03/13/2012 - Regular Meeting
Packets/Minutes, Ordinances, Resolutions & Council Videos
03/13/2012 - Regular Meeting
12/7/2012 2:12:09 AM
12/6/2012 7:31:46 PM
Council Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
City of Newport Beach <br />City Council Minutes <br />March 13, 2012 <br />Council Member Selich, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle <br />14. NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB (PA2005 -140) - GOLF REALTY FUND - 1600 AND <br />1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (C- 5068). [381100 -20121 <br />Principal Planner Campbell presented details of the report addressing previous consideration <br />by Council and approval of a portion of the Golf Realty Fund (GRF) application, addressed <br />subsequent actions including continuance from the City Council meeting of February 28, <br />2012, presented the proposed alternative site plan, discussed the approved vested site plan for <br />the Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC), Inc. and concerns regarding the approval of two <br />different site plans for the same piece of property, presented a proposed condition of approval <br />should Council choose to go forward with the alternative site plan, referenced the tennis club <br />and golf club site approval of the alternative site plan, and noted that the resolution would <br />reaffirm the tennis club site approval and approve the alternative site plan. <br />City Attorney Harp reported that the approved application sought vested rights and staff did <br />not want conflicts in the development agreement over vested rights, noted that staff has revised <br />the development agreement so that Golf Realty will no longer have vested rights to that portion <br />of the property, stated that staff recently received a CEQA lawsuit from the Friends of Good <br />Planning, expressed concerns that the smaller project is better for the environment and might <br />be an issue argued by the plaintiffs that approval of the project might be seen as approving <br />something that had less of an impact on the environment, noted that both projects were <br />analyzed through the Mitigated Negative Declaration process which determined that they were <br />mitigated to be below a level of significance, and recommended that Council not approve the <br />alternative site plan. <br />Robert 0. Hill, Golf Realty Fund, reported that he has worked diligently and in good faith with <br />staff to develop an acceptable solution, expressed support for the recommendations as set forth <br />in the agenda report, asked that Council approve an alternative for maximum flexibility for <br />IBC's future owner, referred to the CEQA lawsuit, and presented assurance that his <br />organization is not supportive of it. <br />In response to Mayor Pro Tem Curry's inquiry, Mr. Hill reiterated that he is not supportive or <br />in any way sponsoring the CEQA lawsuit. <br />Shawna Schafner, CAA Planning on behalf of Newport Beach Country Club, expressed concerns <br />with the alternative site plan, urged Council to deny it, noted that approval of the alternate site <br />plan could jeopardize the approval that the City has already issued for NBCC which would <br />cause confusion with the Coastal Commission, added that Golf Realty Fund's Development <br />Agreement has been revised to remove the golf club house, believed that the alternative site <br />plan does not work when compared to industry standards, discussed support for the NBCC plan <br />from various residents and from the Toshiba Tournament leadership, and indicated that what <br />has already been adopted for the golf club site provides the flexibility that the applicant is <br />seeking. <br />Mike Recupero, representing half of the ownership of GRF, agreed with City Attorney <br />Harp's analysis, requested that Council deny the alternative site plan, pointed out a possible <br />mistake in the resolution noting the entitlement went forward without the consent of his clients <br />who own half of the property, believed that permits could not be pulled without the owners' <br />consent, requested that the resolution specify that an approval of the Coastal Commission <br />and owners are required. <br />Tim Paone, GRF, explained the reason for wanting an alternative plan, asked Council to create <br />Volume 60 - Page 403 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.