitor- serving accommodations and associated educational and visitor uses at Crystal
Cove State Park, which has become a popular destination of statewide significance for
the public, especially since some of the cottages became available for overnight use.
Only 22 of the 46 historic cottages have been restored to date. Crystal Cove Alliance,
the non - profit cooperating association and concessionaire benefiting Crystal Cove State
Park, is currently raising funds to restore the remaining 24 cottages for visitor - serving
and overnight accommodation uses. With funding, restoration can begin immediately.
Revised Coastal Land Use Plan Mao
Since the proposed amendment would change the land use designation of the 4.25 acre
site, the Coastal Land Use Plan Map would need to be updated. Therefore, the
Commission is requiring suggested modification #2, which would require the City to
submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in Chapter 2,
subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use change
approved by the Commission through this amendment.
Conclusion
The proposed amendment, as modified through the suggested modifications, is
consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which requires lower cost visitor and
recreational facilities be 'protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided." In
addition, the proposed amendment, as modified through the suggested modifications,
would not have an adverse effect on the priority "visitor-serving commercial recreational
facilities" to be provided under Section 30222 of the Coastal Act.
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local
governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in
connection with a local coastal program (LCP). The Commission's Local Coastal
Program review and approval procedures have been found by the Resources Agency to
be functionally equivalent to the environmental review process. Thus, under Section
21080.5 of CEQA, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an
environmental impact report for each local coastal program submitted for Commission
review and approval. Nevertheless, the Commission is required when approving a local
coastal program to find that the local coastal program does conform with the provisions
of CEQA. As part of the City's review of this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was prepared for the proposed project and found that with mitigation, the
project's environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Page: 12
EXHIBIT 6
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 1 of 17
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. S23
July 24, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Robin Clauson, City Attorney
(949) 644 -3131, rclauson @city.newport- beach.ca.us
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
(949) 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Implementation Plan and Memorandum of Understanding
Santa Barbara Condominiums (PA2004 -169)
ISSUES:
1. Should the Santa Barbara Condominium project be subject to the policies in the 2006
Housing Element and Ordinance No. 2007 -6 regarding development agreements?
2. Is payment of $5,000,000 to the City an appropriate public benefit in consideration for
application of the 2006 Housing Element and vesting of development rights?
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution Approving an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
(AHIP) for Lennar Homes Santa Barbara Condominiums and a Memorandum of
Understanding Between Lennar Homes of California, Inc. and City of Newport Beach
(PA2004 -169).
DISCUSSION:
On January 10, 2006, the City Council approved an application made by Lennar Homes for the
development of 79 condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site that presently is developed with an outdoor
tennis complex operated by the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel located at 900 Newport Center
Drive.
Affordable Housing:
The Resolution approving the project includes the following condition with regard to affordable
housing.
5. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units)
for affordable income households in accordance with Housing Programs
2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the Newport Beach Housing Element. The applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units, which
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
Page 2 of 17
units may be provided off -site, at an approved location within the City. These
units shall be identified in the agreement and constructed and completed
prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. The
agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall
be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or
the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed subdivision.
Lennar began working with City staff to meet the Housing Element requirement then in effect,
that 20% of new units should be provided for lower income households, shortly after submittal of
their application. After having no success in finding sites available to develop new affordable
units, Lennar appeared before the City Council's Affordable Housing Task Force to discuss
purchase of covenants on existing affordable units to extend the term of their affordability, and
received Task Force support for that approach. Lennar identified one apartment complex with a
covenant to expire in 2005, but was unsuccessful in reaching agreement with the apartment
owner to extend the covenant. Lennar then explored payment of an in -lieu fee to the City, but the
Housing Element specifically required the provision of units as the affordable housing
requirement for projects with more than 50 units. Lennar's next effort was to identify existing
market rate apartments, for which they could purchase covenants to convert them to affordable
units. They investigated four properties that did not work out before finding Newport Courtyard
and 1128 -1142 Rutland Road, which is now proposed to meet their affordable housing
requirement.
Newport Courtyard is a 12 —unit apartment complex, and Condition 5 requires 16 affordable
units. However, during the 17 months since City Council's approval of the Santa Barbara project
(during which time Lennar has been seeking Coastal Commission approvals) the City adopted a
new Housing Element as part of the General Plan update in 2006. Because of the opportunities
for housing development that were added to the Land Use Element, the Housing Element was
changed to set a goal 15% of all new units be affordable, and to require that an AHIP be
prepared for projects with more than 50 units. The AHIP is to specify how the development will
meet the City's affordable housing goal. Lennar appeared before the Affordable Housing Task
Force again on May 22, 2007. The Task Force supported Lennar's compliance with the current
Housing Element in satisfaction of Condition 5, specifically the purchase of covenants to restrict
income and rent on the 12 units to moderate income levels for 30 years.
The attached AHIP describes the affordable housing project, renovations that will be completed,
the income and rent limits that will be implemented, the term of the limits and compliance with the
Housing Element. If the City Council approves the AHIP, an Affordable Housing Agreement
among the City, Lennar and the property owner will incorporate the AHIP provisions and set forth
additional details such as tenant screening and selection and annual monitoring. As required in
Condition 5, this agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded
prior to the recordation of the final tract map on the Santa Barbara project or the issuance of any
permit for that project.
Memorandum of Understanding:
In addition to amending the Housing Element during the time that the Santa Barbara project was
before the Coastal Commission, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Municipal Code
regarding development agreements as one of many means of implementing the updated General
Plan. Development agreements are now required for projects that require a legislative act (such
as an LCP amendment) and include more than 50 residential units. The Santa Barbara project
meets these criteria, and Lennar is willing to comply with the new development agreement
mhtml:file:HC:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 3 of 17
requirements, as they have requested that the City apply the new Housing Element provisions.
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding establishes the City's and Lennar's agreement to
prepare a development agreement expeditiously, and outlines the provisions to be included in the
development agreement. Those provisions are as follows:
Lennar will pay the City $5,000,000 as part of the development agreement as a public
benefit to the city. This amount is in addition to the $5,000,000 mitigation fee imposed by
the Coastal Commission that is the subject of Agenda Item 18.
2. The City will expeditiously review the Affordable Housing Agreement to implement the
AHIP, and will provide expedited review of development plans for the Santa Barbara
project.
3. City development approvals will be vested for five years.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared for the proposed project in
accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The document was made available for public review and comment during a 30 -day
review period from July 15 to August 15, 2005 and approved by the City Council on January
10, 2006.
Submitted by:
Robin Clauson Sharon Wood
City Attorney Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution
2. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
3. Memorandum of Understanding
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SANTA BARBARA
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2004 -169)
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -2, approving
an application by Lennar Homes for the development of 79 condominium units at 900 Newport Center
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution includes Condition 5, which establishes the requirements for the
project to meet the affordable housing requirements in the City's Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the City Council approved a comprehensive update to the General
Plan, including changes in affordable housing requirements under an updated Housing Element; and
mhtmLfile: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 4 of 17
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, amending
provisions under which development agreements shall be required for residential projects to implement
new policies and land use changes in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Lennar has requested approval of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan that
complies with the requirements of the updated Housing Element as satisfaction of Condition 5; and
WHEREAS, Lennar wishes to enter into a development agreement to comply with Ordinance
No. 2007 -6, vest its rights to develop the project as approved and establish a public benefit contribution
to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
hereby approves the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan for Santa Barbara Condominiums attached
as Exhibit 1, and approves the Memorandum of Understanding Between Lennar Homes of California, Inc
and City of Newport Beach attached as Exhibit 2.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport. Beach held
on July 24, 2007.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
Lennar Homes
Santa Barbara Condominiums
mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
Page 5 of 17
ffbin Housing Implementation Plan
City of Newport Beach, CA
July 24, 2007
mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 6 of 17
Table of Contents
L Executive Summary 3
City ProcE
Summary.
3
3
IL Affordable Housing Project Description 4
Unit Descriptions 4
Renovations 4.
Buildings /Common Areas 4
Units 5
Maintenance 6
Project Location Map 7
Site Photos 8
III. Consistency with Housing Element 9
lV. Income and Rent Limits 10
Appendix A — City of Newport Beach Resolution of Approval 11
mhtml:file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011.
AH1P & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
I. Executive Summary
Page 7 of 17
In January 2006 the City of Newport Beach approved a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment and Planned Community Text for a project being proposed by Lennar Homes. The
project consists of 79 market rate single - family condominiums in Newport Center, adjacent to the
Newport Beach Marriott on the former tennis court site. Condition 5 of the City Council Resolution
approving the project establishes the affordable housing requirement for the project, as follows:
The applicant shall provide a minimum of 20% of the total units (16 units) for affordable income
households in accordance with Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of the Newport Beach
Housing Element. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said
units, which units may be provided off site, at an approved location within the City. These units
shall be identified in the agreement and constructed and completed prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for the project. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map
or the issuance of a building or grading permit for the proposed subdivision.
Background
The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element as approved by the City Council in July, 2006, after
approval of the Lennar project, includes an amended Housing Program 2.2.1, which sets the goal that
15% of all new housing units in the city be affordable to very low -, low- and moderate - income
households. Projects with more than 50 units are required to prepare an Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan (AHIP) that specifies how the development will meet the City's affordable housing
goal.
City Process
Upon submittal of the Santa Barbara Condominium project to the city, Lennar began working with the
city staff to evaluate scenarios to comply with the Housing Element. Due to the lack of available land in
Newport Beach, Lennar gained conceptual consent of the City Council's Affordable Housing Task
Force to purchase covenants to restrict existing, market rate units to moderate - income households and
rents affordable to them.
Summary
After extensive research on options for meeting the affordable housing requirements, meeting with the
Affordable Housing Task Force, and in consideration of the newly adopted Housing Element
requirement for 15% of all new units to be affordable, Lennar agrees to meet the requirements of the
City Council condition of approval and the July 2006 Housing Element as described below.
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
H. Affordable Housing Project Description
Page 8 of 17
The Newport Courtyard Apartments at 1128 — 1142 Rutland Road, Newport Beach is an existing,
market rate, 12 -unit apartment complex. Lennar will satisfy its affordable housing requirement through
the purchase and recordation of covenants that restrict the occupancy of the apartments to qualifying
moderate - income households, and restrict the rental rates as affordable to these households, for 30
years. An Affordable Housing Agreement among the City of Newport Beach, Lennar and the property
owner shall be executed and recorded prior to the recordation of the final tract map or the issuance of a
building or grading permit for the Lennar project.
Unit Descriptions
The apartment complex consists of two separate buildings that face a common courtyard area that
features a swimming pool. Each building contains six units and a laundry room. The units are
generously sized at approximately 1,100 square feet. The apartments all contain two bedrooms and two
bathrooms and a dining area. Each unit has one assigned carport. While the units were built in 1961,
the owner is currently undertaking a significant renovation effort to upgrade the complex.
Renovations
Comprehensive renovations to the property to make the complex comparable with more recently
constructed projects and ensure that it provides viable housing opportunities for the term of the
covenants will be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Lennar project,
as required by the City Council condition of approval. The renovations will include the following:
Buildings /Common Areas
• Recovering of the existing stucco on the building fagade with Hardiplank Select Cedarmill Siding
• Complete replacement of all roof materials
• Exterior repainting of the entire complex , including the iron handrails
• Installation of new vertical wrought iron pickets between the existing pickets on the railings in the
courtyard area
• Installation of new redwood fencing on the back side of both buildings, enclosing rear patio /porch
areas
• Replacement of fences enclosing patio areas for each unit adjacent to the common courtyard with
lower landscape shrubs to allow visibility and openness in the courtyard area for each apartment
• Renovation of both laundry rooms to include:
• New 30 gallon electric water heaters and non -burst water supply lines
• New countertop for folding clothes
• New vinyl flooring, windows and doors
• Installation of new motion detecting light fixtures in the garage area
• Replacement of concrete in the central common area with pavers throughout the courtyard
• New landscaping throughout the property
Units
Kitchens
• Complete kitchen remodel of two units with new appliances, countertops, cabinets and sinks
• Replacement of seven -year old appliances with new ones in two units
• Maintenance of appliances less than three years old in eight units
Bathrooms
• Replacement of all toilets with new, low -flow toilets
• Replacement of all shower heads with new, low -flow shower heads
mhtml:file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 9 of 17
Windows and Doors
• Installation of new vinyl windows and sliding glass doors
• Insallation of new Dutch style front doors in all 12 units
Walls and Floors
• Repainting of all units' interiors
• Installation of new carpet in each unit
Maintenance
The property will be maintained and preserved in good condition, in good repair, and in a decent, safe,
sanitary, habitable and tenantable condition. All units will be fit for occupation by human beings and
substantially comply with state and local building and health codes. At a minimum, all rental units shall
have the following:
o Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including
unbroken windows and doors
o Plumbing facilities in good working order, including hot and cold running water, kitchen
sink, working toilet, wash basin, and bathtub or shower, connected to a sewage disposal
system
o Gas facilities in good working order
o Heating facilities in good working order
o An electric system, including lighting, wiring, and equipment, in good working order
o Clean and sanitary buildings, grounds, and appurtenances (for example, courtyard,
swimming pool and.carports), free from debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin
o Adequate trash receptacles in good repair
o Floors, stairways, and railings in good repair
o Safe fire or emergency exits leading to a street or hallway
• Stairs, hallways, and exits kept litter -free
• Storage areas, garages, and basements kept free of combustible materials
o Operable deadbolt locks on the main entry doors of rental units, and operable locking or
security devices on windows
• Working smoke detectors in all units and in common stairwells
• Ground fault circuit interrupters for swimming pools and antisuction protections
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
Project Location Map
Page 10 of 17
mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
no
V
N
V.
Up
MI.
Page I I of 17
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
I1I. Consistency with Housing Element
Page 12 of 17
The City of Newport Beach completed a comprehensive General Plan update in 2006. The Housing
Element was included in the update to ensure consistency with the updated Land Use Element.
The Housing Element details a number of goals for the City, which include the following: promoting
quality residential development through application of sound planning principles and policies that
encourage preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock; providing a
balanced residential community that contains a variety of housing types, designs and opportunities for
all economic segments of the community; extension of affordability covenants with owners of existing
affordable apartments; preserving and increasing housing affordability, through rental housing, for very
low- and low- income households; and providing housing for special needs groups.
The affordable housing apartment complex achieves a number of the above goals, including promoting
quality residential development, preserving and increasing housing affordability and contributing to a
balanced residential community through rental housing. By converting 12 existing, market rate rental
units exclusively for Moderate Income Households for 30 years, the project increases housing
affordability in the City and preserves rental housing that might otherwise be converted to
condominiums.
The affordable housing apartment complex is consistent with a number of the goals and policies in the
Housing Element. Listed below is a matrix of where the Housing Element and project are consistent
Goal
Project Consistency
H 1
Project renovates and preserves an existing
Quality residential development and
apartment community in Newport Beach and
preservation, conservation, and appropriate
adds deed restrictions to all 12 units for 30 years
redevelopment of housing stock
to restrict rental to qualifying moderate income
households
H 3
Project provides for 12 additional rental units
Housing opportunities for as many center and
available to Moderate Income Households
owner occupied households as possible in
response to the demand for housing in the city
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
IV. Income and Rent Limits
Page 13 of 17
The Newport Courtyard Apartments at 1128 — 1142 Rutland Road, Newport Beach will be restricted for
rent by qualifying households. In order to meet the minimum eligibility requirements the units must be
rented to households qualifying as Moderate Income Households.
Moderate Income Households will have income that does not exceed 120% of the Orange County
( "County "), California annualized median family income ( "Moderate Income ") as then currently
published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD ") for the
County based on four (4) person households, as the same may be adjusted from time to time. _
Rent shall not exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the income limit.
mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 14 of 17
Appendix A
City of Newport Beach Resolution of Approval
[TO BE INSERTED]
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN LENNAR HOMES
OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is entered into by and between Lennar Homes of
California, Inc., ( "Lennar ") and the City of Newport Beach (City), a municipal corporation, through its
duly elected, appointed, qualified or acting representatives.
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006 the Newport Beach City Council
approved Resolution NO. 2006 -2 adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH NO. 2005-
071067) and approved General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Program Land Use
Plan Amendment No. 2005 -001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -014, Tentative Tract Map No.
2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No.
2005 -004 and adopted Ordinance No. 2006 -1 approving Planned Community Development No.
2005 -003 amending Zoning District Map No. (48) changing the subject property from CV -B to
RM -C for property located at 900 Newport Center Drive (PA 2004 -169); and
B. WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006 the City Council approved a
comprehensive update of the City's General Plan, including changes in Affordable Housing
Requirements under an updated Housing Element; and
C. WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007,—the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 2007 -6, amending provisions under which development agreements shall be
required for residential development projects in the City to implement new policies and Land Use
changes in the new General Plan and requiring development agreements for projects that require a
legislative act and include more than 50 units; and
D. WHEREAS, on July 10, 2007 the California Coastal Commission
approved City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB- MAJ -1 -06 Part A (Marriott
Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums) subject to modifications; and
E. WHEREAS, Lennar has requested approval of an Affordable
Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) which documents Lennar's commitment to the provision of
12 apartment units in the Moderate Income level for a period of 30 years and which will satisfy the
intent of Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 2006 -2 for affordable housing; but will comply with
the amended requirements for number of units of affordable housing under the updated Housing
Element.
F. WHEREAS, concurrent with and as consideration for the approval of
the AHIP under the provisions of the updated Housing Element, the two parties wish to enter into a
development agreement to vest the right to develop the project without additional public benefit
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
Page 15 of 17
contributions other than payment to the City of Newport Beach the amount of $'5 million
for the City to use for projects that provide a public benefit to the City as determined by the City
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
Section 1. The City shall give prompt consideration to the necessary support language for Coastal
Commission approval of the Coastal Development Permit, and to the Affordable Housing
Implementation Plan (AHIP) required by the current Housing Element.
Section 2. The parties will expeditiously prepare and the Newport Beach Planning Commission and
City Council will promptly consider approval of a development agreement that includes the following
principal provisions. The development agreement must be approved and executed before the issuance of
any grading or building permit for the project.
A. As a condition of the development agreement, Lennar shall pay $5 million to the City of
Newport Beach. This amount shall be paid in two installments, $2 million to be delivered
concurrently with the issuance of the first residential building permit and $3 million to be delivered
concurrently with the issuance of the final occupancy permit for all 79 homes. If the certificate of
occupancy for the 791h unit is not issued within in 12 months of the first certificate of occupancy
then the $3 million shall be due on a pro rata per unit basis for those units for which a certificate of
occupancy has been issued and payable on a pro rata basis for the ensuing units as each certificate
of occupancy is issued. Upon payment of this amount, no other payment shall be required for
public benefit to the City of Newport Beach.
B. The City will expeditiously review the Affordable Housing Agreement to implement the
AHIP, and will provide expedited review of development plans for the project, in support of timely
receipt of building permits and final occupancy permits.
C. City development approvals will be vested for a period not to exceed five (5) years.
Section 3. The terms of this MOU shall become effective upon execution by both parties and shall
continue thereafter until the satisfactory completion of the obligations of the parties as described herein.
The MOU may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties. Any changes or
amendments must be in writing and signed by the parties before such change or amendment shall take
effect.
Section 4. The MOU is executed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered a duplicate
original.
Section 5. Notices: Any demand upon or notice required or permitted to be given by one party to
the other shall be in writing, shall be made in the following manner, and shall be effective (a) upon
receipt if given by personal delivery, (b) on the date indicated on the receipt if given by certified or
registered mail, return receipt requested, or (c) on the succeeding business day after mailing or deposit
if given by Express Mail or by deposit with a private delivery service of general use (e.g. Federal
Express), postage or fee paid, as appropriate, addressed to the parties in Paragraph 17. Notice of a
change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner set forth in this section.
Section 6. For the purposes of this MOU, all information, requests, or other business
including any demand upon a party or notice pursuant hereto shall be coordinated through the following
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
agency representatives:
City of Newport Beach
Homer Bludau, City Manager 3300
Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
Mr. John Baayoun
Regional Vice President
25 Enterprise
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Page 16 of 17
Section 7. This MOU shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the parties.
Section 8. This MOU shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws
of the State of California.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Robin Clauson
City Attorney
ATTEST:
By:
LaVonne Harkless
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
E
Steven Rosansky
Mayor
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
LE
John Baayoun
Regional Vice Presiden
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos
Page 17 of 17
mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 9
May 11, 2004
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, GA 92658
(949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3229
Bob Shorb, Host Marriott
6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite 1500
Bethesda. MD 20817
STAFF APPROVAL NO. SA2004 -009
(PA2004 -084)
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date
APPLICATION: Staff Approval No. SA2004 -009 (PA2004 -084)
REQUEST: In conjunction with the proposed renovation and remodel of the existing
Marriott Hotel, the applicant requests a review of the project changes
for a determination by the Planning Director of substantial conformance
with the existing approved Site Plan Review No. 29.
APPLICANT: Bob Shorb for Host Marriott, property owner
LOCATION: 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes to renovate and remodel the hotel and reconfigure amenities within
the facility as well as additions and demolition. The project remodel entails demolition of a
portion of the hotel rooms and meeting rooms to construct two new meeting rooms on -site
adjacent to Santa Barbara Drive. The gross square footage of the project will be less than
the currently authorized 363,373 square feet and the number of hotel rooms will be reduced.
The hotel is currently authorized 611 hotel rooms and currently operates 586. The total
number of rooms will be reduced to 532 by combining existing rooms to create larger suites
and the conversion of square footage to provide other hotel related amenities and facilities.
The project as proposed will eliminate an access drive aisle that provides access between
the parking lot at the front of the property and the parking lot at the rear of the property. It is
anticipated that additional directional signage will be provided to facilitate vehicular traffic in
finding the project parking structure located at the Newport Center Drive side of the property
and is discussed in detail in the appendix of this document.
Authority;
Section 20.92.080 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that the Planning
Director may waive the requirement for a new or amended site plan review application.
The waiver may be granted if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial
alterations, an addition to the plan or the conditions of approval and are consistent with
the intent of the original approval. The property is located in the APF District.
May 11, 2004
Page - 2
ACTION: Approved May 11, 2004.
Findings:
The Planning Director in approving this application reviewed the project with regard to the
proposed change to the site plan, vehicular and pedestrian circulation and conformance with °
the approved site plan review. The proposed reduction in the number of hotel rooms results
in a reduction in the overall parking requirement of the project and the site plan changes
reduce the number of on site parking spaces. The detailed discussion can be found in the
appendix of this document. In consideration of those aspects, the Planning Director
determined in this particular case that the proposal, in accordance with 20.92 080 A of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, is a minor change that does not necessitate the filing of a
new er amended use permit or site plan review application. Additionally, the Planning
Director hereby waives the requirement for the filing of a new or amended application for the
site plan review. The Planning Director made the determination based on the following
findings:
The project as proposed is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan
and the Local Coastal Program and limits the site to a maximum of 611 hotel rooms.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program do not
limit the gross square footage or building footprint of the project. Additionally, the size
of the facility will be less than that previously approved by Site Plan Review No 29,
2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
3. The reduction in the number of hotel rooms and the proposed facilities addition
reduces the number of required parking spaces and the new configuration will
provide the number of on -site parking spaces required by the current site plan review
approval (1,31 parking spaces for each guest room).
4. The remodel entails demolition of a portion of the hotel rooms and meeting rooms,
the construction of an expanded lobby, addition of meeting rooms adjacent to the
Santa Barbara Drive side of the property and other amenities and facilities related to
the hotel operation.
5. The hotel is currently authorized 611 hotel rooms and currently operates 586. The
total number of rooms will be reduced to 532 by combining existing rooms to create
larger suites and to provide other hotel related amenities and facilities.
6. The site plan review does not establish specific required setbacks measured from the
street or a specific building footprint or size.
7. The total percentage of compact parking spaces provided will not exceed 25% of the
available parking pool.
May 11, 2004
Page - 3
Conditions:
1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plan and elevations. Any deviation from the plans submitted and approved by this
action may require separate review and approval to determine substantial
conformance with this approval.
2. Ali applicable conditions of approval of Site Plan Review No. 29 shall remain in force.
3. The use or provision of compact parking (maximum of 25% of the total parking
provided) shall be in accordance with the conditions of approval for Site Plan Review
No. 29.
4. The parking and circulation system for vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building
permits. All work within the public right -of -way shall be performed under an
encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
5. Prior to issuance of the building permits for the proposed renovation and remodel, a
revised architectural site plan and floor plans of the approved plans shall be
forwarded to the Planning Department for inclusion into this staff approval file.
6. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions
of approval to this use permit, or revoke this permit upon a determination that the
operation, which is the subject of this approval, causes injury, or is detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community.
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE, Planning Director
By
JaGarcia, AICP
Senior Planner
F: \USERS%PLN \SHARED\PAs \PAS - 2004 \PA2004 - 084 \SA2004 -009 APPR.DOC
Attachments: Appendix
Vicinity Map
Letter from Applicant
Describing the Request
Site Plan and Floor Plan
(available for review in Planning Dept.
cc:
property owner:
Host Marriott
6903 Rockledge Drive, Suite
1500
Bethesda. MD 20817
May 11, 2004
Page - 4
APPENDIX
Use Permit
The original use permit was related to the use of a portion of the hotel facilities for
recreational and electronic games. This use permit was not exercised within 24 months of
the effective date of the Planning Commission or City Council action. Therefore, the use
permit is null and void.
A determination of substantial conformance with the project approved by Use Permit No.
2095 is not necessary since it was not exercised and was allowed to expire.
Site Plan Review
Section 20.92 establishes the purpose and procedures for the site plan review. At its
meeting of February 14, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved General
Plan Amendment 81 -3, Traffic Study, Site Plan Review No. 29 and Use Permit No. 2095.
The site plan review was approved to establish the project site plan with the existing building
location and parking lot layout.
A determination of substantial conformance with Site Plan Review No. 29 is subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director in accordance with Section 20.92.080 A of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Director has determined that the project as
proposed is not in substantial conformance with the approved Site Plan Review No. 29.
However, the Planning Director has determined that the project as proposed to allow:
• Demolition of portions of the existing hotel structures, including hotel rooms,
• Relocation and addition of meeting rooms and other hotel amenities;
Site plan alterations to the parking lot;
• Site plan alterations to the access driveways and circulations aisles,
are minor changes that do not necessitate the filing of a new site plan review application.
The Planning Director has also determined that the proposed changes do not alter or
modify any existing conditions of approval of the original approval based on the following
review.
Site Plan Changes
The proposed changes to the site plan are functional changes to reconfigure hotel amenities
and reduce the number of hotel rooms. Approximately 42 rooms will be demolished between
the South Tower and the South Wing of the facility and will be replaced by an enhanced
garden and landscape area. The main lobby will be enlarged and reconfigured and new
meeting rooms will be located on the Santa Barbara Drive side of the property and extend to
within 7 -feet of the property line (the existing building maintains a setback of 25- feet). There
are no minimum setback distances specified by the Site Plan Review No. 29, therefore, staff
has determined that the change is a minor site plan alteration that does not justify the filing
of a new application.
May 11, 2004
Page - 5
The location of the new meeting rooms will result in the loss of an existing drive aisle that
connects the front and rear parking lots of the project. The vehicular circulation is discussed
below.
Vehicular Circulation Changes
As stated previously, the meeting rooms will displace the existing drive aisle that provides
direct access from the rear parking lot to the front parking lot. The new rear parking lot will
also be provided an enhanced access drive that will facilitate access to the service entrance
of the hotel facility. Additionally, the enhanced drive entrance will also serve the nearby
meeting rooms as a drop off point for valet service personnel. All work proposed within the
public right -of -way shall be approved through an encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
Parking Requirement
The Planning Commission approved language in General Plan Amendment No. 81 -3 that
allowed for a parking requirement based on a demonstrated formula. The parking
requirement established by Site Plan Review No. 29 was 1.31 parking spaces for each guest
room. The applicant proposes to utilize the same parking requirement and apply it to the
reduced number of hotel rooms. This will result in a reduction of the parking requirement
from 768 spaces to 697 parking spaces (rooms reduced from 586 to 532). Staff is of the
opinion that the reduction in the number of hotel rooms justifies the reduction in the number
of required parking spaces. The site plan review also included a modification permit to the
Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of compact parking spaces with a total not to exceed
25% of the available parking pool. The proposed parking plan is subject to review and
approval by the Public Works Department for the final location of the compact parking
spaces on site. Staff is of the opinion that the surplus parking spaces over and above the
required number shall be provided as conforming parking spaces and not as additional
compact spaces. This will require alterations to the parking plan as presented.
May 11, 2004
Page 6
VICINITY MAP
Staff Approval No. SA2004 -009
(PA2004 -084)
900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
EXHIBIT 11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE
AL
South Coast Aree ONke
200 Oosangste, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA WS02d302
(582)590.5071
T 14a
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
June 21, 2007
FROM: Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director, South Coast District (Orange County)
Teresa Henry, District Manager, South Coast District
Karl Schwing, Supervisor, Regulation & Planning, Orange County Area
Ryan Todaro, Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB -MAJ -1-06
Part A (Marriott Hotel VSC to MDR/Santa Barbara Condominiums)
SUMMARY OF STAFF REPORT
DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBMITTAL
The amendment that is the subject of this report was submitted as part of a package
with other Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments. This report deals only with "Part K of
the amendment. Part A of the amendment consists of a request by the City of Newport
Beach to change the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by
tennis courts) at the Marriott Hotel from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density
Residential, at 900 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. (Part. B of
the amendment was acted on separately at the Commission's July 2006 hearing, and
Part C was retracted, in part because the City Council had not authorized its original
submittal.) The proposed land use change would allow for the construction of
condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject property. A
corresponding coastal development permit application (5 -07 -085, Lennar) has been
submitted and will be considered at a subsequent hearing.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Commission staff recommends that the Commission DENY the proposed City of
Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MA-71--M Part A as submitted and
APPROVE the amendment subject to suggested modifications. The motions to
accomp l s this are found on Page 3.
The major issues raised by this amendment request are adequate provision of visitor -
serving commercial development and public access. The proposed land use
designation change from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential
would have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities in the area.
Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. However, with
the adoption of the suggested modifications, which include a new Land Use Plan policy
that requires a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land, the
proposed land use designation change would not have an adverse affect on priority
NPB- MAJ -1 -06 (Part A)
visitor - serving opportunities in the area. The mitigation fee shall be for the protection,
enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State
Park in the amount of $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority
land use In Newport Center. This mitigation fee would fund Phase 2 of the ongoing
Crystal Cove Alliance restoration effort of the Historic District at Crystal Cove State Park
and which Is presently contemplated to provide for the completion of the Outdoor
Educational Commons (Cottages 40, 42, 43 and 44), the Beach Museum (Cottage 13),
Cottage 5, Cottage 45, the garages and creek restoration.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
For further information, please contact Ryan Todaro at the South Coast District Office
of the Coastal Commission at (562) 590 -5071. The proposed amendment to the Land
Use Plan (LUP) of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) is available
for review at the Long Beach Office of the Coastal Commission or at the City of Newport
Beach Planning Department. The City of Newport Beach Planning Department is
located at 3300 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach. Homer Bludau is the contact
person for the City of Newport Beach, and he may be reached by calling (949) 644-
3000.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02 approved January 10, 2006
2. City Council Resolution No. 2006 -26 approved March 28, 2006
3. Vicinity Map (Newport Center)
4. Land Use Map
5. Vicinity Map (Crystal Cove State Park)
6. Site Map (Crystal Cove State Park)
7. City of Newport Beach letter
Page: 2
I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 -06 (PART A)
Motion #1
41 move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted."
Staff Recommendation for Denial
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the land use
plan amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolutions and findings.
The motion to certify as submitted passes only upon affirmative vote of a majority of the
appointed Commissioners.
Resolution for Denial
The Commission hereby DENIES the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A as submitted and adopts the findings stated below
on the grounds that the amendment will not meet the requirements of and is not in
conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Certification of
the Land Use Plan amendment would not comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act as there are feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would
substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result
from certification of the land use plan amendment as submitted.
Motion
"I move that the Commission CERTIFY the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan
Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -06 Part A if modified as suggested in this staff report."
Staff Recommendation for Certification
Staff recommends a YMvote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of
the land use plan with suggested modification and adoption of the following resolution
and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an
affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.
Resolution for Certification with Sustoested Modifications
The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1.06 Part A
for the City of Newport Beach if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth
below on the grounds that the Land Use Plan amendment with suggested modifications
will meet the requirements of and be In conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act. Certification of the land use plan amendment if modified as suggested
Page: 3
complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible
mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen
any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further,
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any,
significant adverse impacts which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the
environment.
II. PROCEDURAL PROCESS (LEGAL STANDARD FOR REVIEW)
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review for land use plan amendments is found in Section 30512 of the
Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP amendment if it
finds that it meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter
3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, Section 30512(c) states: "The Commission shall
certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets
the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 30200). Except as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision
to certify shall require a majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission."
B. Procedural Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13551(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a local
government's resolution for submittal of a proposed LUP amendment must indicate
whether the local coastal program amendment will require formal local government
adoption after Commission approval, or is an amendment that will take effect
automatically upon the Commission's approval pursuant to Public Resources Code
Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. The City of Newport Beach's submittal indicates
that this LCP amendment, if approved as submitted, will take effect upon Commission
certification. Approval of the amendment with modifications will require subsequent
action by the City.
III. BACKGROUND
The Land Use Plan (LUP) for the City of Newport Beach was effectively certified on May
19, 1982 and comprehensively updated October 13, 2005. The subject amendment
was initially submitted by the City of Newport Beach on March 6, 2006. On March 15,
2006, Coastal Commission staff notified the City of Newport Beach that the submittal
was incomplete and that additional information would be required to complete the
submittal. City staff submitted the information on April 14, 2006. On May 18, 2006,
Coastal Commission staff notified the City that the amendment request was complete.
The Commission approved a request for a one -year (1) time extension of the
amendment on June 13, 2006, which gives the Commission until July 13, 2007 to act on
this submission. Part B of the amendment request, which involved a change in the
Page: 4
land use designation of another parcel from Medium Density Residential to Open
Space, was approved by the Commission on July 12, 2006. Part A of the amendment
request is now being submitted for Commission action. Part A involves a change in
land use designation at 900 Newport Center Drive from Visitor - Serving Commercial to
Medium Density Residential.
IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Newport Beach approved this segment of the Land Use Plan amendment
request (Part A) through a City Council public hearing on January 10, 2006. The item
was originally scheduled for the Council hearing of November 22, 2005, but the Item
was continued to the December 13, 2005 hearing and finally approved on January 10,
2006. It was approved through City Council Resolution No. 2006 -02, which approved
General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -005 and Local Coastal Plan Amendment 2005 -001
(Exhibit 1). Prior to either the City Council approving the LUP amendment request, or
the Planning Commission voting to recommend that the City Council do so, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 3, 2005. Notice was provided
for both entities' hearings. Notice of the City Council's public hearing was mailed and
posted on November 14, 2005 and published in the local newspaper on November 12,
2005. The City Council approved a subsequent resolution (Resolution No. 2006 -26) on
March 28, 2006 to correct procedural deficiencies in the original resolution related to the
Coastal Act requirements (Exhibit 2).
One letter of opposition was received at the local level. The letter expresses concerns
about increased density at the subject site. No oral comments were received during the
public hearings held at the local level.
V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Staff recommends the following suggested modifications to the proposed LUP
amendment be adopted.
.M -• •. •i
Add the following new Land Use Plan policy to Chapter 2, Section 2.3 (Visitor- Serving
and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3,1 (Commercial) of the Coastal Land
Use Plan after existing policy number 2.3.1 -7:
2.3.1 -8 LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 part A) to the Coastal
Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in
size, designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center to a
residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate for the
loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for the
protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses
Page: 5
at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in the amount of
$5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) to off -set the loss of the priority land
use In Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance
of any coastal development permit granted for any residential project
within the newly designated area and to an entity, identified by the
permitting agency, capable of implementing the mitigation at Crystal Cove
State Park. Until paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
coastal development permit, the amount shall be increased every July 1st
by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage change from the
year 2007 in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers
as determined by the entity that grants the coastal development permit.
The addition of this new policy may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies
when the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's
suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy
numbers. The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares
the final LUP for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections
13544 and 13544.5 of the California Code of Regulations.
Suggested Modification #2
The City shall submit a revised Coastal Land Use Plan Map (i.e. that map referenced in
Chapter 2, subsection 2.1.2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan), which reflects the land use
change approved by the Commission through this amendment.
VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED, AND FINDINGS
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED
A. Amendment Description
The proposed submittal consists of a request by the City of Newport Beach to change
the land use designation of a 4.25 acre area (presently occupied by tennis courts) at the
Marriott Hotel from Visitor - Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential, at 900
Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Orange County. Approximately 9.54 acres of
Visitor- Serving Commercial (VC) would remain on site in Newport Center after the land
use designation change. The proposed land use change would allow for the
construction of condominiums (or other medium density residential) on the subject
property.
Page: 6
B. Findings For Denial
The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows:
Site Description and Land Use Desionation
The proposed land use redesignation will affect only one site -900 Newport Center
Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County. The 4.25 -acre site is located in the
Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, inland of Pacific Coast Highway (Exhibit
3). The site is currently operated as a private tennis club used by members and guests
of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. There are eight outdoor tennis courts, a
clubhouse and ancillary uses on the property. The property owner proposes to
subdivide the subject site from the larger hotel parcel and develop a 79 -unit
condominium project.'
The site is currently designated Visitor- Serving Commercial (CV -B) in the City's Certified
Land Use Plan, as depicted in Exhibit 4. The site is surrounded by a golf course to the
west and north, hotel development to the south, and commercial offices to the east.
Coastal Act Policies
As stated previously, the Coastal Act is the standard of review in the current analysis.
The Coastal Act encourages the provision of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
and prioritizes visitor - serving commercial development over residential development.
The proposed LUP amendment is not in conformity with the public access and
recreation policies of the Coastal Act relating to the provision of visitor serving
development. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Act include the following:
Section 30213 states, in pertinent part:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational
opportunities are preferred.
Section 30222 states:
The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall
have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agriculture or coastal - dependent industry.
' Coastal Development Permit Application 5 -07 -085 (Lennar), which seeks authorization to develop the
condominium project, will be considered by the Commission at a subsequent hearing.
Page: 7
Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan
2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor - serving and /or recreational uses, give priority to
visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for
agriculture and coastal - dependant industry.
2.3.3 -3 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide public
recreational opportunities.
Proposed Change in Land Use Designation
The proposed amendment (NPB MAJ 1 -06, Part A) involves a request to change the
land use designation of a 4.25 -acre area of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel from
Visitor Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential at 900 Newport Center
Drive. No other properties are subject to the proposed land use change.
The proposed change will have an adverse affect on priority visitor - serving opportunities
in the area. Residential development is a low priority use within the Coastal Zone. The
City indicates, however, that the loss of CV -B designated land at this location will not
have an adverse affect on visitor - serving commercial or recreational activities.
According to the amendment request, "(tjhe property is not located in close proximity to
coastal resources, coastal recreational use or the water and the change in land use
does not impact the adjacent visitor serving uses other than to eliminate the accessory
tennis courts, which is not a coastal dependent recreational activity." Although the
tennis courts are not typically considered a "coastal dependent" activity, tennis is a
recreational activity, and the site is part of a larger commercial facility (Marriott Hotel)
that serves visitors to the coast. Thus, although currently operated as a private tennis
club serving only members and guests of the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, the club is
nevertheless a visitor- serving recreational offering. In addition, the hotel is located in
close proximity to popular visitor destinations, such as the Newport Dunes, Balboa
Island and the beach. The site is located in a highly visible, well - traveled location and
could potentially support some form of commercial and /or recreational development in
the future. Re- designation of the site for residential development now results in lost
future opportunity for expanded, enhanced or even lower cost visitor - serving uses at the
site.
The City states that the loss of this visitor - serving commercial site as a result of the
requested amendment would not significantly reduce the amount of visitor- serving land
in the City. The City concludes that the project represents a 2% reduction in visitor
serving uses based on a table showing the portion of land currently designated as
visitor serving commercial and what will remain after the 4.25 -acre site is re- designated.
The table is replicated below.
Page: 8
1 b
EXHIBIT 12
City Council Meeting February 14,1983
Agenda Item No- _ D -1
r -
Supplemental Report
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. -
-TO% City. Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECTS Financial . obligations of the Marriott Hotel,
to the improvement of the City's Traffic
and Circulation System.required as a result "
of the proposed hotel expansion.
In our initial staff report of February 14, 1983, it was indicated that the
Marriott Hotel, as result of the approval of the Traffic.Study and Site flan
Review No. 29, would be required to pay to the City certain 'sums - of'money for
the purpose of constructing sound-attenuation ".barriers, -traffic signals, and
traffic circulation improvements:. In additionthe. Marriott - Corporation was
also required, as a result of the approval of the General, Plan Amendment,.`to >.
pay to the City a negotiated sum of money towards the construction of
additional circulation system improvements. The purpose of this supplemental*
CJreport is to summarize for the City Council what the actual contribution
.amounts. to. - -
Noise walls adjacent to Eastbluff,Irvine
Terrace and West Newport $130,200.00
Traffic signal at the intersection of
Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center _
Drive (500 40,000.00
Traffic circulation system improvements
PCH /Orange Street, PCE /Prospect Street,
PCH /Bayside DriveandJamboree -Road/
Ford Road 242,000.00
SUB TOTAL. - $412,000 .00 -
Additional circulation system improve-
- ments calculated as representing the
project's percentage of total traffic -
added to the circulation system at
General .Plan huildoutand applied to-
ward the City's share of the Coast
Highway widening project between Mac
Arthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive
(13.78 of $1,400,000.00) $191,800.00
GRAND TOTAL $603,800.00 -
TO:. -_ City Council -2.
It is recommended that the City Council's approval of this.project require -the
deposit of $361,800.00, noise wall, traffic signal and the additional
circulation system improvement funds, prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits,- and the remaining $242,000.00; TPO circulation system.
improvements, be deposited prior to occupancy of any portion of the :project's.
facilities, other than those designed for parking.
Respectfully. submitted, -
SD. HEWICKER
lan.ing Director
Memorandum
SCANNED
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTjT C (1 *�
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDm ` y a�
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949)644-3208
To:
Planning Commission
From:
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
Date:
November 14, 2011
Re:
Development Agreement
Planning Divisio 14
Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140)
Applicant: Golf Realty Fund
The draft Development Agreement (DA) is attached for your review. The City Attorney's office is
working with the applicant to finalize the draft Development Agreement.
The term of the agreement is ten (10) years. Given that the site is within the Coastal Zone and
that the City does not have a Certified Local Coastal Program, approval of the Development
Agreement by the Costal Commission is necessary prior to the agreement being executed and
recorded. The Development Agreement would provide the vested right to proceed with the
project as ultimately approved by the City and the Coastal Commission.
The draft DA requires the payment of a "Public Benefit Fee" in the sum of:
1) Ninety -three thousand dollars ($93,000) per each residential dwelling unit;
2) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of construction for the proposed golf clubhouse; and
3) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of new construction to the existing tennis clubhouse.
Each of these fees is subject to the Consumer Price Index adjustments.
Attachment: Draft Development Agreement
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DATE: November 14, 2011
Item No. 2b
Newport Beach Country Club
PA2005 -140
TO: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
FROM: Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorneyc�A.
MATTER: Golf Realty Fund: Development Agreement
No.: A10 -00773
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Development Agreement
Attached please find a copy of the proposed Development Agreement between the City of
Newport Beach and Golf Realty Fund.
E40
[A10- 00773] &andtK -UngR from LM 11.14.11 re Transmittal of DA
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884
Attn: City Clerk
(Space Above This Line Is for Recorder's Use Only)
This Agreement is recorded at the request and for
the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is
exempt from the payment of a recording fee
pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and 27383.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
between
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
and
GOLF REALTY FUND
CONCERNING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN NEWPORT CENTER
WITHING THE
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT
A10- 00773 / NBCC -Golf RwIly LLC
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65864- 65869.5)
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement ") is dated for reference
purposes as of the _ day of 2011 (the "Agreement Date'), and is being entered
into by and between the City of Newport Beach ( "C"), and Golf Realty Fund, a California
limited partnership "OOwner "). City and Owner are sometimes collectively referred to in this
Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party."
RECITALS
A. Owner owns a fee interest in title to that certain real property located in the City
of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California which is more particularly described in
the legal description attached as Exhibit "A" and depicted on the site map attached hereto as
Exhibit B (the, "Property"). The Property is located within and consists of approximately 145
acres of the area shown on the City's Zoning Map as the Newport Beach Country Club Planned
Community Distri ct.
B. In order to encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning
and public facilities financing, strengthen the public planning process and encourage private
implementation of the local general plan, provide certainty in the approval of projects in order to
avoid waste of time and resources, and reduce the economic costs of development by providing
assurance to property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing land
use policies, rules, and regulations, the California Legislature adopted California Government
Code sections 65864- 65869.5 (the "Development Agreement Statute ") authorizing cities and
counties to enter into development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or
equitable interest in real property located within their jurisdiction.
C. On March 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -6, entitled
"Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding
Development Agreements" (the "Development Agreement Ordinance "). This Agreement is
consistent with the Development Agreement Ordinance.
D. As detailed in Section 3 of this Agreement, Owner has agreed to provide the
following significant public benefits as consideration for this Agreement: Development of
Visitor - Serving Uses within the Coastal Zone, and other economic contributions including the
payment of a Public Benefit Fee.
E. This Agreement is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan
( "General Plan"), including without limitation the General Plan's designation of the Property as
"PR (Parks and Recreation) the Coastal Land Use Plan's designation as "OS (Open Space)" and
the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (PA 2008 -152) that was adopted
in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97 -10 in order to establish appropriate zoning to regulate land use and
development of the Property consistent with the General Plan.
F. In recognition of the significant public benefits that this Agreement provides, the
City Council has found that this Agreement: (i) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach
General Plan as of the date of this Agreement; (ii) is in the best interests of the health, safety, and
-1-
general welfare of City, its residents, and the public; (iii) is entered into pursuant to, and
constitutes a present exercise of, City's police power; (iv) is consistent and has been approved
consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General
Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119) and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (PA 2008 -152)
approved by the City Council on or before the Agreement Date, both of which analyze the
environmental effects of the proposed development of the Project on the Property; and (v) is
consistent and has been approved consistent with provisions of California Government Code
section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 15.45.
G. On , 201_, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this Agreement, made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and
recommended to the City Council that the City Council approve this Agreement.
H. On , 201_, the City Council also held a public hearing on this
Agreement and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and
information submitted by City staff, Owner, and members of the public. On ,
201_, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and
Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. (the
"Adopting Ordinance"), finding this Agreement to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach
General Plan and approving this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Owner agree as follows:
1. . Definitions.
In addition to any terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when
used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below:
"Action" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.10 of this Agreement.
"Adopting Ordinance" shall mean City Council Ordinance No. , approving and
adopting this Agreement.
"Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement, as the same may be amended
from time to time.
" Agreement Date" shall mean the date first written above, which date is the date the City
Council adopted the Adopting Ordinance.
"CEO A" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code Sections 21000- 21177) and the implementing regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Secretary for Resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section
15000 et seq.) ( "CEQA Guidelines "), as the same may be amended from time to time.
"Cit ' shall mean the City of Newport Beach, a California charter city.
"City Council" shall mean the governing body of City.
"City's Affiliated Parties" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 9.1 of this
Agreement.
"Claim" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 9.1 of this Agreement.
"CPI Index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index published from time to time by the
United States Department of Labor for all urban consumers (all items) for the smallest
geographic area that includes the City or, if such index is discontinued, such other similar index
as may be publicly available that is selected by City in its reasonable discretion.
"Cure Period" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 7.1 of this Agreement.
"Default" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 7.1 of this Agreement.
"Develop" or "Development" shall mean to improve or the improvement of the Property
for the purpose of completing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project,
including but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities
related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of all of
the private improvements and facilities comprising the Project; the preservation or restoration, as
required of natural and man -made or altered open space areas; and the installation of
landscaping. The terms "Develop" and "Development," as used herein, do not include the
maintenance, repair, reconstruction, replacement, or redevelopment of any structure,
improvement, or facility after the initial construction and completion thereof.
"Development Agreement Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 15.45 of the City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
"Development Agreement Statute" shall mean California Government Code Sections
65864- 65869.5, inclusive.
"Development Exactions" shall mean any requirement of City in connection with or
pursuant to any ordinance, resolution, rule, or official policy for the dedication of land, the
construction or installation of any public improvement or facility, or the payment of any fee or
charge in order to lessen, offset, mitigate, or compensate for the impacts of Development of the
Project on the environment or other public interests.
"Development Plan" shall mean the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and _
Council on or before the Agreement
consistent with this Agreement.
Date, as
Newport Beach Planned Community District,
Development Plan approved by the City
the same may be amended from time to time
"Development Regulations" shall mean the following regulations as they are in effect as
of the Effective Date and to the extent they govern or regulate the development of the Property,
but excluding any amendment or modification to the Development Regulations adopted,
approved, or imposed after the Effective Date that impairs or restricts Owner's rights set forth in
this Agreement, unless such amendment or modification is expressly authorized by this
Agreement or is agreed to by Owner in writing: the General Plan; the Development Plan; and, to
the extent not expressly superseded by the Development Plan or this Agreement, all other land
use and subdivision regulations governing the permitted uses, density and intensity of use,
design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, procedures for obtaining
required City permits and approvals for development, and similar matters that may apply to
development of the Project on the Property during the Term of this Agreement that are set forth
in Title 15 of the Municipal Code (buildings and construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code
(subdivisions), and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (planning and zoning), but specifically
excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code, including without limitation Title 5 of the
Municipal Code (business licenses and regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term
"Development Regulations," as used herein, does not include any City ordinance, resolution,
code, rule, regulation or official policy governing any of the following: (i) the conduct of
businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes and assessments; (iii) the control and
abatement of nuisances; (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights
and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or (v) the exercise of
the power of eminent domain.
"Effective Date" shall mean the latest of the following dates, as applicable: (i) the date
that is thirty (30) days after the Agreement Date; (ii) if a referendum concerning the Adopting
Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date is
timely qualified for the ballot and a referendum election is held concerning the Adopting
Ordinance or any of such Development Regulations, the date on which the referendum is
certified resulting in upholding and approving the Adopting Ordinance and such Development
Regulations and becomes effective, if applicable; (iii) if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the
validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development
Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date, the date on which said challenge is
finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement,
and/or the applicable Development Regulations, whether such finality is achieved by a final non-
appealable judgment, voluntary or involuntary dismissal (and the passage of any time required to
appeal an involuntary dismissal), or binding written settlement agreement; or (iv) the date of
approval of a coastal development permit for the Project. Promptly after the Effective Date
occurs, the Parties agree to cooperate in causing an appropriate instrument to be executed and
recorded against the Property memorializing the Effective Date.
"Environmental Laws" means all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local
laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations which are in effect as of the Agreement Date,
and all federal, state, regional, county; municipal, and local laws, statutes, rules, ordinances,
rules, and regulations which may hereafter be enacted and which apply to the Property or any
part thereof, pertaining to the use, generation, storage, disposal, release, treatment, or removal of
any Hazardous Substances, including without limitation the following: the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601,
et seg., as amended ( "CERCLA "); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et sec ., as amended
( "RCRA "); the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.
.Sections 11001 et sea., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C.
Section 1801, et sec ., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et sea., as
amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq., as amended; the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 et sea., as amended; the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 136 et sea., as amended; the Federal Safe
0
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et sea., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor
Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Occupational Safety
and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et sea., as amended; and California Health and Safety
Code Section 25100, et M.
"General Plan" shall mean City's 2006 General Plan adopted by the City Council on July
25, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006 -76, as amended through the Agreement Date but excluding
any amendment after the Agreement Date that impairs or restricts Owner's rights set forth in this
Agreement, unless such amendment is expressly authorized by this Agreement, is authorized by
Sections 8 or 9, or is specifically agreed to by Owner. The Land Use Plan of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan was approved by City voters in a general election on November 7,
2006.
"Hazardous Substances" means any toxic substance or waste, pollutant, hazardous
substance or waste, contaminant, special waste, industrial substance or waste, petroleum or
petroleum- derived substance or waste, or any toxic or hazardous constituent or additive to or
breakdown component from any such substance or waste, including without limitation any
substance, waste, or material regulated under or defined as "hazardous" or "toxic" under any
Environmental Law.
"Mortgage" shall mean a mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any
other form of conveyance in which the Property, or a part or interest in the Property, is pledged
as security and contracted for in good faith and for fair value.
"Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or any
successor or assignee of the Mortgagee.
"Notice of Default" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.1 of this Agreement.
"Owner" shall mean Golf Realty Fund, a California limited partnership and any successor
or assignee to all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of Golf Realty Fund
in and to ownership of all or a portion of the Property.
"Party" or "Parties" shall mean either City or Owner or both, as determined by the
context.
"Project" shall mean all on -site and off -site improvements that Owner is authorized
and/or required to construct with respect to each parcel of the Property, as provided in this
Agreement and the Development Regulations, as the same may be modified or amended from
time to time consistent with this Agreement and applicable law.
"Pro pert 'is described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B.
"Public Benefit Fee" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 3.1 of this Agreement.
"Subsequent Development Approvals" shall mean all discretionary development and
building approvals that Owner is required to obtain to Develop the Project on and with respect to
the Property after the Agreement Date consistent with the Development Regulations and this
Agreement, with the understanding that except as expressly set forth herein City shall not have
the right subsequent to the Effective Date and during the Term of this Agreement to adopt or
impose requirements for any such Subsequent Development Approvals that do not exist as of the
Agreement Date.
"Term" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement.
"Termination Date" and "Lot Termination Date" shall have the meaning ascribed in
Section 2.4 of this Agreement.
"Transfer" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 11 of this Agreement.
2, General Provisions.
2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation.
This Agreement and the Development Regulations applicable to the Property will cause
City's zoning and other land use regulations for the Property to be consistent with the General
Plan.
2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement.
The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is
hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2.3 Owner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and
Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement.
Owner and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner hereby represents
and warrants to City as follows: (i) that Owner is the owner of the fee simple title to the
Property; (ii) Owner or any co -owner comprising Owner is a legal entity that such entity is duly
formed and existing and is authorized to do business in the State of California; (iii) if Owner or
any co -owner comprising Owner is a natural person that such natural person has the legal right
and capacity to execute this Agreement; (iv) that all actions required to be taken by all persons
and entities comprising Owner to enter into this Agreement have been taken and that Owner has
the legal authority to enter into this Agreement; (v) that Owner's entering into and performing its
obligations set forth in this Agreement will not result in a violation of any obligation, contractual
or otherwise, that Owner or any person or entity comprising Owner has to any third party; (vi)
that neither Owner nor any co -owner comprising Owner is the subject of any voluntary or
involuntary petition; and (vii) that Owner has no actual knowledge of any pending or threatened
claims of any person or entity affecting the validity of any of the representations and warranties
set forth in clauses (i) -(vi), inclusive, or affecting Owner's authority or ability to enter into or
perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement.
2.4 Term.
The term of this Agreement (the "Term ") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall
terminate on the "Termination Date."
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, if either
Party reasonably determines that the Effective Date of this Agreement will not occur because (i)
the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the
Agreement Date for the Project has/have been disapproved by City's voters at a referendum
election or (ii) a final non - appealable judgment is entered in a judicial action challenging the
validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and /or any of the Development
Regulations for the Project approved on or before the Agreement Date such that this Agreement
and/or any of such Development Regulations is /are invalid and unenforceable in whole or in
such a substantial part that the judgment substantially impairs such Party's rights or substantially
increases its obligations or risks hereunder or thereunder, then such Party shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement upon delivery of a written notice of termination to the other Party, in
which event neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder except that
Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 shall remain in full force and effect and
shall be enforceable, and the Development Regulations applicable to the Project and the Property
only (but not those general Development Regulations applicable to other properties in the City)
shall similarly be null and void at such time.
The Termination Date shall be the earliest of the following dates: (i) the tenth (10 th)
anniversary of the Effective Date, as said date may be extended in accordance with Section 5 of
this Agreement; (ii) such earlier date that this Agreement may be terminated in accordance with
Articles 5, 7, and/or Section 8.3 of this Agreement and /or Sections 65865.1 and /or 65868 of the
Development Agreement Statute; (iii) as to any separate legal lot within the Property (but not as
to the balance of the Property or the portion thereof that remains subject to this Agreement at
such time), upon the "Lot Termination Date" (defined below); or (iv) completion of the Project
in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including Owner's complete satisfaction,
performance, and payment, as applicable, of all Development Exactions, the issuance of all
required final occupancy permits, and acceptance by City or applicable public agency(ies) or
private entity(ies) of all required offers of dedication.
As used herein, the term "Lot Termination Date" for any separate legal lot within the
Property means the date on which all of the following conditions have been satisfied with respect
to said lot: (i) the lot has been finally subdivided and sold or leased (for a period longer than one
year), individually or in a "bulk" of four or fewer lots, to a member of the public or other
ultimate user; (ii) a final Certificate of Occupancy or "Release of Utilities" has been issued for
the building or buildings approved for construction on said lot.
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the
provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 13.10 (as well as any other Owner obligations set
forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall survive
the Termination Date of this Agreement.
3. Public Benefits,
3.1 Public Benefit Fee.
As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this
Agreement, Owner shall pay to City a fee that shall be in addition to any other fee or charge to
which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject (herein, the "Public Benefit Fee ")
7
in the sum of (i) Ninety -three thousand Dollars ($ 93,000-_-_______j
per each residential dwelling units; and (ii) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of construction for
the proposed golf clubhouse; and (iii) Ten dollars ($10) per square foot of new construction to
the existing tennis clubhouse, with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on the
first January 1 following the Effective Date of this Agreement by the percentage increase in the
CPI Index between the Effective Date and said January V date (the first "Adjustment Date ") and
thereafter with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on each subsequent
January 1 during the Term of this Agreement (each, an "Adjustment Date ") by the percentage
increase in the CPI Index in the year prior to the applicable Adjustment Date. The amount of the
percentage increase in the CPI Index on the applicable Adjustment Dates shall in each instance
be calculated based on the then most recently available CPI Index figures such that, for example,
if the Effective Date of this Agreement falls on July 1 and the most recently available CPI Index
figure on the first Adjustment Date (January l of the following year) is the CPI Index for
November of the preceding year, the percentage increase in the CPI Index for that partial year (a
6 -month period) shall be calculated by comparing the CPI Index for November of the preceding
year with the CPI Index for May of the preceding year (a 6 -month period). In no event,
however, shall application of the CPI Index reduce the amount of the Public Benefit Fee (or
unpaid portion thereof) below the amount in effect prior to any applicable Adjustment Date.
Owner shall pay the Public Benefit Fee at the following time(s): (i) As to the residential dwelling
units, at the issuance of the building permit for each individual residential unit; and (ii) As to the
golf clubhouse and tennis clubhouse construction, at the time each building permit is issued.
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, during the Term
of this Agreement City shall not increase the Public Benefit Fee except pursuant to the CPI Index
as stated in this Section 3.1. Owner acknowledges by its approval and execution of this
Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Public Benefit Fee, that its obligation to pay
the Public Benefit Fee is an essential term of this Agreement and is not severable from City's
obligations and Owner's vesting rights to be acquired hereunder, and that Owner expressly
waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this
Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of such fee on any ground whatsoever, including
without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California
Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), or otherwise. In addition to any other remedy set forth
in this Agreement for Owner's default, if Owner shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Public
Benefit Fee when due City shall have the right to withhold issuance of any further building
permits, occupancy permits, or other development or building permits for the Project.
3.2 Other Public Benefits.
The development of the Project will include the addition of additional Visitor - Serving
Uses consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan and will provide a unique amenity for
those visitors whose interests include tennis. It is anticipated that the Property will continue to
host numerous events of significant social and economic benefit to the City such s the Toshiba
Classic and other events to the benefit of the City, its citizens, businesses and charitable
institutions.
N
4. Development Project.
4.1 Applicable Regulations; Owner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of
Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals.
Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement,
(i) Owner shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property
in accordance with the terms of the Development Regulations and this Agreement and (ii) City
shall not prohibit or prevent development of the Property on grounds inconsistent with the
Development Regulations or this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is
intended to limit or restrict City's discretion with respect to (i) review and approval requirements
contained in the Development Regulations, (ii) exercise of any discretionary authority City
retains under the Development Regulations, (iii) the approval, conditional approval, or denial of
any Subsequent Development Approvals that are required for Development of the Project as of
the Effective Date, or (iv) any environmental approvals that may be required under CEQA or any
other federal or state law or regulation in conjunction with any Subsequent Development
Approvals that may be required for the Project, and in this regard, as to future actions referred to
in clauses (i) -(iv) of this sentence, City reserves its full discretion to the same extent City would
have such discretion in the absence of this Agreement. In addition, it is understood and agreed
that nothing in this Agreement is intended to vest Owner's rights with respect to any laws,
regulations, rules, or official policies of any other governmental agency or public utility
company with jurisdiction over the Property or the Project; or any applicable federal or state
laws, regulations, rules, or official policies that may be inconsistent with this Agreement and that
override or supersede the provisions set forth in this Agreement, and regardless of whether such
overriding or superseding laws, regulations, rules, or official policies are adopted or applied to
the Property or the Project prior or subsequent to the Agreement Date.
Owner has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money
planning and preparing for Development of the Project. Owner represents and City
acknowledges that Owner would not make these expenditures without this Agreement, and that
Owner is and will be making these expenditures in reasonable reliance upon its vested rights to
Develop the Project as set forth in this Agreement.
Owner may apply to City for permits or approvals necessary to modify or amend the
Development specified in the Development Regulations, provided that the request does not
propose an increase in the maximum density, intensity, height, or size of proposed structures, or
a change in use that generates more peak hour traffic or more daily traffic and, in addition,
Owner may apply to City for approval of mirror amendments to existing tentative tract maps,
tentative parcel maps, or associated conditions of approval, consistent with City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code section 19.12.090. This Agreement does not constitute a promise or
commitment by City to approve any such permit or approval, or to approve the same with or
without any particular requirements or conditions, and City's discretion with respect to such
matters shall be the same as it would be in the absence of this Agreement.
4.2 No Conflicting Enactments.
Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement,
during the Term of this Agreement City shall not apply to the Project or the Property any
ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure relating to Development of the Project that
is enacted or becomes effective after the Effective Date to the extent it conflicts with this
Agreement. This Section 4.2 shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule,
regulation, or other measure applicable to the Project pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65866 consistent with the procedures specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. In
Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, the California Supreme
Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a city's growth control ordinance
even though the city and construction company had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount
to a contract under California law) establishing the company's vested rights to develop its
property consistent with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result because
the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. The Parties intend to avoid
the result of the Pardee case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that Owner
shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property at the rate,
timing, and sequencing that Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of Owner's sole
subjective business judgment, provided that such Development occurs in accordance with this
Agreement and the Development Regulations, notwithstanding adoption by City's electorate of
an initiative to the contrary after the Effective Date. No City moratorium or other similar
limitation relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the
Project and whether enacted by initiative or another method, affecting subdivision maps,
building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use, shall apply to the Project to
the extent such moratorium or other similar limitation restricts Owner's vested rights in this
Agreement or otherwise conflicts with the express provisions of this Agreement.
4.3 Reservations of Authority.
Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the laws,
rules, regulations, and official policies set forth in this Section 4.3 shall apply to and govern the
Development of the Project on and with respect to the Property.
4.3.1 Procedural Regulations. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies,
petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals,
and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that such procedural
regulations are adopted and applied City -wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City.
4.3.2 Processing and Permit Fees. City shall have the right to charge and Owner
shall be required to pay all applicable processing and permit fees to cover the reasonable cost to
City of processing and reviewing applications and plans for any required Subsequent
Development Approvals, building permits, excavation and grading permits, encroachment
permits, and the like, for performing necessary studies and reports in connection therewith,
inspecting the work constructed or installed by or on behalf of Owner, and monitoring
compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, all at the rates in
effect at the time fees are due.
4.3.3 Consistent Future City Regulations. City ordinances, resolutions,
regulations, and official policies governing Development which do not conflict with the
Development Regulations, or with respect to such regulations that do conflict, where Owner has
consented in writing to the regulations, shall apply to the Property.
WE
4.3.4 Development Exactions Applicable to Propert y. During the Term of this
Agreement, Owner shall be required to satisfy and pay all Development Exactions at the time
performance or payment is due to the same extent and in the same amount(s) that would apply to
Owner and the Project in the absence of this Agreement; provided, however, that to the extent
the scope and extent of a particular Development Exaction (excluding any development impact
fee) for the Project has been established and fixed by City in the conditions of approval for any
of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date City shall not alter,
increase, or modify said Development Exaction in a manner that is inconsistent with such
Development Regulations without Owner's prior written consent or as may be otherwise
required pursuant to overriding federal or state laws or regulations (Section 4.3.5 hereinbelow).
In addition, nothing. in this Agreement is intended or shall be deemed to vest Owner against the
obligation to pay any of the following (which are not included within the definition of
"Development Exactions ") in the full amount that would apply in the absence of this Agreement:
(i) City's normal fees for processing, environmental assessment and review, tentative tract and
parcel map review, plan checking, site review and approval, administrative review, building
permit, grading permit, inspection, and similar fees imposed to recover City's costs associated
with processing, reviewing, and inspecting project applications, plans, and specifications; (ii)
fees and charges levied by any other public agency, utility, district, or joint powers authority,
regardless of whether City collects those fees and charges; or (iii) community facility district
special taxes or special district assessments or similar assessments, business license fees, bonds
or other security required for public improvements, transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes,
property taxes, sewer lateral connection fees, water service connection fees, new water meter
fees, and the Property Development Tax payable under Chapter 3.12 of City's Municipal Code.
4.3.5 Overriding Federal and State Laws and Regulations. Federal and state
laws and regulations that override Owner's vested rights set forth in this Agreement shall apply
to the Property, together with any City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies
that are necessary to enable City to comply with the provisions of any such overriding federal or
state laws and regulations, provided that (i) Owner does not waive its right to challenge or
contest the validity of any such purportedly overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation;
and (ii) upon the discovery of any such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation that
prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City or Owner shall
provide to the other Party a written notice identifying the federal, state, or City law or regulation,
together with a copy of the law or regulation and a brief written statement of the conflict(s)
between that law or regulation and the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter City
and Owner shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a
modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with
such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation. In such negotiations, City and Owner
agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Owner as derived from this
Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. City agrees to cooperate
with Owner at no cost to City in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any
financial impact of the conflict upon Owner. City also agrees to process in a prompt manner
Owner's proposed changes to the Project and any of the Development Regulations as may be
necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; provided,
however, that the approval of such changes by City shall be subject to the discretion of City,
consistent with this Agreement.
11
4.3.6 Public Health and Safety. Any City ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation,
program, or official policy that is necessary to protect persons on the Property or in the
immediate vicinity from conditions dangerous to their health or safety, as reasonably determined
by City, shall apply to the Property, even though the application of the ordinance, resolution, rule
regulation, program, or official policy would result in the impairment of Owner's vested rights
under this Agreement.
4.3.7 Uniform Building Standards. Existing and future building and building -
related standards set forth in the uniform codes adopted and amended by City from time to time,
including building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, housing, swimming pool, and fire codes,
and any modifications and amendments thereof shall all apply to the Project and the Property to
the same extent that the same would apply in the absence of this Agreement.
4.3.8 Public Works Improvements. To the extent Owner constructs or installs
any public improvements, works, or facilities, the City standards in effect for such public
improvements, works, or facilities at the time of City's issuance of a permit, license, or other
authorization for construction or installation of same shall apply.
4.3.9 No Guarantee or Reservation of Utility Capacity. Notwithstanding any
other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement is intended
or shall be interpreted to require City to guarantee or reserve to or for the benefit of Owner or the
Property any utility capacity, service, or facilities that may be needed to serve the Project,
whether domestic or reclaimed water service, sanitary sewer transmission or wastewater
treatment capacity, downstream drainage capacity, or otherwise, and City shall have the right to
limit or restrict Development of the Project if and to the extent that City reasonably determines
that inadequate utility capacity exists to adequately serve the Project at the time Development is
scheduled to commence.
4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps.
City agrees that Owner may file and process new and existing vesting tentative maps for
the Property consistent with California Government Code sections 66498.1- 66498.9 and City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 19.20. Pursuant to the applicable provision of the
California Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code section 66452.6(a)), the life of
any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, whether designated a "vesting tentative
map" or otherwise, shall be extended for the Term of this Agreement.
5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement
Other than modifications of this Agreement under Section 8.3 of this Agreement, this
Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed
consent of the Parties in compliance with California Government Code section 65868 and City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.060 or by unilateral termination by City in the
event of an uncured default of Owner.
6. Enforcement.
Unless this Agreement is amended, canceled, modified, or suspended as authorized
herein or pursuant to California Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall be
12
enforceable by either Party despite any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning,
subdivision, or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City
(including by City's electorate) that purports to apply to any or all of the Property.
7. Annual Review of Owner's Compliance With Agreement.
7.1 General.
City shall review this Agreement once during every twelve (12) month period following
the Effective Date for compliance with the terms of this Agreement as provided in Government
Code Section 65865.1. Owner (including any successor to the owner executing this Agreement
on or before the Agreement Date) shall pay City a reasonable fee in an amount City may
reasonably establish from time to time to cover the actual and necessary costs for the annual
review. City's failure to timely provide or conduct an annual review shall not constitute a
Default hereunder by City.
7.2 Owner Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance.
During each annual review by City, Owner is required to demonstrate good faith
compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good
faith compliance as City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, may require, thirty (30) days
prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date during the Term.
7.3 Procedure.
The City Council of City shall conduct a duly noticed hearing and shall determine, on the
basis of substantial evidence, whether or not Owner has, for the period under review, complied
with the terms of this Agreement. If the City Council finds that Owner has so complied, the
annual review shall be concluded. If the City Council finds, on the basis of substantial evidence,
that Owner has not so complied, written notice shall be sent to Owner by first class mail of the
City Council's finding of non - compliance, and Owner shall be given at least ten (10) days to
cure any noncompliance that relates to the payment of money and thirty (30) days to cure any
other type of noncompliance. If a cure not relating to the payment of money cannot be
completed within thirty (30) days for reasons which are beyond the control of Owner, Owner
must commence the cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently pursue such cure to
completion. If Owner fails to cure such noncompliance within the time(s) set forth above, such
failure shall be considered to be a Default and City shall be entitled to exercise the remedies set
forth in Article 8 below.
7.4 Annual Review a Non - Exclusive Means for Determining and nd Requiring Cure of
Owner's Default.
The annual review procedures set forth in this Article 7 shall not be the exclusive means
for City to identify a Default by Owner or limit City's rights or remedies for any such Default.
8. Events of Default.
13
8.1 General Provisions.
In the event of any material default, breach, or violation of the terms of this Agreement
( "Default "), the Party alleging a Default shall have the right to deliver a written notice (each, a
"Notice of Default ") to the defaulting Party. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the
alleged Default and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (ten (10) days if the
Default relates to the failure to timely make a monetary payment due hereunder and not less than
thirty (30) days in the event of non - monetary Defaults) in which the Default must be cured (the
"Cure Period "). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in Default for
the purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged
Default is cured within the Cure Period, then the Default thereafter shall be deemed not to exist.
If a non - monetary Default cannot be cured during the Cure Period with the exercise of
commercially reasonable diligence, the defaulting Party must promptly commence to cure as
quickly as possible, and in no event later than thirty (30) days after it receives the Notice of
Default, and thereafter diligently pursue said cure to completion.
8.2 Default by Owner.
If Owner is alleged to have committed a non - monetary Default and it disputes the
claimed Default, it may make a written request for an appeal hearing before the City Council
within ten (10) days of receiving the Notice of Default, and a public hearing shall be scheduled at
the next available City Council meeting to consider Owner's appeal of the Notice of Default.
Failure to appeal a Notice of Default to the City Council within the ten (10) day period shall
waive any right to a hearing on the claimed Default. If Owner's appeal of the Notice of Default
is timely and in good faith but after a public hearing of Owner's appeal the City Council
concludes that Owner is in Default as alleged in the Notice of Default, the accrual date for
commencement of the thirty (30) day Cure Period provided in Section 8.1 shall be extended until
the City Council's denial of Owner's appeal is communicated to Owner.
8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement.
In the event of an alleged Owner Default, City may not terminate this Agreement without
first delivering a written Notice of Default and providing Owner with the opportunity to cure the
Default within the Cure Period, as provided in Section 8. 1, and complying with Section 8.2 if
Owner timely appeals any Notice of Default with respect to a non - monetary Default. A
termination of this Agreement by City shall be valid only if good cause exists and is supported
by evidence presented to the City Council at or in connection with a duly noticed public hearing
to establish the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be judicially
challenged by Owner. Any such judicial challenge must be brought within thirty (30) days of
service on Owner, by first class mail, postage prepaid, of written notice of termination by City or
a written notice of City's determination of an appeal of the Notice of Default as provided in
Section 8.2.
8.4 Default by City,
If Owner alleges a City Default and alleges that the City has not cured the Default within
the Cure Period, Owner may pursue any equitable remedy available to it under this Agreement,
including, without limitation, an action for a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, or specific
14
performance of City's obligations set forth in this Agreement. Upon a City Default, any
resulting delays in Owner's performance hereunder shall neither be a Owner Default nor
constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of this Agreement by City and shall, at
Owner's option (and provided Owner delivers written notice to City within thirty (30) days of
the commencement of the alleged City Default), extend the Term for a period equal to the length
of the delay.
8.5 Waiver.
Failure or delay by either Party in delivering a Notice of Default shall not waive that
Party's right to deliver a future Notice of Default of the same or any other Default.
8.6 Specific Performance Remedy.
Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to
restore the Property to its pre- existing condition once implementation of this Agreement has
begun. After such implementation, both Owner and City may be foreclosed from other choices
they may have had to plan for the development of the Property, to utilize the Property or provide
for other benefits and alternatives. Owner and City have invested significant time and resources
and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this
Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the
Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement. It is not possible to determine the sum of
money which would adequately compensate Owner or City for such efforts. For the above
reasons, City and Owner agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if either City or
Owner fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Therefore, specific performance
of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Owner if City fails to carry out its obligations
under this Agreement or to compensate City if Owner falls to carry out its obligations under this
Agreement.
8.7 Monetary Damages.
The Parties agree that monetary damages shall not be an available remedy for either Party
for a Default hereunder by the other Party; provided, however, that (i) nothing in this Section 8.7
is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict City's right to recover the Public Benefit
Fees due from Owner as set forth herein; and (ii) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall
be interpreted to limit or restrict Owner's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 or the
right of the prevailing Party in any Action to recover its litigation expenses, as set forth in
Section 8.10.
8.8 Additional City Remedy for Owner's Default.
In the event of any Default by Owner, in addition to any other remedies which may be
available to City, whether legal or equitable, City shall be entitled to receive and retain any
Development Exactions applicable to the Project or the Property, including any fees, grants,
dedications, or improvements to public property which it may have received prior to Owner's
Default without recourse from Owner or its successors or assigns.
15
8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials, Employees, or Agents.
No City official, employee, or agent shall have any personal liability hereunder for a
Default by City of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement.
8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action.
In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, an "Action ") between
the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arises out of this Agreement,
the prevailing Party shall recover all of its actual and reasonable costs and expenses, regardless
of whether they would be recoverable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5
or California Civil Code section 1717 in the absence of this Agreement. These costs and
expenses include expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and costs of investigation and preparation
before_ initiation of the Action. The right to recover these costs and expenses shall accrue upon
initiation of the Action, regardless of whether the Action is prosecuted to a final judgment or
decision.
9. Force Maieure,
Neither Party shall be deemed to be in Default where failure or delay in performance of
any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused, through no fault of the Party whose
performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots
or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, state or federal regulations, or court
actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or
omission of a third person. In no event shall the occurrence of an event of force majeure operate
to extend the Term of this Agreement. In addition, in no event shall the time for performance of
a monetary obligation, including without limitation Owner's obligation to pay Public Benefit
Fees, be extended pursuant to this Section.
10. Indemnity Obligations of Owner.
10.1 Indemnity Arising From Acts or Omissions of Owner.
Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's officials, employees,
agents, attorneys, and contractors (collectively, the "City's Affiliated Parties ") from and against
all suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but
not limited to attorneys' fees and costs) (collectively, a "Claim ") that may arise, directly or
indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Owner or Owner's agents, contractors,
subcontractors, agents, or employees in the course of Development of the Project or any other
activities of Owner relating to the Property or pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the
right to select and retain counsel to defend any Claim filed against City and /or any of City's
Affiliated Parties, and Owner shalt pay the reasonable cost for defense of any Claim. The
indemnity provisions in this Section 10.1 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of
whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date.
10.2 Third Party Litigation.
In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10. 1, Owner shall indemnify,
defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any Claim against
16
City or City's Affiliated Parties seeking to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
Agreement, the Adopting Ordinance, any of the Development Regulations for the Project
(including without limitation any actions taken pursuant to CEQA with respect thereto), any
Subsequent Development Approval, or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this
Agreement. Said indemnity obligation shall include payment of attorney's fees, expert witness
fees, and court costs. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such Claim and City shall
cooperate with Owner in the defense of such Claim. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of
such Claim, Owner shall not be responsible to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from
such Claim until Owner is so notified and if City fails to cooperate in the defense of a Claim
Owner shall not be responsible to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City during the period
that City so fails to cooperate or for any losses attributable thereto. City shall be entitled to
retain separate counsel to represent City against the Claim and the City's defense costs for its
separate counsel shall be included in Owner's indemnity obligation, provided that such counsel
shall reasonably cooperate with Owner in an effort to minimize the total litigation expenses
incurred by Owner. In the event either City or Owner recovers any attorney's fees, expert
witness fees, costs, interest, or other amounts from the party or parties asserting the Claim,
Owner shall be entitled to retain the same (provided it has fully performed its indemnity
obligations hereunder). The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.2 shall commence on the
Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the
Termination Date.
10.3 Environmental Indemnity,
In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, from and after the
Agreement Date Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated
Parties from and against any and all Claims for personal injury or death, property damage,
economic loss, statutory penalties or fines, and damages of any kind or nature whatsoever,
including without limitation attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs, based upon or arising
from any of the following: (i) the actual or alleged presence of any Hazardous Substance on or
under any of the Property in violation of any applicable Environmental Law; (ii) the actual or
alleged migration of any Hazardous Substance from the Property through the soils or
groundwater to a location or locations off of the Property; and (iii) the storage, handling,
transport, or disposal of any Hazardous Substance on, to, or from the Property and any other area
disturbed, graded, or developed by Owner in connection with Owner's Development of the
Project. The foregoing indemnity obligations shall not apply to any Hazardous Substance placed
or stored on a separate legal lot within the Property after the Lot Termination Date for said lot, as
provided in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.3 shall
commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall
survive the Termination Date.
11. Assignment.
Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign (hereinafter, collectively, a
"Transfer ") Owner's fee title to the Property, in whole or in part, to any person, partnership, joint
venture, fret, or corporation (which successor, as of the effective date of the Transfer, shall
become the "Owner" under this Agreement) at any time from the Agreement Date until the
Termination Date; provided, however, that no such Transfer shall violate the provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et se 4.) or City's local subdivision
17
ordinance and any such Transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of Owner's rights,
duties, and obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement as to the Property or the
portion thereof so Transferred and shall be made in strict compliance with the following
conditions precedent: (i) no transfer or assignment of any of Owner's rights or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of the Property;
and (ii) prior to the effective date of any proposed Transfer, Owner (as transferor) shall notify
City, in writing, of such proposed Transfer and deliver to City a written assignment and
assumption, executed in recordable form by the transferring and successor Owner and in a form
subject to the reasonable approval of the City Attorney of City (or designee), pursuant to which
the transferring Owner assigns to the successor Owner and the successor Owner assumes from
the transferring Owner all of the rights and obligations of the transferring Owner with respect to
the Property or portion thereof to be so Transferred, including in the case of a partial Transfer the
obligation to perform such obligations that must be performed off of the portion of the Property
so Transferred that are a condition precedent to the successor Owner's right to develop the
portion of the Property so Transferred.
Notwithstanding any Transfer, the transferring Owner shall continue to be jointly and
severally liable to City, together with the successor Owner, to perform all of the transferred
obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement unless the transferring Owner is given a
release in writing by City, which release shall be only with respect to the portion of the Property
so Transferred in the event of a partial Transfer. City shall provide such a release upon the
transferring Owner's full satisfaction of all of the following conditions: (i) the transferring
Owner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property so Transferred
other than as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; (ii) the transferring Owner is not then in Default
under this Agreement and no condition exists that with the passage of time or the giving of
notice, or both, would constitute a Default hereunder; (iii) the transferring Owner has provided
City with the notice and the fully executed written and recordable assignment and assumption
agreement required as set forth in the first paragraph of this Section 11; and (iv) the successor
Owner either (A) provides City with substitute security equivalent to any security previously
provided by the transferring Owner to City to secure performance of the successor Owner's
obligations hereunder with respect to the Property or the portion of the Property so Transferred
or (B) if the transferred obligation in question is not a secured obligation, the successor Owner
either provides security reasonably satisfactory to City or otherwise demonstrates to City's
reasonable satisfaction that the successor Owner has the financial resources or commitments
available to perform the transferred obligation at the time and in the manner required under this
Agreement and the Development Regulations for the Project.
12. Mortgagee Rights.
12.1 Encumbrances on Property.
The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner in any manner -
from encumbering the Property, any part of the Property, or any improvements on the Property
with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or
operation of the Project.
IV
12.2 Mortgagee Protection,
This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Nevertheless,
no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any
Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or
interest in the Property or part of the Property by a Mortgagee (whether due to foreclosure,
trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination, or otherwise) shall be subject to all
of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or
any part of the Property shall be entitled to the benefits arising under this Agreement.
12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 12.3, a Mortgagee will not have any
obligation or duty under the terms of this Agreement to perform the obligations of Owner or
other affirmative covenants of Owner, or to guarantee this performance except that: (i) the
Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Project under the Development Regulations without
fully complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be
performed by Owner is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, that performance
shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance.
12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure.
Each Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive written notice
from City of: (i) the results of the periodic review of compliance specified in Article 7 of this
Agreement, and (ii) any default by Owner of its obligations set forth in this Agreement.
Each Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not an obligation, to cure the Default
within ten (10) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a monetary Default and
within thirty (30) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a non - monetary
Default. If the Mortgagee can only remedy or cur a non - monetary Default by obtaining
possession of the Property, then the Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession
with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise, and to remedy or cure the non -
monetary Default within thirty (30) days after obtaining possession and, except in case of
emergency or to protect the public health or safety, City may not exercise any of its judicial
remedies set forth in this Agreement to terminate or substantially alter the rights of the
Mortgagee until expiration of the thirty (30) -day period. In the case of a non - monetary Default
that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within thirty (30) days, the Mortgagee shall have
additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy or cure the Default, provided the Mortgagee
promptly commences to cure the non - monetary Default within thirty (30) days and diligently
prosecutes the cure to completion.
13. Miscellaneous Terms.
13.1 Notices.
Any notice or demand that shall be required or permitted by law or any provision of this
Agreement shall be in writing. If the notice or demand will be served upon a Party, it either shall
be personally delivered to the Party; deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt
requested, and postage prepaid; or delivered by a reliable courier service that provides a receipt
19
showing date and time of delivery with courier charges prepaid. The notice or demand shall be
addressed as follows:
TO CITY: City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
Attn: City Manager
With a copy to: City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
TO OWNER: Golf Realty Fund
One Upper Newport Plaza
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attn: Robert O Hill
With a copy to: Tim Paone
Theodora Oringher PC
535 Anton Boulevard, Ninth Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Either Party may change the address stated in this Section 13.1 by delivering notice to the
other Party in the manner provided in this Section 13. 1, and thereafter notices to such Parry shall
be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notices delivered in accordance with this
Agreement shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of: (i) the date received or (iii) three
business days after deposit in the mail as provided above.
13.2 Project as Private Undertaking,
The Development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither Party is acting as the
agent of the other in any respect, and each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect
to the terms, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement forms no
partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind. The only relationship between the
Parties is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property by the
owner of the property.
13.3 Cooperation.
Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party to
the extent consistent with and necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of a
Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if
reasonably required, and file or record the required instruments and writings and take any actions
Fill
as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
13.4 Estoppel Certificates.
At any time, either Party may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that that
Party certify in writing that, to the best of its knowledge: (i) this Agreement is in full force and
effect and is binding on the Party; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either
orally or in writing or, if this Agreement has been amended, the Party providing the certification
shall identify the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in Default in
the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and no event or situation has occurred
that with the passage of time or the giving of Notice or both would constitute a Default or, if
such is not the case, then the other Party shall describe the nature and amount of the actual or
prospective Default.
The Party requested to furnish an estoppel certificate shall execute and return the
certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt. Requests for the City to furnish an estoppel
certificate shall include reimbursement for all administrative costs incurred by the City including
reasonable attorneys fees incurred by the City in furnishing an estoppels certificate.
13.5 Rules of Construction.
The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is
mandatory; and "may" is permissive.
13.6 Time Is of the Essence.
Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement as to which time is an
element.
13.7 Waiver.
The failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this
Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a Default by the
other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the
other Party in the future.
13.8 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other
counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same agreement.
13.9 Entire Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all
prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Parties with respect to
the subject matter addressed in this Agreement.
21
13.10 Severability.
The Parties intend that each and every obligation of the Parties is interdependent and
interrelated with the other, and if any provision of this Agreement or the application of the
provision to any Party or circumstances shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, it is
the intention of the Parties that the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the
provision to persons or circumstances shall be rendered invalid or unenforceable. The Parties
intend that neither Party shall receive any of the benefits of the Agreement without the full
performance by such Party of all of its obligations provided for under this Agreement. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend that Owner shall not receive any of the
benefits of this Agreement if any of Owner's obligations are rendered void or unenforceable as
the result of any third party litigation, and City shall be free to exercise its legislative discretion
to amend or repeal the Development Regulations applicable to the Property and Owner shall
cooperate as required, despite this Agreement, should third party litigation result in the
nonperformance of Owner's obligations under this Agreement. The provisions of this Section
13.10 shall apply regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs and after the Termination Date.
13.11 Construction.
This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both City and
Owner are sophisticated parties who were represented by independent counsel throughout the
negotiations or City and Owner had the opportunity to be so represented and voluntarily chose to
not be so represented. City and Owner each agree and acknowledge that the terms of this
Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms, and
conditions. This Agreement shall therefore be construed as a whole consistent with its fair
meaning, and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used
to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either Party.
13.12 Successors and Assigns, Constructive Notice and Acceptance.
The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement
shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this
Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the
land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development
of the Property: (i) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (ii)
runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each
successor in interest during its ownership of the Property or any portion thereof Every person or
entity who now or later owns or acquires any right, title, or interest in any part of the Project or
the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every
provision of this Agreement. This Section 13.12 applies regardless of whether the instrument by
which such person or entity acquires the interest refers to or acknowledges this Agreement and
regardless of whether such person or entity has expressly entered into an assignment and
assumption agreement as provided for in Section 11.
22
13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries.
The only Parties to this Agreement are City and Owner. This Agreement does not
involve any third party beneficiaries, and it is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit
or be enforceable by any other person or entity.
13.14 Applicable Law and Venue.
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the internal laws of the
State of California, without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity
arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or
determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the
Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, or the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. The Parties waive all provisions of law providing for the
removal or change of venue to any other court.
13.15 Section Headings.
All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not
affect construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits.
All of the Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Exhibits A and
B are attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference as follows:
EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION
DESIGNATION
A
Legal Description of Property
B
Depiction of the Property
13.17 Recordation,
The City Clerk of City shall record this Agreement and any amendment, modification, or
cancellation of this Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange
within the period required by California Government Code section 65868.5 and City of Newport
Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.090. The date of recordation of this Agreement shall not
modify or amend the Effective Date or the Termination Date.
23
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
ZONING IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC BENEFIT SPACE AGREEMENT
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aaron Harp, City Attorney
"OWNER"
IC
By:
"CITY"
24
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Its: Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared and , personally known
to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signature on the
instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for
said County and State
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared and ' personally known
to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signature on the
instrument the persons, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for
said County and State
-25-
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
[TO BE INSERTED]
EXHIBIT B
DEPICTION OF PROPERTY
[TO BE INSERTED]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Definitions ........................................................................................... ..............................2
2. General Provisions .............................................................................. ..............................6
2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation ............................. ..............................6
2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement .................................................. ..............................6
2.3 Owner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the
Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement .. ..............................6
2.4 Term ........................................................................................ ..............................6
3. Public Benefits .................................................................................... ..............................7
3.1 Public Benefit Fee ................................................................... ..............................7
3.2 Other Public Benefits .............................................................. ..............................8
4. Development of Project ...................................................................... ..............................9
4.1 Applicable Regulations; Owner's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of
Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals .......................9
4.2 No Conflicting Enactments ..................................................... ..............................9
4.3 Reservations of Authority ...................................................... .............................10
4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps .................................................. .............................12
5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ....................................... .............................12
6. Enforcement ....................................................................................... .............................12
7. Annual Review of Owner's Compliance With Agreement ............... .............................13
7.1 General ................................................................................... .............................13
7.2 Owner Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance .. .............................13
7.3 Procedure ............................................................................... .............................13
7.4 Annual Review a Non - Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring
Cure of Owner's Default ........................................................ .............................13
8. Events of Default ............................................................................... .............................13
8.1
General Provisions ................................................................. .............................14
8.2
Default by Owner ................................................................... .............................14
8.3
City's Option to Terminate Agreement ................................. .............................14
8.4
Default by City ....................................................................... .............................14
'8.5
Waiver .................................................................................... .............................15
8.6
Specific Performance Remedy ............................................... .............................15
8.7
Monetary Damages ................................................................ .............................15
8.8
Additional City Remedy for Owner's Default ....................... .............................15
8.9
No Personal Liability of City Officials„ Employees, or Agents ........................16
8.10
Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action .......................16
9. Force
Majeure .................................................................................... .............................16
i
Page
10. Indemnity Obligations of Owner ....................................................... .............................16
10.1 ................................................................................................ .............................16
10.2 Third Party Litigation ............................................................ .............................16
11. Assignment ........................................................................................ .............................17
12. Mortgagee Rights ............................................................................... .............................18
12.1 Encumbrances on Property .................................................... .............................18
12.2 Mortgagee Protection ............................................................. .............................19
12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated ...................................................... .............................19
12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure ............................19
13. Miscellaneous Terms ......................................................................... .............................19
13.1
Notices ...................................................................................
.............................19
13.2
Project as Private Undertaking ...............................................
.............................20
13.3
Cooperation ............................................................................
.............................20
13.4
Estoppel Certificates ..............................................................
.............................21
13.5
Rules of Construction ............................................................
.............................21
13.6
Time Is of the Essence ...........................................................
.............................21
13.7
Waiver ....................................................................................
.............................21
13.8
Counterparts ...........................................................................
.............................21
13.9
Entire Agreement ...................................................................
.............................21
13.10
Severabil ity ............................................................................
.............................22
13.11
Construction ...........................................................................
.............................22
13.12
Successors and Assigns; Constructive Notice and Acceptance ..........................22
13.13
No Third Party Beneficiaries .................................................
.............................23
13.14
Applicable Law and Venue ....................................................
.............................23
13.15
Section Headings ...................................................................
.............................23
13.16
Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits ..................................
.............................23
13.17
Recordation ............................................................................
.............................23
-ii-
A
MICHAEL RECUPERO, ESQ.
November 16, 2011
Commissioners, Newport Beach Planning Commission
C/O Ms. Kimberly Brandt and Ms. Marlene Burns
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Correspondence
Item No. 2c & 3b
Newport Beach Country Club
PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. POST (CERTIFIED MAIL)
Re: November 17, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda Items 2 (PA 2005 -140) and 3
(PA2008 -152)
Dear Commissioners:
This letter is written on behalf of one -half of the ownership of the Newport Beach
Country Club and Tennis Club (the "Properties ")' which you are considering tomorrow
night.
Comments on Agenda Item 2 (PA2005 -140): Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.
We would reiterate our support for the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. plan as a
reasonable exercise of our tenant's authority to improve the leasehold interest, with the
inclusion of the revised frontage road (Attachment 1) as reflected in the most recent staff
report.
The Frontage Road. The frontage road is preferable from a planning standpoint, and:
1. Is the preference of the Applicant and the above referenced ownership interests;
2. Has been modified to be one -way, narrowed and provides for more desirable
turning movements than originally proposed;
3. Provides a greater landscaping setback from PCH to the parking lot
(approximately 20' difference) as compared to the "no frontage road" option;
4. Serves the operational needs of the IBC leasehold as well as the longstanding
needs of the adjacent Armstrong Nursery;
5. Is consistent with mandates of the City's traffic engineering constraints.
' The Fainbarg Family Trust (managed by Irving Chase), the Mira Mesa Shoppping Center -West, and the
Mesa Shopping Center -East (managed by Elliot Feuerstein), collectively own 50% of the Properties.
31877 Del Obispo St. • Suite 204 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 -3228
Ph: 949429.6300 • Fax: 949.429.6303
City of Newport Beach rylr.
November 16, 2011 ..\l!T�
Additionally, Attachment 2, the July 13, 2010 letter from the Tenant to the City, describes
why maintaining the frontage road is the most prudent and legally defensible option.
This should be considered in conjunction with Attachment 3 which sets out the relevant
recorded documents, including the Termination of Access Easement document
(Recordation No. 19970630399). The Termination only purports to conditionally terminate
certain historic easements, and not others. Simply stated, the public record suggests that
enforceable easement rights to the 26.5 -foot easement (See, document Nos. 92- 662454
and 93- 0139174) continue to exist, in favor of Feuerstein and Fainbarg.
No Encumbrance on Fee Interest. Finally, we understand that the Applicant is required
through the IBC Development Agreement to provide security for the leasehold
improvements. We understand the Tenant has the right to encumber its leasehold
interest, however, we do not consent to any new encumbrance or obligation, recorded or
otherwise, which affects the underlying fee.
Comments on Agenda Item 3 (PA2008-152): Golf Realty Fund
We incorporate by reference the earlier letters on file relative to our position on this
Planning Application and reiterate our position that Golf Realty Fund lacks the right to
unilaterally entitle this property.z
Development Agreement. Inasmuch as the City has been provided with the title report,
and the Owner's Agreement, we believe the City's decision to withhold the GRF
Development Agreement from our review until yesterday is inequitable and unjustified.
The Development Agreement suggests that it is binding on the "Property" as defined in
section 2.2. and is required to be recorded. Our review of the law suggests that it be
amended to require the consent of the Property owners, not just Golf Realty Fund. It
should also set out the City's expectation that future discretionary permits and
ministerial (building and grading permits) will require all owners' consent.
Planned Community Text. The current Planned Community Text draft does not
adequately provide the owner flexibility to adjust the mixed -use element of the zoning
allowed by General Plan Land Use designation MU -113. As 50% of the ownership of this
property has not approved the current development plan, we believe that providing
such flexibility, and including a specific provision which allows for staff -level
amendment, may ultimately allow the parties and the City to meaningfully address a
revised plan on a go forward basis.
2 We continue to believe that the City's reliance on the former Newport Beach Municipal Code
Section 20.90.030(C) in denying our Client's the right to participate on this project is misplaced
when the City is clearly relying on the amended Municipal Code for all other matters related to
this project.
PAGE MICHAELRECUPERO,EsQ.
City of Newport Beach
November 16, 2011
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
W2 )�
Michael Recupero, Esq.
Ecc:
Commissioner Ameri
Commissioner Kramer
Commissioner Toerge
Commissioner Hawkins
Commissioner Myers
Elliot Feuerstein
Irving Chase
John Olson, Esq.
Tim Paone, Esq.
Leone Mulvihill, Esq.
Mam
PAGE MICHAEL RECUPERO, ESQ.
C::ij
0
io
a
I
I
1
Dr-f
N✓GG
1�+FG
STI 91" 11
i
e
to //-
/o
336'To7RG 5 /errE ?�
wnT-
33 �
LM
CAA PLANNING
July 13, 2010
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Rosalinh Ung
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: PA 2008 -152 Newport Beach Country Club, Frontage Road Access Easement
Dear Ms. Ung:
You recently forwarded to CAA Planning a copy of a First American Title Report (First
American Report) dated June 2010 and asked for our review related to the access easement.
The First American Report does not identify the existence of an access easement over the
frontage road paralleling East Coast Highway. However, the 2008 Fidelity National Title
Report (Fidelity Report) submitted by the Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC) does
identify this easement. As you know, that easement has been, and continues to be used by
motorists who patronize the Armstrong Nursery.
Based on our review of the First American Report, we concur that it does not disclose the 26.5
foot access easement (Instrument No. 93- 0139174) identified in the Fidelity Report in favor of
Russell Fluter, included as Attachment I. The Fidelity Report correctly captured the 1993
Easement Deed granted to Russell Fluter by the Irvine Company, included as Attachment 2.
As we have previously discussed, a 25 foot access easement over the frontage road held by
Messrs Feuerstein and Fainbarg was terminated in 1996. The termination of the 25 foot
easement is included as Attachment 3.
Records maintained by the County of Orange Recorder's office show a 2009 quitclaim deed
and release of easement (Instrument No. 93- 0139174) from Mr. Fluter to Messrs Feuerstein
and Fainbarg. The quitclaim deed and release of easement is included as Attachment 4. The
County Recorder's office does not show any subsequent action by Mr. Feuerstein or Mr.
Fainbarg to terminate the 26.5 foot easement. We can assure the City of Newport Beach that
our client, the NBCC, would have gladly foregone the excessive time and resources to
produce site plan alternatives retaining the nursery access easement over the frontage road.
You have asked why the 26.5 foot access easement does not show on parcel map 79 -704. It is
our understanding that parcel maps are not revised or updated to display such easements. This
is why the 1980 parcel map does not depict the 26.5 foot easement from 1993. We contacted
First American Title Company in an effort to determine why their report does not capture the
85 Argonaut, Suite 220 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581 -2888 • Fax (949) 581 -3599
i
Ms. Rosalinh Ung "`
July 13, 2010
Page 2 of 2
26.5 foot access easement over the frontage road, but they have not responded to our inquiry.
In an abundance of caution, the City may wish to inquire of Mr. O'Hill whether he has
documentation verifying the termination of the 26.5 foot easement following the 2009 release
from Mr. Fluter to Messrs Feuerstein and Fainbarg.
Please contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
CAA PLANNING, INC.
Shahaffne
Chief Executive Officer
cc: Mr. Dave Wooten
Mr. Patrick Alford
Attachments: 1. Excerpt from 2008 Fidelity National Title Report showing 26.5 foot access
easement in favor of Russell Fluter
2. 1993 26.5 foot Access Easement Deed
3. 1996 25 foot Access Easement Termination
4. 2009 Quitclaim of Fluter 26.5 foot Access Easement to
Feuerstein & Fainbarg
Branch :C18,User :3004
`D8 OWoucstecl By
.'.r..:;ity National Tide
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL
DOCUMENT:
Arnold D. Feuerstein, Trustee
Allan Fainbarg, Trustee
129 W. Wilson St., Ste, 100
Costa Mesa, CA. 92627
Attention: Irving M. Chase, Esq,
L4
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
Station ID :EEI'K
Recorded In Offlcial Records, Orange County
Tom Rely, Clerk - Recorder
lPlllllllllllllllllllllllll @IIIIIIIIIIIIIIPIlilllglllllll 32.00
2009000658760 02:18pm 12/08/09
108 402 Q01 3
0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Documentary Transfer Tax: $0
The value and consideration is less than
$100.00 and there is no additional
consideration received by the Grantor, R & T
11911
QUITCLAIM DEED AND RELEASE OF EASEMENT
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RUSSELL
FLUTER, an individual ("Grantor "), remises, releases and quitclaims to ARNOLD D.
FEUERSTEIN, TRUSTEE OF THE FEUERSTEIN COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST dated
April 13, 1982, an undivided one -half interest, and ALLAN FAINBARG, TRUSTEE OF THE
FAINBARG FAMILY dated April 19, 1982, an undivided one -half interest, (collectively,
"Grantee "), all of the Grantor's right, title, and interest in and to that certain non - exclusive
easement granted pursuant to that certain instrument entitled Easement Deed (Amling's) ( "Deed ")
recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California on March 1, 1993 as Instrument
Number 93- 0139174, or by any other instrument, as such easement is legally described on Exhibit
A ("the Property"), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Grantor hereby releases all rights and
obligations associated with the easement pursuant to the Agreement. From and after the date this
Quitclaim Deed and Release of Easement is recorded, title to the Easement shall vest in the
Grantee.
Grantor has caused this Quitclaim Deed to duly executed on October 2009.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY HAS RECORDED THIS INS7Rl1MENT
BY REOUEST.dS,.N ACC� UNLY
AND HAS NO j EXAWNE7 I f FOR REGULARITY
AND SUFFI' IENCY OR A3 ITS EFFECT UPON
THE TITLE TO ANY aEAL PROPERTY THAT
MAY BE DESCRIBED THEREIN,
ORANGE, CA Document:QE. 2009.658760
Printed on:71612010 4:29 I'M
1'_u5x,l 1 �l ���,✓
Pagc:I of
Branch :CLR,Oser:3004
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Easement
Station ID :EEUK
AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTHWESTERLY 26.50 FEET
OF PARCEL PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -704, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 152, PAGES 17
THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE, CA 1Docament:Q E 2009.658760
Printed on:7/6/2010 4:29 PNI
11age:2 of 3
Branch :08,13ser :3004
A.P.N.:
STATE OF N I h t IAtcA, )SS
Station ID :TAJ ;K
File No.: dniehaus (dn)
COUNTY OF OfO ) Ctl I [ ,
On Q 0 j before me, vuS� Wcj f Notary
Public, personally appeared e- e/(-
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
be/ person whose name(} is /arasubscnbed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he /she/they executed the same in his /hei theh authorized capacity(lies}, and that by hisjher/their signature/s) on
the instrument the personX, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
iVrTNESS my hand and official seal. SUy1N L pgKTEp3
C°rtvr 0 1673021 a
® M°10ry 8h&II° • C°AIaN° f
Sign re oforge county
My Comm 3xWrm,Nd 90, 201
all
My Commission Expires: This area for of dal - notarial
-�seal
Noia (Z�tr Name,` I Phone:
Notary R i'stration �
County of Principal Place of
Number: c d Business: f:[I
Page 3 of 3
ORANGE, CA Docun ent:QE 2009.658760
Printed on:7 /6 /2010 4:29 PM
Page:3 of 3
Armstrong (Amling) Access Easement
10/24/2011
parties
Date
Instrument
Description
Width
Date signed
recorded
Grantor
Grantee
92- 662452
Irvine Company
Amling Nursery
Declaration of access easement
25 feet
9/29/1992
10/1/1992
Owners
(Amling's Nursery)
92- 662454
Irvine Company
Russell Fluter -A
Grant Deed subject to the
10/1/1992
single man
Declaration of access easement
dated 9 -29 -1992, recorded
concurrently
93- 0139174
Irvine Company
Russell Fluter -A
Easement Deed (Amling's)
26.5 feet
2/12/1993
3/1/1993
single man
93- 0139175
Irvine Company
Russell Fluter-
First Amendment to access
Increased to 26.5 feet
10/15/1992
3/1/1993
Amling Nursery
Easement 92- 662452
Owner
93- 0158180
Irvine Company
Fainbarg
Grant Deed
No width specified
3/3/1993
3/9/1993
19970630399
Feuerstein &
Termination of Access Easement 92-
Document references easement (25
12/13/1996
12/8/1997
Fainbarg
662452 & 93- 0139175
ft.) and amendment (to 26.5
ft.);therefore termination is 26.5 ft.
19960167327
Russell Fluter
Fainbarg
Grant Deed
Grants non - exclusive easements as set
4/2/1996
4/4/1996
forth in 92- 662452
19960167328
Russell Fluter
Feuerstein
Grant Deed
Grants non - exclusive easements as set
4/2/1996
4/4/1996
forth in 92- 662452
2 8760
Russell Fluter
Feuerstein &
Quitclaim Deed and Release of
Release 93- 0139174 to Feuerstein and
10/23/2009
12/8/2009
Fainbarg
Easement
Fainbarg
Correspondence
Item No. 2d & 3c
Burns, Marlene Newport Beach Country Club
PA2005 -140 and PA2008 -152
From:
Ung, Rosalinh
Sent:
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:06 PM
To:
Burns, Marlene
Subject:
GRF - Compromise Plan #11
Attachments:
11.11.16 LS response to IBC- LeeSak comments.doc; ATT28003202.htm; 11.11.15
Compl1.pdf; ATT28003203.htm
For admin record...
From: Leland Stearns rmailto: LELAND Ca1STEARNSARCHITECTURE.COM1
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 1:04 PM
To: Douglas Lee
Cc: Ung, Rosalinh; Brandt, Kim; Tim Paone; Byron de Arakal; Robert O Hill; Campbell, James; Michael Toerge; Bradley
Hillgren; Robert C. Hawkins; Fred Ameri; Kory Kramer; Dave Wooten; iiohnson(a)balboabavclub.com;
pdickey newportbeachcc.com
Subject: GRF /IBC Compromise Plan #11
Per Robert O Hill's request I am sending you Compromise Master Plan #11 and a written response to your
memo of Nov. 2, 2011.
SA
SA job #9602
November 16, 2011
BY EMAIL:
Doug Lee, AIA
Lee & Sakahara Architects
16842 Von Kannan Ave., Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
Re: NBCC PCD Compromise 11
Attached is Master Plan Compromise 11 responsive to your comment letter dated November 2, 2011.
In my professional opinion, 1) Master Plan Compromise 1 I shows that the IBC Golf Clubhouse and the
GRF Golf Parking Lot Design can easily work together with IBC's cooperation and 2) GRF's Golf
Parking Lot design shown on Master Plan Compromise 11 is a much better aesthetic and pedestrian
solution than IBC's golf parking lot.
Below is a detailed response to your letter with their comments shown first in black followed by my
responses in blue italics.
➢ Plan indicates 334 parking spaces but actual count is 327 plus 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard
total count = 332 spaces
Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 11 where an additional 7 parking spaces have been
added and 5 spaces in maintenance yard eliminated for a total of 334. (Parking Required is 244
spaces) If the GRF Golf Parking Lot design is adopted GRF has agreed to make available to IBC the
non - exclusive parking easement over Corporate Plaza West for weekends and holidays for an
additional 554 additional parking spaces.
➢ Plan does not address existing access easement. If easement is maintained, this will further reduce
parking spaces.
The Frontage Road Easement has been terminated. The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission
at their October 2011 hearing indicated that they unanimously desire a golf parking lot site plan
without the hazardous and unsightly Frontage Road. If Frontage Road remains the primary loss will
be to the significant landscape buffer along PCH and traff c safety. Until that Public hearing IBC has
always indicated that IBC preferred a site plan without the Frontage Road.
s t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com
,SA
➢ Plan does not allow semi - trucks to maneuver in the parking lot. No staging areas for major events.
Please see the LSA Study and Stearns Architecture prior Major Tournament Staging Plan
demonstrating that trucks can maneuver in the parking lot and staging areas for major events can be
accommodated.
➢ Plan reduces the upper level prime parking by 32 spaces.
The IBC plan has approximately 80 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF Compromise 11
has 57 cars in the upper level parking area. The GRF plan makes all the parking better and does not
have the significant grade difference between prime golf parking and secondary parking shown in the
IBC plan requiring stairways with an extensive number ofsteps from the very large secondary parking
area. Master Plan Compromise 11 has 2 additional parking stalls adjacent to the Go f Clubhouse.
➢ Plan provides only one sidewalk in the parking lot. Travel distance to the sidewalk at the east
parking lot is approximately 290' and approximately 230' at the west parking lot. This layout will
encourage members to "cut through" the landscaped islands and between cars (shortest path to the
front door.
Two more pedestrian sidewalks have been added in attached Compromise IL The Master Plan
Compromise I1 is more pedestrian and golf cart friendly. (Seethe LSA Study)
)o The primary access to parking from the Porte Cochere is offset requiring two turns to access
parking lot.
With both the GRF and the IBC plans there are two turns. With Master Plan Compromise]] there are
two turns when leaving the Porte Cochere and going to the parking area. With the IBC's schematic
plan there are two turns when leaving the parking area and returning to the Porte Cochere.
➢ Plan encroaches 10' -20' into the golf course at the 18th green area.
Please see the revised Master Plan Compromise 11 which eliminates encroachment.
➢ Plan encroaches into Maintenance Yard.
Please see Master Plan Compromise 11, which eliminates this very minor encroachment.
➢ 5 spaces in the Maintenance yard should be deleted. This space is allocated for golf course
maintenance bins.
See attached Master Plan Compromise 11 where the 5 spaces in the Maintenance Yard have been
deleted.
s t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com
SA
➢ Due to the terraced parking concept, taller plant material will be required to effectively conceal the
automobiles. See attached section.
With the terraced design the goal is not to conceal the cars but to mitigate the "Sea of Asphalt" and to
create afar more aesthetic environment and public view from PCK Much of the time the parking lot is
mostly empty.
➢ Plan indicates reduced service yard.
Please see the attached Master Plan Compromise 11 with no reduction to Maintenance Yard area.
➢ Plan indicates an 85' driveway along Coast Highway between NBCC and the Nursery. City may
have some issues.
Please see Master Plan Compromise 11, which eliminates the 85' driveway and is now identical to
IBC's Preliminary Site Plan.
➢ Orientation of the Clubhouse has changed.
The Golf Clubhouse in Compromise I is now in the identical location as IBC's Preliminary Site Plan.
On a related point since I have not heard back from you regarding development of the cohesive,
comprehensive Landscape Plan, Master Plan Lighting and Sign Plan which I assume we are in
agreement on doing.
Sincerely yours,
Leland Stearns
cc: Michael Toerge, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner
Bradley Hillgren, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner
Robert Hawkins, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner
Fred Ameri, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner
Kory Kramer, City of Newport Beach, Planning Commissioner
Kim Brandt, City of Newport Beach, Community Development Director
Jim Campbell, City of Newport Beach, Principal Planner
Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach, Associate Planner
Dave Wooten, IBC, President & CEO
Jerry Johnson, IBC, EVP & CFO
Perry Dickey, Newport Beach Country Club, President
Tim Paone
Byron de Arakal
ROH
s t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
500 Broadway / Laguna Beach, CA 92651 / 949 376 7160 fax 376 1560 / www.stearnsarchitecture.com
C D I )
15th
GREEN
n
GATE
driving range
FUEL
ISLAND
CHIPPING
GREEN
THE VILLAS
18th
GREEN
a
GATE "
TRASH
ENCL.
SERVICE
ONLY GATE
F1
°
AT
SUB -AREA
9th
GREEN
CART STAGING /
IBC PROPOSED
CLUBHOUSE LOCATION
MEMBER'S Q _
ENTRY
THE GOLF CLUB FS
2' � BACK DROP
SUB -AREA C 1
FF = 113.00'
y 2
- 1
0
x m
GATE
ELIVERY D
SERVICE GOLFER'S
YARD
ENTRY Z 5
1 9'
_�-
x F 12.E = OFF
° 1 1 o
PN PNO p K� o �� y 1 N 10 C
1'
1 y \� 5 ps _ _ - - - - - - - - 105.
4 - S 107.2'
'
TE FS 068 - - 107 `
S 1 _
.0'
8' ix
-- - - - - - - -- 1 o
s
- `
S10 _ 1 4. 26'-o"
\� ° 1
FS 105.T� �t 104.7' N 33 TOTAL PARKING STALLS
/ rn
/ O o
S 3. - ° 1 �� 261.0"
--4 ° F 10
S 1 �o
°
.o
S/
st S _
1 2. ( .1' _ 102. - _
102.01 • ' - 10 o
-9
F 02' _
o - S 100.7' - -
�° CD
^' x OFF—
FS 98' +/-
777177:1177
x FS 97'
x FS 98' -
o— — — — — —
sa
0
S t e a r n s
ARCHITECTURE
A \� /l■ 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560
0
gr
CLUB
11
i
o
G2
�o
T
L4 ��u ---------------- ____
� �- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
I_
w
V
Q
w
t—
w
z
Owner
Golf Realty Fund
One Upper Newport Plaza,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
NBCC
Planned
Community
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Master Plan
Compromise 11
Showing
IBC Proposed
Golf Clubhouse
& GRF Parking
scale 1 "= 40' -0"
Description
Nov. 15, 2011
Project Number
ski
775
T
L4 ��u ---------------- ____
� �- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
I_
w
V
Q
w
t—
w
z
Owner
Golf Realty Fund
One Upper Newport Plaza,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
NBCC
Planned
Community
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Master Plan
Compromise 11
Showing
IBC Proposed
Golf Clubhouse
& GRF Parking
scale 1 "= 40' -0"
Description
Nov. 15, 2011
Project Number
ski
Newport Beach Country Club
Planned Community
<<
;g7��
Planning Commission
November 17, 2011
Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140)
Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (PA2008 -152)
Current
General Plan S
RS -D
Cv
52 } t
zo ou v
9
RM o
22R nil
cogsrHwvF
F 00 ONF -
OR
t' o
Sq
rFR , TFH
Golf Club Site, 133 acres
PR(Parks and Recreation)
Recreational (golf course)
Anomaly #74
• 35,000 s.f. clubhouse
F
46
MU -H
CO -G
45
Tennis Club Site, 12 ac.
MU -H3 /PR (Mixed -Use &
Parks and Recreation)
Commercial, residential,
recreational (tennis club)
i Anomaly #46
• 3,725 s.f. clubhouse
• 24 tennis courts
��tivvvoRr
O em
r
U i
41 OVL
a.
2
Golf Realty Fund
Legislative Action �� 3
Planned Community
;c Encompasses 145 acres
Development Plan Adoption 133 ac. golf club site
12 ac. tennis club site
w
Golf course
35,000 s.f. golf clubhouse
F0'�y�P 7 tennis courts
31725 s.f. tennis clubhouse
t9� 5 single family homes
27 hotel rooms, including
ancillary meeting & spa
n
3
Golf Realty Fund
Development Applications
133 acre golf club site
Site Development Review
Limited Term Permit
for
Golf course
35,000 golf clubhouse
Ancillary maintenance
Parking lot
Entry drive
Temporary use of trailers
TN
12 acre tennis club site
Tentative Tract Map
Transfer of Intensity
Limited Term Permit
Site Development Permit
for
7 tennis courts
3,725 s.f. tennis clubhouse
5 single family homes
27 hotel rooms, including
ancillary meeting & spa
Temporary use of trailers
��tivc!voRT
r
°9<icoa''�P
C!
Newport Beach I
Country Club, Inc.
Mo
Legislative Actions 1°
General Plan Amendment
Planned Community
Development Plan
r
133 acre golf club site
Anomaly #74
9 56,000 s.f.
PCDP Section 3.B.1
Golf Clubhouse Building Area
3999 56,000 s.f.
��tivc�voRT
o m�
0 i
a
°9<icoa''�P
5
Newport Beach
Country Club, Inc.
Development Applications
Site Development Review y ti
Limited Term Permit
133 ac. golf club site
a°;rQ►.+ 54,819 s.f. clubhouse
041, 017 ,_ Ancillary maintenance
Parking lot
Entry drive
Temporary use of trailers
F1.���s'QNF U S
6
r i ", _I
Golf Realty Fund (PA2005=140)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
No Significant Impacts
Land use
Traffic
-Aesthetic
Recreational
The architectural style is a matter of preference and is not
a determinative factor in accessing land use impacts
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
3
Planned Community Development Plan
Encompasses the entire 145 -acre project site
133 acre golf course site
Golf course
35,000 sf. golf clubhouse
Ancillary maintenance facilities
12 acre tennis club site
Tennis club with 7 tennis courts
3,725 sf. tennis clubhouse
27 hotel rooms including the ancillary spa and meeting
rooms
5 single - family homes
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
2
Transfer of Development
Applicant proposes a transfer of 27 hotel rooms from
Anomaly #43 to Anomaly #46 pursuant to General
Plan Policy
Host Hotels and Resorts (Marriott Hotel)
Vested right to develop 611 hotel rooms
Suggests a "use conversion solution" as an alternative where the
elimination of 17 tennis courts can be converted to hotel rooms or
building floor area
Staff believes
Host does not have a vested right to develop 611 hotel rooms -
May 11, 2005, administrative amendment to Site Plan Review #29
reduced the maximum room count from 611 to 532
Potential conversion does not create a traffic issue
Potential conversion not consistent with the General Plan as the
site is limited to 3,725 sf.
General Plan allows for the transfer of development
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
10
Comparison Site Plan
Comparison plan prepared by the applicant
Not an amendment of the application and
applicant is not requesting its approval
Illustrates possibility that the applicant's parking
lot layout could accommodate the larger
clubhouse proposed by NBCC, Inc.
Vo
11
Development Agreement
A 10 -year term
Conveys a vested right to develop
Public Benefits
Public Benefit fee: $93,000 per dwelling unit and
$10 per square foot of golf and tennis clubhouse
Project provides for visitor serving uses
Project provides aesthetic enhancements
Project will host numerous events of significant
social & economic benefit to the community
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
12
Recommendation
Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Adoption of a Planned Community Development
Plan proposed by staff for the entire 145 -acre
project site
Approval of the requested Transfer of
Development
Approval of Site Development and Limited Term
Permits, as proposed by applicant for the 12 -acre
tennis club site
Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, as
proposed by applicant
Adoption of the draft Development Agreement
UON
13
r i ", _I
Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.
(PA2008 -152)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
No Significant Impacts
Land use
Traffic
Aesthetic
The architectural style is a matter of preference and is not
a determinative factor in accessing land use impacts
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
15
Legislative Actions
General Plan Amendment
35,000 sf. to 56,000 sf. for Anomaly #74
Planned Community Development Plan
Amendment
Golf clubhouse from
Applies to the ' W�
35,000 sf. to 56,000 sf.
•ra n�l-F r^li ih r-; +-o r%r%l%i
1
tETAM rG
0
GHWAY
Alternative Site Plan
Modified Frontage Access
� � � � ! 1651 � -. --+ `��,t; • ti
930 TOM PAii/C . 9FWG£9
Alternative Frontage Access Driveway
Alternative Site Plan
Modified Frontage Access
Applicant's preferred plan, but does not eliminate the
frontage road as desired by the Commission
Provides enhanced screening of parking lot and hides
the fence as requested by the Commission
Provides " "exit only" access to Armstrong Nursery at
signal and avoids potential internal circulation
Provides
additional
flexibility for special
events
Proposed
driveway
must be widened to
20 feet
O B
���.o E"°ONr
�
19
Frontage Road Design Condition
5. The preferred parking lot design eliminates the
frontage road that provides access from the entry
driveway to the Armstrong Nursery property to
the west of the project site as shown in Exhibit
A2C dated September 19, 2011. In the event
that the applicant must provide frontage road
due to private easement obligations, the parking
lot shall be designed in conformance with
Attachment PC4 of the November 17, 2011,
Planning Commission Staff Report, including
vehicle access be limited to one -way east -bound
movements.
0-1141
20
Parking Lot Design Condition
7. A minimum of 334 parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained for the Golf Course and
its clubhouse. The design of the parking lot may
be modified provided it meets applicable safety
and design regulations or standards as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The final
parking lot layout including the orientation of the
drive aisles and parking spaces shall be subject
to the review and approval by the Community
Development Director, with appropriate
notification to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
21
1
Development Agreement
A 10 -year term
Conveys a vested right to develop
Public Benefits
Public Benefit fee: $10 per square foot of golf
clubhouse (maximum of $560,000)
Project provides for visitor serving uses
Project provides aesthetic enhancements
Project will host numerous events of significant
social & economic benefit to the community
EwPoFr
O B
���.o �
22
Recommendation
Adoption of MND and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program;
Approval of General Plan Amendment to increase
the maximum building area for the clubhouse
Adoption of a Planned Community Development
Plan amendment to increase the clubhouse
building area
Approval of the Site Development and Limited
Term Permit, as proposed by applicant for the
133 -acre golf club site
Adoption of the draft Development Agreement
o
23
r i ", _I
NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PLANNING
COMMISSION INPUT FROM AUGUST
Entry Drive Widened
Porte Cochere Reoriented and Shifted Southerly
Perimeter Fencing Redesigned and Reduced in
Height
Signage Reduced to Enhance Corner Open Space
Pad Elevation Lowered, Grading Quantities
Reduced
Parking Lot Landscape Setback Increased
IRVINE TERRACE ENTRY DRIVE
�a
R
ING
m
(D rh.;
_01 TYR
kCES)
REMOVE
Y
1
a
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
VG EXISTNG CURB EXISTNG CURB
IEW RETURN TO REMAII - CON IST�CT NEW RETURN TO REMAIN
THIS SIDE - -- -CURB REiHRN THIS61DE --
THIS SIDE
PREVIOUSLY REVISED PLAN WITHOUT
PROPOSED PLAN ACCESS EASEMENT
W EXISTING
SIDEWALK
REVISED PLAN WITH
ACCESS EASEMENT
VV
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
VG EXISTNG CURB EXISTNG CURB
IEW RETURN TO REMAII - CON IST�CT NEW RETURN TO REMAIN
THIS SIDE - -- -CURB REiHRN THIS61DE --
THIS SIDE
PREVIOUSLY REVISED PLAN WITHOUT
PROPOSED PLAN ACCESS EASEMENT
W EXISTING
SIDEWALK
REVISED PLAN WITH
ACCESS EASEMENT
PORTE COCHERE
`OPEN LANDSCAPED AREA
PREVIOUSLY
PROPOSED PLAN
`OPEN LANDSCAPED AREA
REVISED PLAN
FRONTAGE ROAD EASEMENT
—. easie'sen
+ r N49AU'ka�
rM -
isi sa +eesl Ti -w:te aeevs® 945
.. - _ _ _ _ _- —— Zzns.ccssse.seuexrl wrc. xoAruuvc�` --
mnee� xusnvc �msrms _...... _
seax¢0°sioimswv $1OF1Y"`" '""" COAST HIGHWAY
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PLAN
REVISED PLAN WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT
REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT !`q
SIGNAGE /CORNER OPEN SPACE
Entry Monument Sign
Reduced from 10' maximum height to 7' maximum
Sign area reduced from 180 square feet to 155 square feet
Reduced sign size will maximize open space at corner of
East Coast Highway and Irvine Terrace
PAD ELEVATION/ GRADING
QUANTITIES
Lowered finished floor by 1 foot
Reduction in grading by 5,000 cubic yards
Reduction in heavy trip traffic associated with
import of fill material from approximately 27 days to
21 days
BUILDING HEIGHT
S
m•�.ac;
SITE SECTION A -A
SITE SECTION B-B
SITE SECTION C-C
onorceeoa�wsc
vrenrra numw.ae
�NNi44W w
R-1 .l
.`r
SITE PLAN
c
o
=W
A k .b
CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PLANNING
COMMISSION INPUT FROM OCTOBER
Narrowed Frontage Road to 15'
Restricted Access to One -Way Eastbound Only
Signage and Turn -Outs to Prevent Wrong Way
Traffic
Increased Total Landscape Setback to 28' from
back of Sidewalk
Separated Berm and Perimeter Fence by 25'
Placement of Berm Away from Fence Obscures
View of Fence from East Coast Highway
UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH
ONE -WAY FRONTAGE ROAD
NOTE — — —_
P REFERTOOMLgUWINGFORWOU
ON WE
GENERALNOTES
• �w...raw.v..0
..mxau
r. ""`,.. °° wmROSeoureRxnTE SRE
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB ► TM BERN .,
NEWPORTBEACH, CAUrONNin
UPDATED LANDSCAPED BERM/
PERIMETER FENCE SECTION
F
COAST l 7' l 18' 15' 4
HWY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE BERM ONE WAY DR.
5 NFWTZTX mil
SECTION 1/817 = 1'- 0"
13 V�I�tl
m
n n II
a
- e k �I
- - ` 4
t ail
■
■ � I ■n
IMAGE BOARD
PREVIOUS DESIGN
�--IC
REVISED DESIGN
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORN,P
AM
BANQUET ROOM
Need for 250 -Seat Banquet Room Based on Current
Demand
Tournaments - 144 players (maximum) plus spouses /guests -
approximately 250 seats
Special Events and Club Functions
Holidays (e.g., Easter, Mother's Day, Thanksgiving,)
Increase from existing banquet room by
approximately 1,500 square feet
MONDAY TOURNAMENT BOOKING
SUMMARY 2011
DATE EVENT
1/24/11
Toshiba Sponsor Day
3/7/11
Toshiba Classic
3/21/11
Cystic Fibrosis
4/25/11
Skipper Dick Memorial
5/2/11
Juvenile Diabetes Research
5/9/11
Child Help
6/13/11
Class Fund
6/27/11
Survivor's Memorial Fund
8/15/11 RMJ Golf Classic
8/29/11 O.C. Alumni Association/
Ernst Young
9/12/11 Drive for a Cause
9/19/11 Sage Hill School
10/3/11 St. Margaret's School
11/14/11 Mariner's Christian School
BENEFITS (Charity/Organization)
Hoag Hospital Foundation
Hoag Hospital Foundation
Fundraiser
Fundraiser
Non -profit fundraiser — child abuse
Scholarship Fund
Fundraiser— Offer financial assistance to
families of officers killed in the line of duty
Richard Myles Johnson Foundation — funds
Meaningful youth financial education
projects /provides scholarships
Scholarship fundraiser
100% volunteer organization — all monies go
to community charities
Fundraiser for school
Fundraiser for school
Fundraiser for school
MEN'S 2011 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE
1/15/11
Kick -Off Tournament
2/9/11
Men's Guest Day
3/5 -14/11
Toshiba Tournament
3/16/11
Men's Toshiba Super Guest Day
3/20/11
Couples St. Patrick's Day Event
3/26 -27/11
Partners Four Ball Spring Classic
4/30- 5/l/11
Member - Member
5/6/11
Couples Twilight Golf
5/11/11
U.S. Open Qualifying
5/15/11
Couples Championship
5/21 -22/11
Sr. & Super Sr. Club Championship
6/4,5,11, 12/11
Club Championship
6/17/11
Couples Twilight Guest Day
7/8/11
Couples Twilight
7/14 -16/11
NBCC Regatta Member -Guest
8/10/11
Men's Guest Day
8/12/11
Couples Twilight Guest Day
September
President's Cup Month
10/26/11
Men's Breast Cancer Awareness Guest Day
10/30/11
Ghosts & Goblins Couples Tournament
11/5/11
Junior Club Championship
11/23/11
Turkey Shoot
12/7/11
PGA Pro -Am
LADIES' 2011 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE
1/4/11
Installation
2/3/11
Sadie Hawkins Invitational
2/17/11
General Meeting Play Day
3/20/11
Couples St. Patrick's Day Event
3/31/11
Ladies Guest Day
4/28/11
WSCGA Foundation Guest Day
5/6/11
Couples Twilight Golf
5110, 12, 17, 19/11
Ladies Club Championship
5/11/11
U.S. Open Qualifying
5/15/11
Couples Championship
6/17/11
Couples Twilight Guest Day
6/21/11
Ladies Guest Day
7/8/11
Couples Twilight Golf
8/12/11
Couples Twilight Guest Day
8/17 -19/11
Ladies Seahorse Classic
9/8/11
General Meeting Play Day
9/13,15/11
Mary K. Browne
10/25/11
Breast Cancer Awareness Day
10/30/11
Ghosts & Goblins
11/3/11
Fall Guest Day
11/5/11
Junior Club Championship
11/15, 17/1 l
Ladies President's Cup
11/22/11
Turkey Shoot
12/6/11
Holiday Tournament
SPECIAL EVENTS 2010
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
1/12/10
British American Assoc.
Luncheon meeting
1/23/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
2/6/10
Helpmates
Reception
2/17/10
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
3/17/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
3/17/10
CDM Flower Club
Luncheon meeting
4/24/10
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
4/30/10
Mrs. Phillips
Social reception
5/2/10
Ortega Family
Birthday party
5/8/10
Newkirk Family
Anniversary dinner reception
5/19/10
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
5/22/10
Cal Poly Pomona
Fraternity Banquet
5/26/10
USC Fraternity
Luncheon
5/26/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
5/26/10
CDM Cheerleading
Annual banquet
6/12/10
Beacon Bay
Association breakfast meeting
6/16/10
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
6/26/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
6/27/10
Baroque Dinner Party
Dinner
7/12/10
Price Waterhouse Cooper
Employee party
7/29/10
British American Mixer
Networking mixer
SPECIAL EVENTS 2010, CONTINUED
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
8/1/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
8/14/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
8/18/10
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
8/16/10
50th Anniversary
Dinner
8/20/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
9/11/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
9/18/10
Estancia Reunion
High School Reunion
9/29/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
10/6/10
British American Assoc.
Luncheon meeting
10/13/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
10/23/10
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
10/26/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
11/3/10
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
11/13/10
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
11/19/10
Wedding Rehearsal
Dinner
12/2/10
HSNO
Corporate Holiday Party
12/4/10
NB Newcomers
NB Social Holiday Party
12/11/10
Horizon Tech
Corporate Holiday Party
12/18/10
Meridian Link
Corporate Holiday Party
12/20/10
Northwestern Mutual
Corporate Holiday Party
CMFBTI[iINO
lT�
WMiYnYmO � _�Tl Yp�
IAA
E %�STHG \i t
NURSERY I
NOTAPARi
TIIIII mTI TTt111O11111 If
NOTE
A. REFERTO CNIL0 WING FOR GRADES
ON WE
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
i�
mR�9
tl11YWA
C
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
.
',ipenTeaar�wllralnwo '�
.ice
Ml0}J. ib
� .IF]AUaI,
wuw
- AepWSm Ie� �� Iw
Covw
]]IW 4'
3i]ITd
.Rn♦pnq sew°
Rma sores ImE /s.n
0'oY ey Wy
9f:Od
Yvl BWYp
- We1Pmn ]SOmb
i E MM
prUw
-Clf ]]Yltl Ea4't WJJ 10
E uY I.r_
'ROfr'Sp 21WE
'trwv -B SeSd ']mb/OOOd /9
giMw
-HuM \f0r'I.IEgd �1 WI/BSDtl� e '
w99'rrm
Fsope:�Mwl
q
TaY1FE:mYAd:M: ]N
- EMir /niY \: �
AtlYO
9
TpYpwW: ]N
mR�9
tl11YWA
C
Rom
CYWwn
Yn
Ml0}J. ib
L,BWd
]]IW 4'
3i]ITd
faiESi6
GnPan
0'oY ey Wy
9f:Od
Yvl BWYp
]0�0J YVtBw:p Yf Y
i E MM
bIFryO
E uY I.r_
a avY
giMw
E>9'mp CWO
w99'rrm
Cai1Bm
t -0'
GENERAL NOTES
•iiYggnpq A]
. �acKeceooe
�' �- ,» I REVISED SRE PEAK WRN
ACCESS EASEFnERT
A -30
NEWPORTBEACH, MIFDRNIA °°F`
UPDATED SITE PLAN
WITH FRONTAGE ROAD
�� 31YY suYW�iWY
10
IAdiimu e9(Y SI -I Ja1 %Y59 %-
�B
B
Fplrtm mel
ieuIMN�Y�TM�d�
]L
P�eMM
R6
Meeryp
isuI MYWFPa'MM�
9
]L
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
NOTE
A. REFER LG CNIL DM ING FOR GMMS
Q SITE
01ziyiyi1.1:i1:3x_My:well] .rr:rmtol:3
BEFORE AND AFTER
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
ro
wixw
� aaix�
.ba°
I wz
mna'iww
.waawm ��? +exaawm
err
wawa
xmv
.w.."° wax•
xw
�.a.wiwmrrm..
ero....mere.wwa..ewr
m area,e..a....oezae� °wow
GENERALNOTES
.arawo.aam.z
seiasso srte evez wrtx
nccsss swsszvrt- rnswous
rux ovsianv
NEWPORT BEACH, cnurovwu L4° oa1 I _,,. .,
UPDATED SITE PLAN
WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROAD
I...
-=
EN.�1p99i9M��gW��,�
HOt A1MN�
— MT-Tff 7.1I I
NOTE
A REFERTOGIVILDEAMNGR)RGMCES
ON SITE
_ PARKING REQUIREMENTS
weumm� wr.e. n�ww Nr:
m . INali ENT.s Mao
�e.e. u bTMw,
m
- rra.msa. la m. .0
F.�u°e.�uuM+sa
RMIa P.R I�.YIEf11 Ib
l:V(f BfIMiINS - B.Ni.IPmn ]lO.m
AMRi.
Re SMq.. ISMS9 - I:iFIf.OWC
Ni
•. Neiad Floe ®�BWil �Y�350✓ e
umpmnNl
1 �° Tb.1FM..MnMYM: >.
y
w
uR .cna
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA
GENERALNOTES
BYaw Oenn�o'. as
M.w6W M..W
IfmmmniP
..CLIC
/
REVI5EO51TE PIMI WITiWR
n.E.E EASEMENT
A -x
V
ucTEM1l u_
w A
NNN
PERIMETER FENCING
BEFORE
PERIMETER FENCING
AFTER
FRONTAGE ROAD
l _I LANDSCAPING PER V DRAWING
O PERIMETER FENCE SECTION
CMU RETAINING WALL
CLUBHOUSE
PARKING
MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF AND GOLF
REALTY FUND TEAM
Five meetings between the teams since August 4
Planning Commission hearing
Project Architects met twice and collaborated on:
Irvine Terrace Entry
Porte Cochere
Perimeter Fencing
NBCC has agreed to collaborate with Golf Realty
Fund on:
Light Fixtures
Signage
Landscaping
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK
ar
emtea m.
e t••sPACFSI\
0 0 00
SM IG�IEPIOtp5]SPoCES
IEO SaS TOTAL PARKING SPACE
\ ffi6MLE69 FASELFM GlE -�
A SEftNLEJ '`ERI511NG �ab1M F �-
Fllp/NIIG Srt£VYLR IAbNN S A "
m ° I
u
PREVIOUSLY "PROPOSED PLAN
�e it
r' s
COAST Al
REVISED PLAN WITHOUTACCESS EASEMENT
REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT
SPACES)
7:,
wit
0 0
NAJL�R es
•
ure
!�lQ
(SI SPACES)
,,
TMd9 iFl
M
ar
emtea m.
e t••sPACFSI\
0 0 00
SM IG�IEPIOtp5]SPoCES
IEO SaS TOTAL PARKING SPACE
\ ffi6MLE69 FASELFM GlE -�
A SEftNLEJ '`ERI511NG �ab1M F �-
Fllp/NIIG Srt£VYLR IAbNN S A "
m ° I
u
PREVIOUSLY "PROPOSED PLAN
�e it
r' s
COAST Al
REVISED PLAN WITHOUTACCESS EASEMENT
REVISED PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT
PARKING LOT ORIENTATION
� a�J
' a
.a.I
ar
111T�114� � P
T =E
�Ill�
crcncn !$ =ia
Pno2raac ngE rcno_ _ ?e Yun .:+o=
UPDATED ME PLAN — ONE—WAY FRONTAGE ROAD
UPDATED ME PLAN — ONE—WAY FRONTAGE ROAD
R
UPDATED LANDSCAPED o EG3 nNn10pEG°30 nNn1[ TER PENCE SEC TMN
e "E
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
Newport Beach, California
SHEET INDEX:
M1
D]O`OAAENANIEPnA.A RAH
.V]
LDEMENALLSTAA.NEMH
A4A
111
A.
RMSED Sin RMI wii ACCESS RASEMENiAAMENT
A-A En ANNIED ERE FLLN WR AWESS EASEMENT- EOSN,O
ECTOKSCIM,,A -A. .C..1
N. 4C. D D�
.WO.SE WER4v
M}GPD PENNED On 0.AN.M T ACCESS EASEMENT. PRENWE
MI}
MXD RY
AGD
RENEED& ULAN WIM1CCEtl EVEMEM
M3D-ED RENEED 61n 1E RNI WIMILfEta EIEEMEXI E%IElllq
OL
WiME.wNCE Wn.M ELEWIfMB IF/8id WE611
fAU..I p£R4v
M3D-Po PENNED In M1.W WIINICCFSB E/EFMENI- FAEYlp1S
MNDV VY
.3E
WRRAL RAxN.CpNY0NDX8 of XEY AREAe
N3
4RDYX0 LFIEL RDOR RAH
A,
YWEM IFY£L RIN/1RAX
ALAN
AO
M.0.
.V]
OORNdNORMELEV
ON6 RA9IONO(. E.NA-N31
M.AV AO N.1
4Y
C'....
MID
ECTOKSCIM,,A -A. .C..1
N. 4C. D D�
0.11
NO FIPCNLAN 6FlEVPTON}
MI}
NAMRNPHCE
AANnNANCE OA.:. MN
A...I AIMSOSTNE M1Rq
NA Nn WC E....
OL
WiME.wNCE Wn.M ELEWIfMB IF/8id WE611
11
n. REM
OED NREMNNAM LANDECAR MNWITIiW]
ANi B EARNFNi
N3
N.ii
NE NEED RIELIMIwRY LAWSMEE RANNlIMA5ES9
EVEMEM
L--1
NTRY fWWE SF
C]
ACN
FXCbTNNO LECWXNbJII GLW
X X Va
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB r'
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 0B01P
a-V ✓ ,1=
VICINITY MAPw,.I j►
X
EXISTING SITE PLAN I
OEMOLITIONPLAN
A -IA
a
r
r--
°l--
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA
TEMPpPMi
� WIUVESi
I ,' —a�� sNE PLAN
A
IFF 65N:MIAM
�� A0.�Ou(IECIS AIA
aaYr• m �
✓ICINITY MAP ,.,a,
NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPT
NEWPORT BEACH
CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
�p0
E
RESIDENTIAL
T}
FASHION ISLAND
OOLF COURSE: 123.5 AC
RESIDENTIAL
CLUMOUSE
OEVEL01WWAMA
,an
RESIDENTIAL ,`x"_
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL NOTES
• N+>wa�mvuse. Ax
. Gnwvvn TY[�' ilpva6iaoaasaal
,� •xcacmro
s
REWSW OVERALL 517E PLAN
WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT
A -7A
LR a RTM AIA
W,x ,rv„ ,ixx la LIN&`AKA AIA
®,C8 uxi°
euaewu�
ouyo.r.
ooensw
3+e�a
uFm m.mzm
mans meom
Wrm "¢`y'v
Im
Ra fm
3 ni
Bm6
Cm�irc. Q0.'Otl
}giept }JfOa
a.m. eaaip 2a�oa
wfo. Naa�R: }�esa
Tm Eaaa
Tm raW
awN
cs�w ay..
iu.- raw
wyns
unis. fxa
ww rq.. 1e'a
i2' m'ana
i
cw.i
aweas
Ms
M •1J19va
.N. •1J1ltw
W
mfmm
T:f(Ru •a}29a
Q.Wa
� �6m211
tMt
}IauiAwYtl6pavew
a aW2euoweua..W WeeraWpn
}I pYYawmn�tl Wwmhtlaswap W
ewme!
GENERAL NOTES
• N+>wa�mvuse. Ax
. Gnwvvn TY[�' ilpva6iaoaasaal
,� •xcacmro
s
REWSW OVERALL 517E PLAN
WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENT
A -7A
LR a RTM AIA
W,x ,rv„ ,ixx la LIN&`AKA AIA
®,C8 uxi°
le
leTEE
t�l
IS MRF
_[
NOTE
A REFERTO CIVIL DRAWING FOR GRADES
ON SUE
CM 31W
ME
mm
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NE'AIPORT BEACH. ,. .
YKWT[OORFIMUMRER p 11113 NIIR(INO
OF M"REOUIRF REIM
/Elc. MENi (FTL1+81
GoXVUf Bsprm
- ReguWian 18Mks
Courees pNR01e
PNYq
Ma M.
Esla&mXM:
.FVeo eesMF 1 MRgTR®
.BOaNmMnl aOaNF 114F /95 tl1 1M
.9aMe1 R�Own 3W �F
olnei Uan:
Grtm IYJNI,E01Y 1R
-- ftsISR Z,wd 1�N
-
Manbvru 18_
=mdl -B
ea1188 Fbess 1 N 1
Fwlmea lunalp
M
ToYl psAlnE apulrN: Jy1
NaRInY pmNGN:
SNnG�" ]01
a
Tal upwJ: ]q
ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMAF
__
FlMrufr
awxwEE awlouv
cmnNis c
tlk Itl Fbv AJNyj l0,firol„
W F1p ylyyY R
'C2Yitl 5 ]ily
���
CarlBm: F.COY Bp 51we[e 9110 a1
—
NMi &bnj F_j_Qi1 N BUby B,YSy
T9
T. EamWq ml Tapl
Pna ll$bY.am' 69.M9p
RIPry LYMnss- )]'8 Nnro. f8nm
IYyu CMBm td
NMA bg' IFd Wii 9q: ]I'deea
Waame. b
-RMfli -WAM
i1 Gm5bAnldbpym ®.
GENERAL NOTES
BIiYq OnOtlq Onup. Mt
• L4W.aBn il➢a il➢a V91FW 9pYWb1
• MLCYAA
REASEO SUE PUN WITHOUT
ACCESS EASEMENT
AdC
CNWU
=Ie
u.lan
eem
leTEE
t�l
No"M
NOTE
R REFERTO CIVIL DRAWING FOR GRADES
ON SUE
GRTUW
� o rp ►p ",. .pp,
ME
mm
1�31!1 N
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
MMM
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
l
I
GENERAL NOTES
N�E9�on4�o. Ai
f4W.�B'n *I➢" *ro"ne6WBpYWbI
OLCYAm
REVISED SITE
CLUESHOUSEC
LR6SNAHNL
sole awnF4rn u,
1
i
_ a Fill
I►1- Av1yia ' .01
�7:[K�l11ltL'i'IK�IL:'
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
unxc nprofr
auwawx auwou�
c
lyeB f%ou ]0�)Np an'51
3]99f1 5 3ily
cOn e..: ewop ese sw.a. v+on
Mtlm. &wnJ: t0�_01 W by BYSy
i FmWp i G,qN
Ma J s09 Ma' 69.M9p
BJOry CYYYns- ]]4 YNnr fdmv
�� NfiA bh: IBd Wii A\q: ]I'dew
PY 0.w9i Biwwfll
x.. a. -n�uw. iun .InsR
wrpw to -acmw + -osm
1 6.! 80AwpAbp]Im®.
u„xy�oxwa�m"yax..i ....x°xlx.
GENERAL NOTES
cam�,m,py. *ro. vaPW BPBwNI
� . eetmmoa
REVISED SITE PLAN WaMM
fl ESSEASEMENTPREVIOUS
ro
OVERLAY --
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORRIA �' .I I °„m".�
/ PIK 7--1-477-
F %ISTING
GRSERV
NOTAPART
NOTE
A: REFER TO CNILORAWING FOR GRADES
ON SITE
caerSTn w
INS
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
YKC1R[6011Y
XYYlK pYmIMO MMM16
a KAnmO K
Inc. xexr IoTAUCI
Gon Vie¢
-�
18Mki W'NA. 110
ru1b
Ea4ry 6 pNYq
- XeaIIpB FWine1�91 '1 Nilli3yl al
EsledMniNf:
.S
mY
mrw 1Mnrr
.maeu I Zorn
�YMorro
L
to
Pry s
-B
- XeaIIpB FWine1�91 '1 Nilli3yl al
Fadnin
lm
..
TaYl psAlnp ipulryl:
lH
NihlnY MnYMM:
Ge
M
Nwrenaw
TOYIpuWrq prglMi
e
iM
ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMAF
Ma IDW'brte. cNObux
001Op
&Wry: ]0101
Icmwa+lt� -atMx I� -osm I
GENERAL NOTES
FIYq Wlpllgdep: MI
f4r:WnTtA Tpi NBYi1/9pYWb1
KFYAr
r,q �— eo REVISED SITE PLAN WITH
ACCESS EASEMENT
A
LEFY6IrIAIA
��] wp�uCT�e "A°IA
GART,RML G
mdy,L .�r
ROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMM,
� G L
yp[ AR Mp IDJNLii AS]
.�® li$9
31,A91 m
Can �m A
I �ro���9iDir� / 1 �� � � 8m 001Op 6NN GUaC 9)f
n &Wry: ]0101 Wm BUby BY
n16mLL9 iatl Rgal
JI SA9 Ma' 69.0
J _ L BIIry Lbgtaw: ]]'4mv CLYnro. fX
u � I NorMA�n"wT
-
- LmwN -acmw -aern
II GVa�Pnitll. p]I�.
izt EfYpJtlo�pi50sbnN.J1.11YYbPl,
NOTE r
A:REFFERTOCIVILDRAWINGFORGIUDES
SITE
ON SITE _ GENERAL NOTES
'. rn+masa Tiyr TI➢a VBI1W 6PYWM
- ecCx Am
RENSEG SITE PLAN WITH
�' �� GLUEBHGU6� ENT- EXISTINi
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB a Ago { {G
LFFY6SNANAM
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA °°°I° ,., °�RE"ns"°IA
oP� „ °• uOEjOO�
eA
E° _
— ———
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1
f
Ago.
Te.o.
GENERAL NOTES
Pop&
nYa W. Rl
ilp� -A EP�bI
Is_-
REVISED SITE PLAN WRR
AG ESS EASEMENT PREVIOUS
PIAN OVERLAY
A-20-PO
AgRpl(IEIA
�fi
v6IrCT1AIA
re,o-,f
PREWOUSLV REVISEDFI
PROPOSED PLAN
PORTE COCHERE
PNEVIOUSLY
PROPOSED PIAN
REVISED W OVT
ACCESS EASEMENT
RENSEDPLA YflI
ACCESS EASEMENT
IRVINE TERRACE DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH. CAUEORNIA
w r '
I
PREVpUSLV PROPOSED PIAN
R MEDPUWWRHACCESSEASEMENT
LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG PCH
PMMISO 6-
COMPPARISONS OF KEYAREA£
Mli_..._..
AREA TABULATION'
- ZIPPER LEVEL: 20.520 SF
- GROUND LEVEL: 30,593 SF
TOTAL: 51,213 SF
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
-rm
�r
NEWPORT BEACH, MIFOFNw
N10
a0411
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (20,520 S.F.)
AREA TABULATION:
-UPPER LEVEL: 29.529 SF
- GROUND LEVEL: 30,593 SF
TOTAL: 51,213 SF
NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNiA
'�. —� I UPPER LEVF1
� � ROOR PLAN
moo �.... �....
mm.n
C ~�
I �
f-
I
r T
CART BARN (5.704 BY
(ANCILLARY USE)
AREA TABULATION:
-CART BARN: 6,)00 SF
-BA6 STOR.(OROUNO FLR.): 3,808 SF
TOTAL: 8.310 SF
I►I MITI aQ A 9 .01 AS] w
01
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Nm.ii
I'klI: Kyj iA a .01 A01 w
NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA
EWI%AENTSTOBE
CONCF EOFRgA
VKKFJ TRELLIS PNBLIC VIEW
OF PRCN
i TYRM
�, �- v I ROOF PLrW
SOUTH ELEVATION
1
i m
NORTH ELEVATION
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORTBEACH, MIFORNiA
t "d' I �v�noRs
moi;i
EAST ELEVATION
NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA
pp vov
4 m
1 SERVICE YARD 6VKVIET
C£WEAY
WEST ELEVATION
��� E�evATwRs
ulafrtcrs u,
moiii
4 b Pi
SECTION B - B
SECTION C - C
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA
"'�'� cwe�wuse sscnwu
MF OM
�uf1EM CR AIA AIA
'N
moiii
SITE SECTION A-A sxaoeEnauowE
uMnxouww� ..
Ai2
SITE SECTION B-B
-4 k
SITE SECTION C-C
SITE PLAN
A
jr-
SITE SECTION D-D
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CnLIFORNIA
C
A-10
MOMM AIA
mMi MIN
�j
�.T EAST ELEVATION ^V®
i
�� f �� +►F. ,'x a� � tit u �� �,� ,
e1� ~••• WEST ELEVATION •'.are
a s
x�x
rwxrtx.xcF rwo
it I
MINTENANCE
FLOOR PLAM n
LR6SNANAM
ARpC1uOE AU
aS
iauorex, sax
1 l
Y
N�1n[Im
wxxae
�
wren
FLOONPLAN(ONE STONYANCILL YUSE)^�
M� ew_
�• SOUTH ELEVATION
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
NORTH ELEVATION w.,.,..�.
MINTENANCE
FLOOR PLAM n
LR6SNANAM
ARpC1uOE AU
ROOF PLAN
I'MATITI A a .01 A01 w
NEWPORTBEACH, MIFGNNin
FENCE
, -r
BUILDING
it _� 4y�,�at°. � •
now r R ft�Lt�� ♦y�aiF fA
7�t9
SOUTH ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORTBEACH, CALIFORNIA
a�
IMINTENANCE BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
v e m ss (MMdLL USE)
LR 8IN: AM
om�] oe tact A0.OuDpECT S AIA
�..,. EAST ELEVATION
APB t {I�
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
ti�:�r
'-, :� � far•. ,;'•
WEST ELEVATION'
IMINTENANCE BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
DMILLARV USE)
IF[6INCT lAM
nYn� �M !Uu AIA
LOW LANDSCAPING ,
" l LANDSCAPING PER'L "DRAWING
SIDEWALK--,, CMU RETAINING WALL
STREET SIDE
O
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
PERIMETER FENCE DESIGN
NEWPORTBEACH, DALIFORNIA
dnn
PwrtP�utne�wnEl
PA RC COAST HIGHWAY
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
RMTPH6fR`�Cplfl
HAM. PILETIE
t
RE SEO PRELIMINARY
�
IANNSCAPE PIAN WITIAMT
ACCESSEASEMENT L.11
c
�T
11 -1
NOT A PMT
L.
M
�U C C)
)
PACIFIC C T HIGHWAY
�NT�
MM7
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
LZ
REVISED PRELIMINARY
LANDSCAPE PLAN W ITH
�CIMS�EMENT L-12
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
1
1
TECHNICAL SITE PLAN WITH ACCESS EASEMENT
FOR
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
Som
F � -_ ••r' l I
' WIEb kHY9lff llB ��—
e�a11fRM1B)RN P3 ��— 0 — —i
nernucY. �3 ��
sEE arEErz Eax —
arEflNLEY810.0
G0.F CWM1f _ __
COAST' HIGHWAY
s
acRM.0 am.m
T.... r
>_r
VN2w16
ewng.wsrma
.mi ..
P o e.a _ day
tECFPJICAL SRE I
WITH ACCE56 EAST
I aMlmn
BONNIE OOONE TERRACE
xPE5mG1�FalA�
k1 EBFNEEH
TECHNICAL SITE PLAN
FOR
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
I I I
BONNIE OOONE MRMCE
-1
P' fX9B
ear
kti
EXISTING BOUNDARY
FOR
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
6:j
J. b,
�y ti�
Rb •I �yy.
�:f
K�Lt' h19g
:W �W�tM.G j
pEAGE HAMMY
PARM 1
PM 79- 7048.02 AG
....ruc
•.`f •S PMEM AHEA
l � i9�'�� ` d�i 1' .3.
902 AC
d i.a. 9 ,y �•s S02 AC
1 MC AL SR P N
- ti u
®Ixvmn
1 (�. `r'V .....wr.. r li i Ft9
M�1� iX�GM1Y�YIXUB,WG
Z"'k9e
1.J;�v.'En,n,.}�,'���
=`•LT—
1
roMncr: vEwrcw orxeY
rNesmumuo
__��mm�1�
FgdD? 2
FUSCOE
q
2
EXISTING BOUNDARY
FOR
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
6:j � \ ��pltw •
�:f
K�Lt' h19g
:W �W tMAG j
pEAGE AMM PY
PARM 1
PM 79- 7048.02 AG
•.`f PMEM ME1
w .3R
1 � 4M�'�� p`Q,/ .njy✓'S' 902 AC
alb• � 902 AC .,m
tECFPJICAL SRE RAN
Wn ACCESS EASEGW
S�J•s�
li i Fta�i
� � Jne..w.
M�1� iX�GM1Y�YIXUB,WG
{ .•� ` x�wcm
FRm�
__A
j
FUSCOE
q
2
SPECIAL EVENTS 2009
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
1/1/09
British American Assoc.
Luncheon
1/7/09
Helpmates
Company reception
1/18/09
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
1/18/09
Amigos Viejos
Seniors networking group
2/20/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
2/21/09
Baby Shower
Private luncheon
3/19/09
Memorial Service
Celebration of life
4/25/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
5/13/09
US Open
Qualifying for US Open
5/13/09
CDM Cheerleading
Banquet
5/20/09
UCI
Employee Luncheon
5/23/09
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
5/24/09
Jones
50`h Anniversary Party
5/27/09
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
5/30/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
6/3/09
USC Fraternity
Luncheon
6/13/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
6/14/09
Macintosh
Memorial Service
6/16/09
Sherman Garden
Luncheon
6/16/09
Graduation
Dinner parry
6/17/09
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
6/20/09
Beacon Bay
Breakfast meeting
6/26/09
Blackburn
Family get- together
7/2 -22/09
Newport Beach Breakers
Tennis match
7/22/09
Kissen Wedding
Ceremony /reception
7/25/09
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
7/30/09
British American Assoc.
Luncheon
SPECIAL EVENTS 2009, CONTINUED
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
8/1/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
8/8/09
Seaberg
Anniversary Party
8/14/09
Price Waterhouse Cooper
Employee party
8/15/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
8/22/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
8/29/09
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
9/9/09
British American Assoc.
Luncheon
9/18/09
Northwestern Mutual
Seminar /luncheon
9/19/09
CDM Class of 1959
Reunion
9/29/09
Memorial Service
Member celebration of life
10/10/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
10/28/09
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
11/11/09
Social Event
Private party
11/14/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
12/3/09
HSNO
Company party
12/5/09
Horizon Tech
Company party
12/12/09
NB Newcomers
Holiday party
12/17/09
Price Waterhouse Cooper
Company party
12/21/09
Northwestern Mutual
Company party
12/26/09
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
SPECIAL EVENTS 2008
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
1/6/08
Toastmaster
Seminar
1/20/08
MBK Seminar
Seminar /dinner
2/9/08
Helpmates
Staffing company reception
2/20/08
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
2/23/08
Voltmer
Anniversary party
3/15/08
Lake
Birthday party
3/21/08
Cuavas
Private party
3/29/08
Member Memorial
Celebration of Life
4/6/08
OC Symphony
Concert and dinner
4/16/08
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
4/27/08
CDM Cheerleading
Banquet
4/30/08
USC Fraternity
Luncheon
5/14/08
US Open
Qualifying for US Open
5/28/08
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
6/12/08
Northwestern Mutual
Seminar /luncheon
6/18/08
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
7/12/08
60th Anniversary
Dinner
7/23/08
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
SPECIAL EVENTS 2008, CONTINUED
DATE
GROUP
EVENT
8/10/08
Mersch
Family get- together
8/16/08
Vanderpool
Private dinner
8/20/08
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
8/23/08
Member Party
Private dinner
8/28/08
Price Waterhouse Cooper
Employee party
9/6/08
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
9/11/08
CMAA
Luncheon meeting
9/16/08
British American Assoc.
Luncheon meeting
9/17/08
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
10/8/08
Northwestern Mutual
Seminar /luncheon
10/11/08
Wedding
Ceremony /reception
10/15/08
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
10/18/08
Memorial Service
Celebration of life
10/25/08
Dinner Party
Private party
11/5/08
7 C's Breakfast
OC Gentlemen's networking group
12/5/08
HSNO
Corporate party
12/12/08
Hilton Costa Mesa
Corporate party
12/16/08
Promontory Bay
Association party
12/17/08
Amigos Viejos
OC Seniors networking group
12/21/08
Maggard Family
Private party
12/22/08
Northwestern Mutual
Corporate party
PARKING LOT
Before - Landscape Buffer
5' from back of sidewalk to frontage road
7' from back of frontage road to parking lot
Total 35'
After - With Frontage Road
5' from back of sidewalk to frontage road
10'5" from back of frontage road to parking lot (3.5' increase)
Total 38'5"
After - Without Frontage Road
20' from back of sidewalk to parking lot
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB
Planned Community District
Application PA 2005 -140
November 17, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting
NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB
PCD
• Master Plan
Reorientation
- Golf Parking Lot
- Golf Clubhouse
- The Bungalows
- The Villas
- The Spa
- Tennis Clubhouse
- Stadium Court
• Community
Outreach
- Stakeholder Input
- Plan Evolution
Newport Beach Country Club - PCD
NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB
PCD
• Expanded GC Parking
- 34 More Parking Spaces
- 334 Exclusive Parking
Spaces
- 90 over Required
Parking
- Additional 554 Non -
Exclusive Parking Spaces
• Addresses Irvine
Terrace Concerns
- 700' PCH Buffer
- Parking Lot Design
• Open Space Views
Building Footprint
Preserves PCH Golf
Course Views
The Golf Clubhouse
Proposed IBC Goll Clubhouse evcaeds the
recent voter approved General Plan by
20 (t00 sa e an i
Proposed IBC Got Parking Lot is 166.36a
so It ofasp6all 150'slargerthantare
PropeM Owner Plan.
Proposed IBC Clubhouse M1ontege and
proposed walls eliminate mcuall, all vlans
of the gall course nom the PCH and Entry
Proposed IBC Clubhouse coding is 140 / Green
wider and I W' feet claser to i In
cornpaMOn to Vie Pupped, Owner Plan
11 Tee
Property Owner Plat
Maintenance Bli
F.tppnt 2,8]5 s4 f1
8.5"
Ma11 w It
errs x
Proposed IBC Plan crowds the existing
16th "T' Ma
In Tee Prance Patch. Green
Green
I BN Green 260' r
W pp
Property Owner
.13,14 f III
_ •�' Gnu Cpt
1
e—
- --
IBC Clubhouse h ,.— ____
Fnptprint �ei
30,693 so It , �♦
prpypead wil r� — j 1
Prop" Garner Han Iles ]8.9]0 sq If or
25oti more landscaping than the IBC Plan
This significantly anhances views from
t Irvine Terrace. PCH and ending the Country
400' Club
I Estent of SC
Proposed IBC Clubhouse rs 100 If closer pr.,i
and t20 M wider than ma Pool Owner t. PeMin9 Lot
Plan as viewed from PCH
J ARMSTRONGS
NURSERY IvMla. w
Properly Omer Golf Clubhouse bas a <W
foot setback from PCH protecting the
emeting golf coume views aril providing a
strong Entry attached while presprwng
e.rsong views 10 Open Space
Property Owner Golf Palo, Lot s mono
mothers and generous landscaped
setbacks reduces the visual dominance of
the parking lot and Creates a significant
landscape Conrdo, 9d,exce to PCH.
E,taal .1 184C
ePar l
T
O
e
F
U
SIR e
ut Tee precuts
Oreen
C.Trincental berth faalllles with large
prefunction areas are not typical and are IMh &. Progeny Owner �� /
Inconsistenl with Me private gat clubhouse. Got, Clubhouse / �
Footprint 26.044 sq n / b
IBC's propose0 banquet facilities and
\ \a
prelunctlon areas are beyond the needs of
exdus. prwaw grri and will Eyte t of Gretlirlg_ �' � / \ g
cBate aadhonal trarocana golf member
onnias. \
ThepropmesiBCClubhouseislWtl �� IBC Clubhouae �` A \
closer to PCH and 120 at wider than Me / 1 �' -- Footprint ,� % `` 'k
Property Owner s clubhouse IW Green 30,693 eq tt ` *
/ 6lsling Can , .
/ Balm lobe ` witembdrs `�
Removed we Entry
IDs IBC flan proposes a now ma�nlenerroa r' 1
builtltng anal BIZ test doses 10 aide / J�.��� -- w� \
amroeching upon Me Valid green i. - - - -� I Banquet te
eg High Wells Entry
No imperil
re Given le Get[ Entry
It 20 Btpa
,6Th Tea% .. k / i -if
— r— °— r �i• _.
1 -
pp
s RaUlning Wall J/
/ £M
---
— 1 Refuse gWall /
I R.- I / I
I
L
300'
IBC maintenance .
Bldg Footprint i Euera of %opeM /
9.565 aq n The proposed IOC parking lot has dean Qypefe proposal
expanded to the west and wAl requhe the / Parking Lot I 11
removal of existing trees / __t
_ —� L—
The proposed IBC Pian increases the
crimper of parkmg spaces from nodd' `
and mcmases the asphalt area maintaining
a swap meet appearance to the parking
of
Long Idem south rows of parking mail
des shopping tamer appearance of the
parkmg lot.
cirm un .— . —.all .. eu., o— PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
The proposed IBC plan has i continuous
parking Spaces backing up 10 PCH wrtneut
even a landscape pocket to break up the
parking
�I![A3lC�I!It1.T.S�171!�
identical straight . narrow landscagee
setback along PCH homage as exists
today
Fencing and pilasters located an the PCH
lust behind feral
GOLF COURSE
P4RKING
-
COAST HIGHWAY
Truck Type
Rear Dump
Truck
Bottom Dump
Truck
Yards Per Truck
10 cu yds
14 cu yds
Total Truck Trips
3,906
2,790
Daily Trips - Assumes 15 Trucks,
4 cycles per day
60
60
Total Work Days
65
47
Total Months
3.25
2.35
124'+/- closer 0 Coast
.00 —` w`
16C Proposed Clubhouse
f�-PW
___-- -____ Ex ist_ in G 9__�
rade
NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB
PCD
• IBC Requested Parking
Lot Changes
- Same Secondary Access
- Same 334 Parking Spaces
- 3 Pedestrian Sidewalks
- No Encroachments
- Same Orientation of
Clubhouse
• Eliminates Grade
Difference
.9 Feet & 12 -18 Steps
• Retains Promised
Parking Lot Design
- 700' PCH Buffer
- Softens "Sea of Asphalt"
Compromise Plan 11
NEWPORT BEACH
COUNTRY CLUB
PCD
• Secondary Access for
Deliveries
• 334 Parking Spaces
• Retains Aesthetic
Entry Window Design
Landscape Buffer along
PCH
- Enhances Public Open
Space Views
- Retains Possibility of
Preserving Existing
Public Views to Golf
Course Open Space
Master Plan Compromise
The White Hole Plan