Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund PA2005-140Q�EVVFpRr CITY OF NEW t1EACH �141FOa City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. Iq January 24, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner APPROVED: ILAA TITLE: NEWPORT BEACH C UNTRY CLUB (PA2005 -140) Golf Realty Fund 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway ABSTRACT: Golf Realty Fund (GRF) proposes a Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) for the redevelopment of the existing private golf course clubhouse and tennis club creating a new 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse, 27 hotel units and spa /meeting facilities, five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, and a new 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. CC1) approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008; 3) Introduce Ordinance No. (Attachment No. CC2) approving Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as recommended by Planning Commission for the entire 140 -acre project site and pass to second reading for adoption on February 14, 2012; 4) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. CC3) approving a Conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotels rooms, Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002, Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 for the improvements to the 7 -acre Tennis Club portion of the project site including the construction of five (5) single -unit residential dwellings and 27 hotel rooms, reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the 133 -acre Golf Club portion of the project site, and denying Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; and 5) Introduce Ordinance No. (Attachment No. CC4) approving Development Agreement No. DA2010 -005 and pass to second reading for adoption on February 14, 2012. Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 2 LOCATION VICINITY MAP ZONING I J PR & MU -H3 1PR PC-47 Private Golf CourselTennis Club I 1. NPB Chamber of Commerce, NORTH PF, OS & RM � residential development & NPB Fire B lJ. Station SOUTH RS -D & PR PC -30 & R -1 Armstrong Garden Center, residential develo ment & Coast Highway .t PC -40, RC D, APF, & Marriott idential EAST , H3 GENERAL PLAN ZONING Gw _ l J - - �6 PC `s // /M a 11 21 P] nv Pc 53 S 5$ Rd f 74 126 DU PC�7 4 RM ]3 DV 5 ..:.: '.Qgrrrr 36DU� .x 6] OU S It C PL 38 PC ]0 �} MFR( RO.11) PC 56 vC ROW ] J l �� CG O.I FAR ,n4 72 6 P3 rvV III n 5��f CO-G MF0. 1 k a V.� PCJ CO -R III II I'- •.r�°Cjd�Jl��R i \ I I 1 C I] 1'V MFRIG�EIF PF K_�Q RfiO.Rpj� d y 8 \. LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE PR & MU -H3 1PR PC-47 Private Golf CourselTennis Club NPB Chamber of Commerce, NORTH PF, OS & RM APF & GEF residential development & NPB Fire Station SOUTH RS -D & PR PC -30 & R -1 Armstrong Garden Center, residential develo ment & Coast Highway CO -G, RM, CO -R, & MU- PC -40, RC D, APF, & Marriott idential EAST , H3 P & tennis s WEST OS, PF, CV & RM PC -21 & PC-41 Residential development & Jamboree Rd 2 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no budgetary impact related to this item. DISCUSSION Project Setting The subject property is approximately 140 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 golf course (Golf Club site) occupies the remaining westerly side of the property. The 7 -acre Tennis Club site is presently improved with 24 tennis courts, a 3,725 square - foot tennis clubhouse, and 125 surface parking spaces. The 133 -acre 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 maintenance 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 proposes to replace the existing golf course clubhouse and parking lot with a new 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse and a 334 -space parking lot. The Tennis Club site will be redeveloped with a new 3,725 square -foot tennis clubhouse, 27 short- term lodging units "Bungalows" with a 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square -foot spa /fitness center, and five (5) single -unit residential dwellings "Villas" with associated parking for each individual use. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project: 1. A Planned Community Development Plan adoption to provide zoning 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. 2. 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. 3 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 4 3. Approval of 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. 4. A Tentative Vesting Tract Map pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to create separate lots for five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, 27 hotel units, tennis club facility lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site. 5. A Temporary Structures Use Permit to allow temporary use of structures during construction pursuant to Section 20.60.015 of the Municipal Code. 6. A Development Agreement pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.c of the Municipal Code and General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.14.8. In addition to GRF application, there is an application filed by the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (NBCC), the operator and long term lease holder of the Newport Beach Country Club. The applicant and NBCC have submitted their own individual development plans for the Golf Club site with their own respective architectural styles and design of the parking lot. As will be noted in the following discussion, the Planning Commission could not recommend approval to the City Council of both projects as submitted because of major differences between applications. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 4, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011, to consider the proposed application. At the November hearing, the Planning Commission voted [5 ayes and one abstain (Meyers)] to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The Planning Commission's resolution, staff reports and minutes of the August 4, October 20, and November 17, 2011, hearings are attached as Attachments CC5 through CC11. Each of the applicant's entitlement requests and the Planning Commission action is summarized below. Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) The subject property has a zoning designation of PC -47 for the Newport County Club Planned Community. This PC zoning designation was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10, as a part of the City -wide amendment of the zoning districting maps in order to be consistent with the 1988 General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code, but specific development regulations were not adopted at that time. C9 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 5 The applicant submitted a draft PCDP (Attachment CC12) in order to create and provide zoning development standards and design guidelines for the proposed project. The proposed PCDP encompasses the Golf Club site and Tennis Club site as a single, cohesive and comprehensive large -scale planned development. The PCDP was created specifically to accommodate the applicant's development. The draft PCDP provides 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. Detailed site plan, elevations, and floor plans of each land use component, landscaping plan, sign plan, and lighting plan are also included in the plan. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the applicant's proposed PCDP provides too specific, and, therefore, inflexible standards that are inappropriate for the project implementation and long -term administration. Any changes to the PCDP, other than very minor adjustments, would require an amendment to the PCDP only accomplished by ordinance and City Council approval. The Planning Commission recommends the use of an alternative PCDP (Attachment CC13) prepared by staff that contains necessary development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. The recommended PCDP does not provide for a particular architectural style for any development nor does it contain a fixed design of any development component (i.e. the golf clubhouse, parking lot for the golf course, etc). The final design of these components would be a part of the Site Development Review application. For comparison purposes, the following table provides a summary of the major components including the applicant's PCDP and alternative PCDP. Land Use Component Alternative Plan GRF Plan Golf Club Site Golf Clubhouse 35,000 sf. 35,000 sf. Tennis Club Site Tennis Courts 7 7 Tennis Clubhouse 3,725 sf. 3,725 sf. Villas (single-unit residential 5 5 Bungalows hotel unit 27 27 Site Plan review by Planning Commission with conditions of approvals Yes No Non-Legislative Modification process for Site Plan Yes No Adopted via Planned Community Development Plan 2Requires an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan, which must occur by adoption of an ordinance As demonstrated in the table above, the alternative plan contains the same key land use components proposed by the applicant. The alternative PCDP also provides a 9 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 6 requirement that a Site Development Review process be completed for construction of any new major building structure located on the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites (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. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure new development proposals within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the standards set forth in the adopted PCDP. The Planning Commission determined that the alternative PCDP proposed by staff provides an appropriate legislative approval to accommodate the applicant's project and therefore recommends approval of the alternative PCDP. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) The applicant requests 27 hotel units presently allocated to the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa (Marriott) site by the Land Use Element of the General Plan to the Tennis Club site; specifically, from Anomaly No. 43 to Anomaly No. 46. The Land Use Element allocates 611 hotel units to the Marriott site in Newport Center. Marriott has developed 532 hotel units leaving 79 un -built hotel units. Marriott does not have a vested right to develop these remaining rooms. General Plan Land Use Policy LU4.3 lists a number of criteria for transfer of development rights. In particular, transfer of development rights in Newport Center /Fashion Island (Statistical Area L1) is governed by Policy LU6.14.3. According to this Policy, development rights may be transferred within the Newport Center /Fashion Island, subject to the approval by the City Council with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Staff conducted the analysis and determined that the request is consistent with the General Plan and the transfer of 27 hotel units is trip neutral as the transfer is within the same Newport Center /Fashion Island statistical area and will not result in a net negative impact on the overall circulation system in the immediate area. During the public hearing process, the Planning Commission considered a proposal from the owner of the Marriott Hotel property, Host Hotels and Resorts (Host). They proposed a "use conversion solution" as an alternative to the applicant's request for a transfer of development intensity (Attachment CC14). This alternative was based upon the development intensity of the eliminated 17 tennis courts being converted to hotel rooms. Staff provided the Planning Commission with an analysis of the conversion proposal (Attachment CCC15), and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the "conversion" alternative is consistent with the General Plan based upon the recognition that the General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island, hotel rooms, and housing units within Newport Center. Additionally, the proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages hotel development and the conversion does not create traffic impacts. In summary, the Planning Commission determined that the conversion of the eliminated N Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 7 tennis courts to hotel rooms does not require a General Plan Amendment, is consistent with the General Plan, and recommended project approval since the hotel rooms and their accessory uses may be authorized without a Transfer of Development Rights. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommended denial of the requested transfer. Site Development Review (SDR) The applicant submitted a Site Development Review (SDR) application in accordance with the alternative PCDP for the entire project. The SDR application also contained detailed plans (same as Attachment CC12) that illustrated the classical California Mediterranean architectural design theme throughout the development, detailed floor plans and elevations of the clubhouses, hotel units and their ancillary uses, and residential units, preliminary landscape, lighting and signage plans. Below is detail description of the proposed development on the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites: Golf Club Site The proposed project would replace the existing 23,460 square -foot golf clubhouse with a new two -story, 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse and its ancillary facilities. The new two -story golf clubhouse will be approximately 50 feet in height and is designed with a classical California Mediterranean architectural style with the same core amenities as the existing clubhouse. No changes are proposed to the golf course; however, future course design changes would be allowed. The golf club's main parking lot and entry will be reconstructed to provide 334 surface parking spaces. Main entry at Irvine Terrace will be improved to provide a landscaped median with stripped entering /exiting lanes. The existing private access easement for Armstrong Nursery located along the frontage of Coast Highway is proposed to be eliminated. Tennis Club Site The Tennis Club site will be redeveloped into three (3) distinct components: The Villas, The Bungalows, and The Tennis Club. Detailed descriptions of each component are as follows: The Villas Designed as semi - custom homes, the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings will be located at the end of a new private street (continuation of the existing Country Club Drive), adjacent to the tennis courts and the ninth green of the golf course. The residential dwellings would occupy the area currently devoted to several tennis courts. These dwelling units will be two- stories and will range from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 5,297 square feet (Plan D), with guest house and basement options. Enclosed parking spaces will be provided for each individual unit. II Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 8 The Bungalows Located on both sides of the Country Club Drive entry, the proposed 27 hotel units (bungalows) will be built in a clustered setting of single and two -story buildings. A 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square foot spa /fitness center are proposed to be operated as ancillary uses with this boutique hotel development. A total of 50 parking spaces would be provided for the hotel accommodations and ancillary uses. The Tennis Club Eighteen of the existing 24 tennis courts and the existing tennis clubhouse will be demolished to provide sufficient area to develop the Villas, the Bungalows, a new 3,725 square foot tennis clubhouse, and one new lighted stadium - center court. No changes are proposed to the six (6) of the remaining lighted tennis courts. The new tennis clubhouse and lighted tennis courts will be located at the most easterly side of the subject property, abutting the Granville Townhome development's drive entrance and the parking lots for Corporate Plaza West. The new 30 -foot high clubhouse is attached to the new spa /fitness center proposed for the Bungalows. The lighted tennis courts will be fenced and screened from adjacent residential uses. A total of 38 parking spaces are allocated for the tennis club use. The Planning Commission expressed a concern regarding the diminishment of tennis courts as a potential recreational impact. The applicant responded to this concern by informing that the number of tennis courts has been adjusted to meet the needs of the tennis club's membership. As a private club, its courts are not generally available for public use. Additionally, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the project site is located within an area that has adequate park and recreation facilities, due to this reason, there is not significant impact on recreational uses anticipated. The reduction in the number of courts would not impact public tennis playing opportunities, overburden the tennis club, or place an increased demand on public facilities. The following table provides a summary of the existing and proposed improvements: The Golf Club Site Existing Improvements Pro osed New Improvements Component Floor Areas . ft. Component Floor Area sq. ft. Clubhouse 23,460 Clubhouse 35,000 Cart Barn 6,050 Cart Storage 5,8342 Snack Bar 180' Snack Bar 180' Restroom Facilities 630' Restroom Facilities 630' Greens Keeper 2,010' Greens Keeper 2,010j82 Starter Shack 140' Starter Shack 140' Total 32,470 Total 43,794 9 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 9 The Tennis Club Site Tennis Clubhouse & Courts, Bungalows & Villas Existing Improvements Proposed New Improvements Component Floor Areas . ft. Component Floor Areas . ft. Clubhouse 3,725 Clubhouse 3,725 24 Tennis Courts 7 Tennis Courts' 27 Bungalows 28,219° Bungalow Spa 7,490 Concierge & Guest Meeting Facility 2,170 5 SFR N/A 'Existing structures to remain 'Exempt from General Plan Development Intensity Limits — Ancillary to Golf Course. 318 of 24 courts will be demolished (6 courts will be remained and one new stadium court will be constructed, for a total of 7 courts - a net reduction of 17 courts) °Not restricted to the General Plan floor area limit The applicant has prepared two (2) compromise 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 CC16). These compromise site plans are not proposed or requested for approval by the applicant. Both compromise plans provide for the larger NBCC's clubhouse and required parking. These plans have been forwarded to NBCC and they have indicated that these plans would not work for them. The Planning Commission considered the comparison site plans and chose to support the applicant's Site Development Review application as it relates to the tennis club portion of the site oDjy (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 golf course, including its ancillary maintenance facilities, clubhouse, associated parking lot, entry drive, and landscaping along Coast Highway were reserved for future consideration. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and is subject to a Coastal Development permit for the construction of the tennis club portion of the site. Proiect Phasing The applicant proposes to implement the project in two (2) independent stages. Improvements to the Tennis Club site will be implemented first, over a period of approximately 36 months, in a four -phase construction effort (Attachment CC17). The redevelopment of the golf clubhouse and parking lot would be implemented at a later date, separately from the construction on the Tennis Club site. The golf clubhouse component of the proposed project will be implemented in a four -phase construction. Although a definitive schedule has not been developed, demolition and construction of I Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 10 the golf clubhouse and parking lot are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 34 months. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) The applicant proposes a vesting tentative tract map (Attachment CC18) on the Tennis Club site to create separate lots for the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, 27 hotel units, the tennis club facility, their common open space areas and a private street to support the propose uses. The Planning Commission determined the proposed tentative tract map complies with the required findings in accordance with Title 19 (Subdivision Code) and recommended approval of the proposed tract map. Limited Term Permit (LTP) Three (3) temporary modular buildings for a total of 10,800 square feet will be used as a temporary clubhouse during the construction of new golf clubhouse. They would be placed to the north of the parking lot, between the existing clubhouse and cart storage barn. These modular buildings will be removed from the project site upon completion of the new golf clubhouse in approximately 24 months. In order to accommodate on -going tennis club operation, a 2,880 square -foot (48'x60') temporary modular building is proposed to be used during the 18 -month construction of the new tennis clubhouse. A smaller modular building is also proposed to be used as the clubhouse's restroom facilities. These modular buildings would be placed on the existing tennis courts and would not interfere with the construction phases on this site. The modular buildings will be removed from the project site upon completion of the new tennis clubhouse. Since the golf clubhouse, including its associated parking lot, the entry drive, and landscaping along East Coast Highway would be reserved for future consideration, the Planning Commission supported and recommending approval of the use of modular buildings during construction of the tennis clubhouse only. Development Agreement (DA) General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.14.8 requires the consideration of 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. 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). 10 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 11 The draft Development Agreement is attached as Attachment CC19. 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 from the effective date of the Agreement which will be from the date of issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (no later than 18 months from Coastal Commission approval). The draft Agreement is consistent with applicable provisions of State law governing development agreements per the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Development Agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment from September 20 to October 19, 2010. A copy of the MND was also made available on the City's website, at the Newport Beach Libraries, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. Staff received comments from the state and local agencies, general public and the Planning Commission. Written responses have been prepared. Subsequent to the circulation of the MND for public comment, an Errata to the MND was prepared to clarify the analysis and project. No new impacts or more severe impacts than those identified and described in the MND were identified. In summary, the project will not create any significant impact that cannot be mitigated. The MND, response to comments and Errata are attached as Attachment CC20. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The 11 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund January 24, 2012 Page 12 environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways), and posted at the site and at City Hall. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Submi ed by: - Kimberly Brandt, A Community Development Director Attachments: CC 1 Draft Resolution - MND CC 2 Draft Ordinance - PCDP CC 3 Draft Resolution — TDR, SDR & VTTM CC 4 Draft Ordinance — DA CC 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 CC 6 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 4, 2011 CC 7 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 4 , 2011 CC 8 Planning Commission Staff Report October 20, 2011 CC 9 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 20, 2011 CC 10 Planning Commission Staff Report November 17, 2011 CC 11 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 17, 2011 CC 12 Newport Beach Country Club PCDP & SDR (Applicant's Proposal) CC 13 Newport Beach Country Club PCDP (Alternative Proposal) CC 14 Latham & Watkins (Host) November 7, 2011 Letter and Attachments CC 15 Staff Memo - Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area or Hotel Room CC 16 Compromise Plans CC 17 Phasing Plan CC 18 Vesting Tentative Tract Map CC 19 Development Agreement CC 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program, & Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed Separately)' Note: 'These documents are not included in the staff report package due to their size and bulk. They are available at the City Hall in the offices of the City Clerk and Planning Division and online at www.newportbeachca.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Newport Beach Country Club (Golf Realty Fund) - Planned Community Development Plan Adoption to provide development standards and design guidelines for the golf club and tennis club sites and their ancillary uses, Transfer of Development Intensity to transfer 27 hotel units from General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly Number 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel Site) to 46 (subject site), Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for 5 single - family dwelling units, 27 hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site, Limited Term Permit to allow temporary uses /structures during the clubhouse reconstruction, a Development Agreement approval and Site Development Review for the development of a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse with accessory facilities; a 3,725 square -foot tennis club with 7 tennis courts; 27 hotel units with a 2,170 square foot concierge and guest center and a 7,490 square foot spa; and 5 single - family residential units (ranging from approximately 2,205 to 4,355 square feet in size) NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the City Clerk's Office or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca aov on the Friday prior to the hearing. 411 interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this )roject in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public searing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public searing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the ;ity Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Jewport Beach website at www.newportbeachca gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. -or questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner, at 949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. ' roject File No.: PA2005 -140 one: PC -47 (Newport Country Club) ocation: 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Activity No.: PC2005 -002, TD2010 -003, NT2005- 003, ND2010 -008, SD2011 -002, XP2011 -004, & DA2008 -001 General Plan: PR & MU -H3 /PR Applicant: Golf Realty Fund (Robert OHill) Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday. January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Newport Beach Country Club (Golf Realty Fund) - Planned Community Development Plan Adoption to provide development standards and design guidelines for the golf club and tennis club sites and their ancillary uses, Transfer of Development Intensity to transfer 27 hotel units from General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly Number 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel Site) to 46 (subject site), Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for 5 single - family dwelling units, 27 hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site, Limited Term Permit to allow temporary uses /structures during the clubhouse reconstruction, a Development Agreement approval and Site Development Review for the development of a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse with accessory facilities; a 3,725 square -foot tennis club with 7 tennis courts; 27 hotel units with a 2,170 square foot concierge and guest center and a 7,490 square foot spa; and 5 single - family residential units (ranging from approximately 2,205 to 4,355 square feet in size) NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the City Clerk's Office or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newoortbeachca qov on the Friday prior to the hearing. 411 interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to - aising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the amity, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Vewport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newoortbeachca qov on the Friday prior to :he hearing. =or questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. project File No.: PA2005 -140 Activity No.: PC2005 -002, TD2010 -003, NT2005 -003, ND2010 -008, SD2011 -002, XP2011 -004, & DA2008 -001 !one: PC -47 (Newport Country Club) General Plan: PR & MU-H3/PR QaE - ocation: 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Applicant: Golf Realty Fund (Robert OHi0) Leilani I. Brown City Cler City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Jewport Beach Country Club (Golf Realty Fund) - Planned Community Development Plan Adoption to provide development standards and design luidelines for the golf club and tennis club sites and their ancillary uses, Transfer of Development Intensity to transfer 27 hotel units from General 'Ian Land Use Element Anomaly Number 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel Site) to 46 (subject site), Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate cts for 5 single - family dwelling units, 27 hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site, Limited Term Permit o allow temporary uses /structures during the clubhouse reconstruction, a Development Agreement approval and Site Development Review for the levelopment of a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse with accessory facilities; a 3,725 square -foot tennis club with 7 tennis courts; 27 hotel units with 12,170 square foot concierge and guest center and a 7,490 square foot spa; and 5 single - family residential units (ranging from approximately 2,205 o 4,355 square feet in size) JOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with ie application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be onstrued as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and omment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and ispection at the City Clerk's Office or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newoortbeachca qov on the Friday prior to the hearing. k1l interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to wising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the :ity, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at theCity Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 lewport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to ie hearing. or questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. 'roject File No.: PA2005 -140 Activity No.: PC2005 -002, TD2010 -003, NT2005 -003, ND2010 -008, SD2011 -002, XP2011 -004, & DA2008 -001 one: PC -47 (Newport Country Club) d � @� General Plan: PR & MU -H3 /PR ocation: 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Applicant: Golf Realty Fund (Robert OHill) J . r`P C/1LI FOR Leilani I. Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Newport Beach Country Club (Golf Realty Fund) - Planned Community Development Plan Adoption to provide development standards and design guidelines for the golf club and tennis club sites and their ancillary uses, Transfer of Development Intensity to transfer 27 hotel units from General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly Number 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel Site) to 46 (subject site), Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for 5 single - family dwelling units, 27 hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site, Limited Term Permit to allow temporary uses /structures during the clubhouse reconstruction, a Development Agreement approval and Site Development Review for the development of a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse with accessory facilities; a 3,725 square -foot tennis club with 7 tennis courts; 27 hotel units with a 2,170 square foot concierge and guest center and a 7,490 square foot spa; and 5 single - family residential units (ranging from approximately 2,205 to 4,355 square feet in size) NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the City Clerk's Office or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca aov on the Friday prior to the hearing. 411 interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this )roject in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public searing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public searing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the ;ity Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Jewport Beach website at www.newportbeachca gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. -or questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner, at 949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov. ' roject File No.: PA2005 -140 one: PC -47 (Newport Country Club) ocation: 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Activity No.: PC2005 -002, TD2010 -003, NT2005- 003, ND2010 -008, SD2011 -002, XP2011 -004, & DA2008 -001 General Plan: PR & MU -H3 /PR Applicant: Golf Realty Fund (Robert OHill) Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach www.avery.com Utilisez le.gabarit 51600 1- 800 -GO -AVERY AVIERY0 51600 Additional Labels- HOA & PLANNER CONTACTS 442 - 011 -064, 65 O Hill Properties Attn: Tom Milano 1101 Granville Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 442- 011 -51, 52, 53 Fainbarg Controls II LLC 1600 East Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Brian Jones 2001 Sabrina Terrace Newport Beach, CA 92625 Mesa Shopping Center— East 8294 Mira Mesa Blvd. San Diego, CA 92126 BAYSIDE VILLAGE HOA TERRA VISTA MGMT / BAYSIDE VIL Attn: NICOLE CONNER 300 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 442-011-64,065 Golf Realty Fund — O Hill Properties One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Attn: Keeton Kreitzer 180 South Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 442- 011 - 64,065 Golf Realty /O Hill Properties c/o International Bay CL 1221 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Byron de Arakal Communications #140A 180 Newport Center Dr Suite 217 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Marriott Hotel &Spa Alan Velagic, Director of Finance 900 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Paul Christ 1143 Grandville Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 IRVINE TERRACE COMM. ASSN MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1 POLARIS WAY #100 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 GRANVILLE COMMUNITY HARBOR COVE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ASSOC KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGT PCM MGMT CO 16845 VON KARMAN 200 23726 BIRCHER DR 200 IRVINE, CA 92606 LAKE FOREST, CA 92630 ISLAND LAGOON HOMEOWNERS ASSN. VILLA POINT CONDO ASSOC GOLD COAST ENTERPRISES ATTN: THERESA ESTRADA 200 E KATELLA 1290 N. HANCOCK STREET 103 ORANGE, CA 92807 ANAHEIM, CA 92807 Newport Beach Yacht Club Attn: Paul A. Ramsey 1099 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CAA Planning Attn: Shawna Schaffner 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 -4105 Irving M. Chase S & A Properties 129 West Wilson Street, Ste. 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John S. Wilson Waldron & Bragg, LLP 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7911 Newport Center Association NO CONTACT INFORMATION PA2005 -140 (Golf Realty /Ol-lill) 1600 E Coast Hwy (Tennis Club) 1602 E Coast Hwy (Golf Club) (625 +20 =) CD #5 645 Labels 0091S OANSAW A83AV-OJ wo� 0091S 31V1dW31 pfdanV asn 6�ane•MMM nnnn 6ul;uud aajj a6pnw5 pue wer 939 -63 -777 939 -63 -778 Richard S Lerner 939 -63 -779 Robert H Grant William P Picker 1123 Granville Dr 1125 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 1 Granville Ds Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 Newport ort Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -780 Arthur Shapiro 1129 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -783 James Myerson 47111 Vintage Dr 104 Indian Wells, CA 92210 -7379 939 -63 -786 William E Keenan 1141 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -789 Russell G Allen 1147 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660-6226 939 -63 -792 Michael & Carole Wade 1110 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -795 Alma Cherian 1070 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6204 591 Labels (Submitted 1 -5 -2011) 34 Labels (Submitted 4 -20 -2011) Labels Created by Listing Service on: Jan 5, 2099 939 -63 -781 Richard T Howard 1131 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -784 Linda G Krolop 1137 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -787 Paul D Christ PO Box 9757 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -9757 939 -63 -790 James J Birmingham 1801 Park Court P1 I Santa Ana, CA 92701 -5002 939 -63 -793 Daniel D Darrow 1100 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -796 James T Klingaman 1060 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6249 HOA and Additional Labels listed on separate sheet 625 count does not include additional HOA and Contacts provided by Planner 939 -63 -782 David R Ball 1133 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -785 Sheth 1139 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -788 Ileane Doolin 1145 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -791 Craig Davenport 1120 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -794 Donald Dunkleman 1080 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6204 * ** 590 Printed * ** PA2005 -140 (Golf Realty /O Hill) 1600 E Coast Hwy (Tennis Club) 1602 E Coast Hwy (Golf Club) CD #5 (jaS Labels 050- 271 -01 050 - 271 -02 Paul Hoffman 050- 271 -03 1425 Bonnie Doone Ter Steven Peloso Barbara H Martin 1419 Bonnie Doone Ter 455 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1717 Alto Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 9.2625 -1717 Boulder Creek, CA 95006 -9620 050- 271 -04 Robert J Beck 1407 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1717 050- 271 -07 Benedick A Fraass 1331 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1716 050- 271 -21 Yo Tokuyama 1406 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050- 272 -03 Russel H Sindt 1407 Santanella Ter Corona Del. Ma, CA 92625 -1744 050- 283 -01 Ronald R Miller *B* 1442 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1750 050- 283 -04 Wallace C Olson 1512 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1752 050- 283 -08 James & Kay Kociuba 43 Oxford Rd Wellesley, MA 02481 -1109 050- 283 -12 Jeffrey R Taylor 1525 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1746 050- 271 -05 Claire Lucas 1401 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1717 050- 271 -19 Galen N Hall 1336 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1741 050- 271 -22 Dave Stassel 1412 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050- 272 -22 Thomas R Fredericks 1415 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1744 050 - 283 -02 Robert M & Tara Dambrosia 1500 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1752 050 - 283 -05 Megan Torres 63 Berlamo Rcho Sta Marg, CA 92688 -2656 050- 283 -09 Linda Venis 3988 Weslin Ave Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 -4746 050- 283 -13 Mark A Murray 1519 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1746 050- 271 -06 Matthew J Warner 1337 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1716 050- 271 -20 William A & Michaela Pond 1400 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050- 271 -23 Daniel Glenn 1418 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050 - 272 -25 Brian .& Roohi Stack 1419 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma; CA 92625 -1744 050- 283 -03 Rosemarie Lane 1506 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1752 050 - 283 -07 Peggy S Hoyt 1530 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1752 050 - 283 -10 Stacie Johnson 703 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -2533 050 - 283 -14 Robertson K Chandler 1515 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1746 050 - 283 -15 050- 283 -16 Ann M 0 Connell W & H Close 050- 283 -19 507 Santanella Ter Christopher J Reedy *B* 1 1507 S Del Ma,. CA 92625 -1746 1915 Bayadere Ter 1531 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1.810 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1746 I 050 - 283 -21 Kathleen Alexander 1425 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA. 92.625 -1744 050- 284 -02 Michael D Schwartz 1430 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050 - 284 -05 Timothy J & Stephanie Bernardy 1512 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050- 284 -06 Wayne & Carolyn Lytle 1530. Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050- 284 -11 Bank Wells Fargo N A 18700 NW Walker Rd 92 Beaverton, OR 97006 -2950 050- 284 -14 Nancy C Tracy 1525 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1718 050- 284 -17 Linda K Vander Velde 1507 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1718 050 - 284 -20 John A Bogard 1431 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1717 050- 291 -12 Inga Be Jounge 1600 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1747 050- 283 -22 William W Rice -M- 1524 Serenade Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1752 050- 284 -03 Annette Wiley 1500 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050- 284 -06 - Mary Powers 1518 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050 - 284 -09 Scot & Deanne Mac Innes 1536 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050- 284 -12 Jan L Greenberg 1537 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1718 050- 284 -15 Eric M & Adriana Olsen 1519 Bonnie Boone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1718 050 - 264 -18 Dell M Williams 15.01 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1716 050 - 291 -10 Melvin J Silverstein 3334 E Coast Hwy 222 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -2328 050- 291 -13 George M Winder 621 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1838 050 - 284 -01 Christina B & Eric Fenmore 1424 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1743 050- 284 -04 La Pointe Raymond J 804 Woodland St Birmingham, MI 48009 -3848 050- 284 -07 Joseph W & Verna Degenha *M* 1524 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1745 050- 284 -10 George & Alice Romero 711 Ramona Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1740 050- 284 -13 Daniel C & Susan Tibbetts 1531 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1718 050 - 284 -16 Gerald Blankenship 1515 Bonnie Doone Ter Newport Beach, CA 92625 -1718 050- 284 -19 Ada Luciano 1437 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1717 050- 291 -11 Brian Stapleton 642 Ramona Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1738 050- 292 -01 Jerry & Jane Damaschino 1600 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1747 050- 292 -02 050- 292 -03 Anton M & Kymberly Chia uzic 050- 292 -04 P Peter & Diana Morris Richard D Passaglia 1606 Santanella Ter 1614 Santanella Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1747 707 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1747 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1840 050 - 292 -05 050 - 292 -06 - 050 - 292 -07 Roy & Vicki Devaney Hugh H Bradley Gay Arbuthnot 1619 Bonnie Doone Ter 1615 Bonnie Boone Ter 1607 Bonnie Doone Ter Corona. Del Ma, CA 92625 -1720 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1719 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1719 050 - 292 -08 Eileen Rhodes 1601 Bonnie Boone Ter Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1719 050- 293 -09 Mary Dougherty *B* 700 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 050- 293 -18 Thomas W O Hearn 712 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 050- 293 -27 Jeffrey & Kristen Adelson 724 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 440- 132 -48 Russell E Fluter 2025 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4300 440 - 361 -25 Ronald R Foell 2 Cypress Point Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5208 440 - 361 -28 Tadashi Fujii 1600 Arch Bay Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6000 440- 361 -31 Harbo� Community Assn .23726 B';rtcher Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 050- 293 -06 Jeffrey & Kristen Adelson 724 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 050 - 293 -11 George R & Alan Siegel 628 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1837 050 - 293 -24 Mark A Murray *B* 718 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 050- 293 -28 Ciby' f Ne or Beach 3300 N+pvd Newpc�t Beach, CA 92663 -3816 440 - 132 -55 ��- City kff -Y6€ pert each PO Bo�K48" Newpc(rt Beach, CA 92658 -6915 440 - 361 -26 Shirley Eberhard *B* 1604 Arch Bay Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6000 440 - 361 -29 Ha Y vemmunity Assn 23726 irtcher Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 440-361-32 Community Assn 23726 BirVcher Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 0 050- 293 -07 Robert Painter 730 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1639 050- 293 -13 Fleetwood B Joiner PO Box 10296 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -0296 050 - 293 -25 Robert & Debbie Painter 730 Malabar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1839 440 - 132 -41 Jgkallins Investments 903 Calle Amanecer 100 San Clemente, CA 92673 -6252 440- 132 -57 Irvine Cc 18201 Von Karman Ave 900 Irvine, CA 92612 -1097 440 - 361 -27 Jerry Lin 1602 Arch Bay Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6000 440 - 361 -30 Harbor Cove Community Assn 23726 Birtcher Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 44(361 -33 Harbo d�unity Assn 43 23726sirtcher Dr La74 Forest, CA 92630 -1771 440 - 371 -49 440 - 371 -50 Ian Sender 440 - 371-51 Cherril Peranich Goldstone Family 1415 Sea Ridge Dr 1148 S Bromley Ct 1419 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 Anaheim, CA 92808 -2528 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440 - 371 -52 440 - 371 -53 Cindy & Barbara Chambers 1-54 James S Fraser *M* Todd Todd L L Pescan 1421 Sea Ridge Dr 1550G Tiburon Blvd 552 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 Tiburon, CA 94920 1425 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440 - 371 -55 Dean N Camaras 1427 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440 - 371 -58 Roy Englebrecht 1433 Sea Ridge Dr .Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440 - 371 -61 Willa Schlegel 609 Acacia Ave Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1908 440- 371 -65 Douglas Ryan 1450 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -68 Larry K Kerbs *B* 1444 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -71 Sytnyk 6 Jade Cv Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1012 440 - 371 -74 Ray Elam 1432 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440- 371 -77 George E & Carol Taylor 1 Shadowcast Newport Coast, CA 92657 -1647 440 - 371 -56 Richard G Quist 1429 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440- 371 -59 Patricia A Bellitti 1435 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440- 371 -63 Jerome A Stone 1454 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -66 Todd E Hollander 1448 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -69 Figueroa 1442 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -72 Maha A1- Qahtani 1436 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -75 Richard & Quinn Vanis 1430 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -78 Yen Pan 4762 Wentworth Cir Huntington Be, CA 92649 -6415 440 - 371 -57 Terry E Lovett 1431 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440- 371 -60 Brian Thomas 1437 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8206 440- 371 -64 Daniel C Hourigan *B* 1452 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -67 Norman W Kallan 1446 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 4.40- 371 -70 Shaun C Flanagan 1440 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -73 Andrew E Inglis 1434 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -76 Rodger Swearingen 1428 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -79 Robert & Robin Gerard 1422 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -80 440 - 371 -81 Lawrence M & Hayako Otsubo 440 - 371 -82 Edward & Nancy Chow 1420 Sea Ridge Dr Angie Pham 1418 Sea Ridge Dr 1416 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 Newport Sea Ridge CA Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440 - 371 -83 440 - 371 -84 440- 371 -85 Larry W Collins Arthur & Kristan Auerba *B* Melvin & Hazel Zigner *M* 1414 Sea Ridge Dr 1412 Sea Ridge Dr 1410 Sea Ridge Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8207 440- 371 -86 Jal L P PO Box 924 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 -0924 440 - 371 -93 Harb�3�cco :C1 nity Assn 23726 JM rtcher Dr Lake est, CA 92630 -1771 440- 381 -33 Ha'Community Assn 23726 fitfrtcher Dr Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 442 - 011 -37 David Ellis 1470 Jamboree Rd Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6203 442 - 011 -68 Hhr Newport Beach Llc PO Box 579 Louisville, IN 37777 -0579 442 - 261 -0 Cit, '?f _Ne o each 3300 Ne ort Blvd Newporp Beach, CA 92663 -3816 442- 261 -10 A C PO Box 1290 Agoura Hills, 440 - 371 -91�. Ha or` e munity Assn 23726f°Birtcher Dr Lake Y Forest, CA 92630 -1771 440 - 381 -26 Thomas R & Susan Smith *M* 927 Spring Tide Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8210 440 - 381 -34 Her r 15munity Assn 23726 B' cher Dr Lake orest, CA 92630 -1771 44,2 -011 - Davi l 1470(Ja.mboree Rd Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6203 442 - 231 -09 Southwest Investors PO Box 1960 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8932 442 - 261 -08 �„.�i City f Ne - each 3300 Ne rt Blvd Newport 1 �Beach, CA 92663 -3816 442 - 261 -11 A C PO Box 1290 CA 91376 -1290 Agoura Hills, CA 91376 -1290 442 - 261 -17 Orange County Museum Of Art 850 San Clemente Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6301 442 - 262 -06 Irvine ompa 1LlC 550 Newport Cnter Dr Newport Bea c(h CA 92660 -7011 I 442 Irvi pany 550 ewport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 202-07 Irvine L� 550 Newport CeXLer Dr Newport Bead¢, CA 92660 -7011 440 - 371 -92 HarCoOm —em ity Assn 23726 irtcher Or Lake Forest, CA 92630 -1771 440 - 381 -29 Stephen S Currey 929 Spring Tide Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -8210 442 - 011 -24 Scott T Burnham 1100 Newport Center Dr 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6297 44 - 011 -66 550 N wport Center Dr Newp rt Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 231 -11 Irvine Co Of W Va 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 4 2- 261 -09 Ci't` Of 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3616 442q, - 261 -16 550 N?port Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 262 -03 Cshv Pacific Financial L1c 515 S Flower St 6Th Los Angeles, CA 90071 -2201 442 - 262 -08 Irvine r r° 550 New p(5rt Center Or Ne rt Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 262 -09 442- 262 -10 442 - 271 -16 Irvine Llc Irvine Apartment Communities Newport Corporate Plaza Assocs 550 Ne ort Center Dr 550 Newport Center Or 1100 Newport Center Dr 150 NewpoA Beach, CA 92660 -7011 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6297 5'442-361-06 Island Lagoon Homeowners Assoc PO Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92616 -4708 442 -361 -2 IS'1-a4q.A9ecn Homeowners Assoc PO B01/4708 Irvine, CA 9261.6 -4708 442 - 411 -01 Arnold Feuerstein 508 30Th St Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3714 442 - 421 -09 Granville Community Assn Pecke) 4 Park Plz 16Th Irvine, CA 92614 -8560 442 - 421 -13 1139 Granville Or Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -003 Michael I Artenian 11 Ocean Vis 17 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -006 Frank A & Marit Devito 17 Ocean Vis 20 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -009 Marie A Obrien 23 Ocean Vis 23 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6223 442 - 361 -12 .y 442- 361 -25 I S*l and goo Homeowners Assoc I land Lag Homeowners Assoc PO Bo 08 PO Irv' e, CA 92616 -4708 Irv' e, CA 92616 -4708 442- 361 -29 d' IsA.nd_L_ n Homeowners Assoc PO BOxA70B Irvine CA 92616 -4708 442 - 411 -04 Villa Point Condominium Assn 25910 Acero 200 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 -7906 442- 421 -10 Mcmonigle Residential 1000 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6962 939 -63 -001 Vincent Lee 7 Ocean Vis 15 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -004 Yvette M Alexander 13 Ocean Vis 13 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -007 Donald W Bernhard 19 Ocean Vis 21 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -010 John Patton *M* 25 Ocean Vis 24 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 442- 361 -30 Is1 d Lameowners Assoc PO Box . IrvilK1 CA 92616 -4798 442 - 411 -06 Villa Point Condominium Assn 550 Newport Center Or Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 4 - 421 -11 Gra mmunity Assn Pecker 4 P. P1z 16Th vine, CA 92614 -8560 939 -63 -002 Mike W Fcssier 7 Wainwright Rd 88 Winchester, MA 01890 -2382 939 -63 -005 Marcia R Hodges 11695 Morning Grove Dr Las Vegas, NV 89135 -1540 939 -63 -006 Sally F Faucetta PO Box 27 Mountain Cent, CA 92561 -0027 939 -63 -011 Marge Hartunian 27 Ocean Vis 25 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -012 939 -63 -013 939 -63 -014 Donald R & Corrinne Sojka Gordon Harris Masatsugu & Joan Yoshida 29 Ocean Vis 26 31 Ocean Vis 27 33 Ocean Vis 28 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -015 939 -63 -016 939 -63 -017 Christine A Maginn James L & Katherine Murphy Gladys L Johansson PO Box 11507 37 Ocean Via 30 31129 Sunningdale Dr Newport Beach, CA 92658 -5032 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 Temecula, CA 92591 -3967 939 -63 -018 Alan I White 30 Ocean Via Newport Beach, 939 -63 -019 Charles R Berreman 28 Ocean Vis CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -021 Louis & Rosalie Puccio 24 Ocean Vis 35 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -024 Suzanna Llc 18 Ocean Vis 38 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -027 Andrew Evans 45 Ocean Vis 41 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -030 Mert Wallen 36 Ocean Vis 44 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -033 Sylvia Michler 42 Ocean Vis 47 Newport Beach, 939 -63 -036 Sushil K Garg 48 Ocean Vis 50 Newport Beach, 939 -63 -039 Joann Albers 54 Ocean Vis 53 Newport Beach, 939 -63 -022 Gerald S Morris 22 Ocean Vis Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -025 Michael Volpe 39 Ocean Vis 39 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -028 David E'& Joan Marchand 43 Ocean Vis 42 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -031 Masatsugu Yoshida 38 Ocean Vis 45 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -034 Taylor 44 Ocean Vis 48 CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -037 David M & Joan Yeager 50 Ocean Vis 51 CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -040 Diane House 56 Ocean Vis 54 CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -020 Louis J Dambrosio 26 Ocean Vis 34 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -023 Ostler 0 Don 2892 Kennedy Dr Salt Lake Cit, UT 84106 -2119 939 -63 -026 Zaid H Zubi 41 Ocean Vis 40 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6223 939 -63 -029 Suresh A Khemlani 34 Ocean Vis 43 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -032 Ned Khorey 1005 E Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92866 -2110 939 -63 -035 Frank J Valenti *M* 46 Ocean Vis 49 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -038 Smith Harry & L 52 Ocean Vis 52 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -401 Dianna G Munro 11 Sea Cove Ln 5 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6221 939 -63 -402 939 -63 -403 939 -63 -404 Larry K Acker Joyce K Weiss Omar Blanchard 9 Sea Cove Ln 6 940 Corsica Dr 5 Sea Cove Ln 8 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6221 Pacific Palis, CA 90272 -4010 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6221 939 -63 -405 939 -63 -406 Alix Vincent 939 -63 -407 Alix Vincent Steven T Anter 1 Sea Cove Ln 9 - 3 Sea Cove Ln 10 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6221 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6221 wea Cove Ln 11 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6222 939 -63 -408 Patrick J Redmond 4 Sea Cove Ln 12 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6222 939 -63 -411 Donald M Norman 57 Ocean Vis 55 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -414 Yong Yoon 61 Ocean Vis 58 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -417 Steve & Nancy Mcphetridge PO Box 1738 Edwards, CO 81632 -1738 939 -63 -420 Roger A Mohrhoff 77 Ocean Vis 92 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -423 August E Garrido 1007 W 9Th St Austin, TX 78703 -4923 93.9 -63 -427 Alyce M Denham 60 Ocean Vis 99 Newport Beach, 939 -63 -409 Millie K Young 1544 Virginia Ave Glendale, CA 91202 -1244 939 -63 -412 J Custer 59 Ocean Vis Newport Beach 56 CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -415 Robert J Shackleton 87 Ocean Vis 87 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -418 M G Beauchamp 83 Ocean Vis 90 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 93.9 -63 -421 K Hawkins *M* 73 Ocean Vis 93 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -425 Audrey M Garr 35 Sutton P1 20D New York, NY 10022 -2429 939 -63 -428 Adrienne Rosen *B* 58 Ocean Vis 100 CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -430 Robert W Clemo 64 Ocean Vis 102 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -431 James W Dwyer 68 Ocean Vis 103 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -410 Tiffany Ward 8 Sea Cove Ln 14 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6222 939 -63 -413 Terry K Feigenbaum 3167 Cavendish Dr Los Angeles, CA 90064 -4742 939 -63 -416 George L Woodford 85 Ocean Vis 88 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -419 Gerald D Barrone 79 Ocean Vis 91 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 93.9 -63 -422 Gregory G Sargenti 75 Ocean Vis 94 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -426 Joan E Clamp *M* 67 Ocean Vis 98 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6207 939 -63 -429 Ada G Kless 62 Ocean Vis 101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -432 Frederick De Lisio 66 Ocean Vis 104 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -433 939 -63 -435 Paul Ulyett Rose Pechuls *M* 939 -63 -436 70 Ocean Vis 105 Theodore G Simpkins Vewport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 2216 Pacific Dr 17101 Valley View Ave Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1929 Cerritos, CA 90703 -2413 939 -63 -437 939 -63 -438 939 -63 -439 Gene Kermin *B* Weglarz Neal Gimbel 78 Ocean Vis 109 80 Ocean Vis 110 84 Ocean Vis 111 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -440 Lauren Miskinnis 82 Ocean Vis 112 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -443 Jeanne G Bershire 9100 SE 57Th St Mercer Island, WA 98040 -5009 939 -63 -446 C L Alexander 25 Seabrook Cv 74 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -449 John S Yun 35 Seabrook Cv 77 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -452 Shigehiro & Shinobu Suganuma 10820 Norwalk Blvd Santa Fe Spri, CA 90670 -3826 939 -63 -455 Robert E & Patricia Geor *M* 45 Seabrook Cv 83 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -458 Ruth M Poole 49 Seabrook Cv 86 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -461 Enid M Rice 94 Ocean Vis 117 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -441 Ralph N Krochmal 86 Ocean Vis 113 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -444 Stanley Zipser *B* 23 Seabrook Cv 72 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -447 J Thompson 29 Seabrook Cv 75 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -450 William D Griffith 33 Seabrook Cv 78 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -453 Gloria M Clark 43 Seabrook Cv 61 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -456 Amal Malek 47 Seabrook Cv 84 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -459 Francene Kipp 92 Ocean Vis 115 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -462 James E Hovde 1314 Manassas Trl Madison, WI 53718 -8241 939 -63 -442 Paul E Rolfes 88 Ocean Vis 114 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -445 John Bonanno 27 Seabrook Cv 73 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -448 Alan W Clark PO Box 43037 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 -0037 939 -63 -451 Sea Island Holdings Llc 23412 Pacific Park Dr 25D Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 -3345 939 -63 -454 George Schopick 41 Seabrook Cv 62 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 -6232 939 -63 -457 Mary C Shumaker *B* 51 Seabrook Cv 85 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6232 939 -63 -460 Petrus P Clerx *B* 90 Ocean Vis 116 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 939 -63 -463 Elisa C Hall *M* 1916 Tustin Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 -3745 939 -63 -464 939 -63 -465 939 -63 -466 Karen N Winger Lorna Berle Robert Nethery 98 Ocean Vis 120 102 Ocean Vis 121 104 Ocean Vis 122 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6224 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6229 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6229 939 -63 -467 939 -63 -468 Stephen Gyurik Ernest S Follico 939 -63 -469 108 Ocean Vis 123 Sam P & Maralee Ponzio 106 Ocean Vis 124 103 Ocean Vis 125 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6229 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6229 Newport Beach, CA 9.2660 -6228 939 -63 -470 Lance & Maribeth Tennison 101 Ocean Vis 126 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -473 Michael J & Vicki Stewart 95 Ocean Vis 129 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -476 Zavel Liebling 91 Ocean Vis 132 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -479 Stuart S & Lynne Gassel 7 Bay Cove Ln 61 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -482 Marie Fargo -Sock 16 Rue Saint Cloud Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5909 939 -63 -485 Ralph R Russo 180 Alta Vista Dr Atherton, CA 94027 -6402 939 -63 -488 Jehanne Anabtawi 21 Bay Cove Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -491 Richard K Berube *B* 15 Sea Cove Ln 3 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6200 939 -63 -471 Jacob & Tatyana Feldman 97 Ocean Vis 127 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -474 Robert C Browning 93 Ocean Vis 130 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -477 Byron J Kelly 1 Bay Cove Ln 59 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -480 Jay & Cynthia Sills 5 Bay Cove Ln 62 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -472 Martha Jennings PO Box 5.923 Ketchum, ID 83340 -5923 939 -63 -475 William J Corkett 89 Ocean Vis 131 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6228 939 -63 -478 Rowe 3 Bay Cove Ln 60 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -481 Dolores B Andersen 9 Bay Cove Ln 63 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -483 939 -63 -484 Jiahua International Inc Andrew &.Maria Serednycky 12757 Andy St 13 Bay Cove Ln 66 Cerritos, CA 90703 -6037 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -486 Leda Kalfa 19 Bay Cove Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -489 Nick A & Frida Godoy 19 Sea Cove Ln 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6200 939 -63 -492 Bruce J Schwartz *M* 13 Sea Cove Ln 4 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6200 939 -63 -487 Scott M Anderson 23 Bay Cove Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6230 939 -63 -4.90 Karen Lucian 17 Sea Cove Ln 2 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6200 939 -63 -497 Louis Machander 444 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 939 -63 -498 939 -63 -499 259 Gra E Babino Barbara Nielsen *B* 939 -63 -500 259 Grand St A Kevin Balfour Jersey City, NJ 07302 -4317 440 Villa Point Or 1511 Emerald Bay Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -1235 939 -63 -501 939 -63 -502 Reynolds Devries Abolghassem Madani 939-63 -503 436 Villa Point Dr 20932 Brookhurst St 207 Shawn Oleary Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 Huntington Be, CA 92646 -6645 27282 n Vie o, CA 926 Mission Viejo, CA 92675 -5041 939 -63 -504 D & C Thio 20110 Thagard Way Yorba Linda, CA 92887 -3277 939 -63 -507 Stephen A Copenhaver 80790 Camino Santa Elise Indio, CA 92203 -7508 939 -63 -510 Ivon N Campo 37962 Panorama Ct Murrieta, CA 92562 -5001 939 -63 -513 John W & Jane Clarke *M* 412 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -516 Emmalea Tedrow 404 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -519 Timothy D & Jennifer Demark 402 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -522 Donna Albertsen 394 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -525 Margaret E Chase 386 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -505 Kathleen E Syrett *M* 424 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -508 Estelle Bardof£ 2180 Post St 529 San Francisco, CA 94115 -6007 939 -63 -511 Husodo Angkosubroto 2601 Main St 910 Irvine, CA 92614 -4253 939 -63 -514 Paul D Payne 410 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -517 Jon & Cheryl Johnston 2412 Topsail Cir Westlake Vill, CA 91361 -3435 939 -63 -520 Carolyn G Johnson 40.0 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -523 939 -63 -506 Gretchen Schaeffer 422 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -509 Adeline Civretta 420 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -512 Carla Motor Company 1936 Santiago Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -3833 939 -63 -515 Patrick D OsulliVan 1 Eno Ln Westport, CT 06880 -6412 939 -63 -518 Edwin W De Cordova PO Box 18693 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 -0693 939 -63 -521 Bruce G Patton 4 Via Chapala San Clemente, CA 92673 -2732 Hamid Servati 939-63 -524 510 Savage Rd Howard & Reva Colover 1466 Galaxy Dr Belleville, MI 48111 -2937 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -4920 939 -63 -526 Mark W Paul *B* 388 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -527 Karl S Braeger 384 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -528 Dorothy Stephens *B* 93.9 -63 -529 Edwin W De Cordova 939 -63 -530 380 Villa Point Dr Steven M Olson *M* PO Box 18693 378 Villa Point Dr lewport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 -0693 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6239 939 -63 -531 939 -63 -532 939 -63 -533 B Adhoute Nahid Dehnadi Brett T Donaldson 20 Lemans 73 Clouds Vw 350 Villa Point Dr Newport Coast, CA 92657 -0115 Irvine, CA 92603 -0170 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 93.9 -63 -534 Mary Januszka 342 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -537 Peter Kontos 9227 Gaymont Ave Downey, CA 90240 -2670 939 -63 -540 D R & M Barrera 322 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -543 Peggy L Hood 328 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -546 Sally L Hemmick 177 Riverside Ave F Newport Beach., CA 92663 -4080 939 -63 -550 Ali Tadjedin 274 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -553 Lee Berkowitz 24610 Garland Dr Valencia, CA 91355 -4962 939 -63 -556 Dana O White 264 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -535 Susan E Coulter 346 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -538 Edith Kroop£ 4 Sandbar Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1430 939 -63 -541 Richard Church 330 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -544 June D Teal 3775 Amesbury Rd Los Angeles, CA 90027 -1349 939 -63 -548 Jason Malecka 16 Knob Hl Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 -5903 939 -63 -551 Kimberly J Hosken 278 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -554 Ralph R Adams 1902 Summer Meadow Cir Sandy, UT 84093 -7010 939 -63 -557 JOY Hui 262 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -536 Warren L Laidley 344 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -539 Ysl 2754 Foxtail Creek Ave Henderson, NV 89052 -7109 939 -63 -542 Eric & Jennifer Bentley 326 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6217 939 -63 -545 Helen Smith *B* 220 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -549 C Olson 282 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -552 Gregory J Borgman 276 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -555 Robert J Nasraway 266 Villa Point Or Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -558 Patrick Redmond 4 Sea Cove Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6222 939 -63 -559 939 -63 -560 Carolyn Mulne 939 -63 -561 Ronald P Laurain Paul Mareski 58 Twilight Elf 252 Villa Point Dr 200 Park Ave 8Th Newport Beach, CA 92657 -2126 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 New York, NY 10003 -1503 939 -63 -562 939 -63 -563 David A & Nancy Gaston Marion C Parker *M* 939-63 -564 1950 Collingswood Rd Ian & Lynette Fisher 230 Villa Point Dr 234 Villa Point Dr Columbus, OH 43221 -3740 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -565 Craig A Torrence 232 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -568 W & Shirley Pierson 5326 Chamberlin Ave Chevy Chase, MD 20815 -6661 939 -63 -571 Carol Berry 38397 GaZania Cir Palm Desert, CA 92211 -5093 9.39 -63 -574 David P & Jeremy Hellier 7 Palagonia Aisle Irvine, CA 92606 -8371 939 -63 -577 Nancy Clayton 202 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -580 Stone 853 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5532 939 -63 -583 Walter J Farmer 5086 Berryhill P1 Riverside, CA 92507 -5906 939 -63 -586 Michael Carlucci 1525 Sabatini Dr Henderson, NV 89052 -4132 939 -63 -566 Gina Brown 224 Villa Point Dr Newport. Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -569 Paul E & Anjelika Kacik 222 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -572 Ann Macgowan 212 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -575 James Muzzy 2546 Riviera Dr Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -1029 939 -63 -578 Rhoda Shapiro *B* 200 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -581 Mia Zucht 246 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -584 Pearl S Lane 248 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -587 Stephanie Ayres 288 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -567 Sharon Fagundes 228 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -570 Helen Smith 220 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -573 Karen Gordon PO BOX 4965 Middle River., MD 21220 -0965 939 -63 -576 Joyce E Keath 204 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6201 939 -63 -579 Russell S Alterman 238 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -582 Brandon Friend 2738 Wagon Train Ln Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -3648 939 -63 -585 Terry Mc Grath 242 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6235 939 -63 -588 Shelley Scudder 60528 Devils Ladder Rd 119 Mountain Cent, CA 92561 -3011 939 -63 -589 Susan 939 -63 -590 Wi yninger Robert C & J Reid 939-63 -591 296 Villa Point Dr Mary E Vartanian *M* PO Box 295 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 5280 Los Encantos Way Newport Beach, CA 92662 -0295 Los Angeles, CA 90027 -1020 939 -63 -592 939 -63 -593 939 -63 -594 Robert W & Margaret Helm Sharon M Kolander Gaylord D Larsen 12064 Open Run Rd 292 Villa Point Dr 3033 Seahorse Ave Ellicott City, MD 21042 -6101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 Ventura, CA 93001 -4248 939 -63 -595 John Mayhew 306 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 939 -63 -598 Brandon Friend 2738 Wagon Train Ln Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -3648 939 -63 -601 Susan Thomas *M* 318 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 939 -63 -604 D Stone 853 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 9266.3 -5532 939 -63 -607 Juri Marinkovich 356 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -610 Steve Koshimizu 358 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -613 Peter L Schuller 3095 Promenade Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -3053 939 -63 -616 Sandra N Labrinos *B* 239 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 939 -63 -596 Barbara Price 304 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 939 -63 -599 Jack P Libby 7619 Belgian Lion St Las Vegas, NV 89139 -5303 939 -63 -602 Constance R Cooper 316 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA. 92660 -6237 939 -63 -605 Janice Catlin 364 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -608 Peter A Swan 5865 E Sanna St Paradise Vall, AZ 85253 -1763 939 -63 -611 Gary D Shumate 376 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -614 Sharon L Wedge PO Box 9016 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -1016 939 -63 -617 Ralph R Inigo 2327 Valencia St Santa Ana, CA 92706 -2061 939 -63 -59.7 Betty J Opbroek 310 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 939 -63 -600 Eugene S & Henrietta Rhodes 312 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6237 939 -63 -603 Linda Fredricks 366 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -606 Robyn E Ashley 3081 Lusitana Dr Livermore, CA 94550 -9684 939 -63 -609 Philip F Newberg 360 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -612 Winnie Jay *M* 374 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6238 939 -63 -615 Christina Vanian 241 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 939 -63 -618 Paul D Payne 410 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6220 939 -63 -619 939 -63 -620 939 -63 -621 Giese Real Est Ltd Ptnshp Frank J Maguire James R Swaniger *M* 465 Stephen F Austin Dr 223 Villa Point Dr 503 Orange Blossom Conroe, TX 77302 -3121 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 Irvine, CA 92618 -4456 939 -63 -622 939 -63 -623 Alfred J Staples Louis W Walker 939-63 -624 45535 Camino Del Re Mary Tarr Y 627 Via Lido Soud Indian Wells, CA 92210 -8805 Ne 235 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5528 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6240 939 -63 -625 Roupen Vartanian 5280 Los Encantos Way Los Angeles, CA 90027 -1020 9.39 -63 -628 Robert David 217 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 939 -63 -631 Washington .Mutual 2007 -Oa4 7255 Baymeadows Way Jacksonville, FL 32256 -6851 939 -63 -634 Flora Hills 711 Jasmine Ave Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -2313 939 -63 -637 William Garrick 12 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -640 James & Susan Halton 20 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -643 J & Laura 0lson *B* 2211 Gillis Ct Maitland, FL 32751 -3753 939 -63 -646 Leonard Bieber *M* 36 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -626 Vincent H & Nina Reyes 10328 Dunkirk Ave Los Angeles, CA 90025 -5102 939 -63 -629 Ione 1645 Vine St 713 Los Angeles, CA 90028 -8812 939 -63 -632 John Webber 207 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 939 -63 -635 Brenda Lloyd 176 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 939 -63 -638 John C & Christine Sturgess 601 Cliff Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5812 939 -63 -641 Beth A Voien *B* 24 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -644 Mary Stokley 28 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -647 Jane Atencio 34 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -627 Stephanie LNOVarro *B* 215 Villa.POint Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 939 -63 -630 Robert K Ziegler 211 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 939 -63 -633 Theodore S & Cynthia Debonis 205 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6225 939 -63 -636 Richard Reynolds 1000 E ocean Blvd 715 Long Beach, CA 90802 -6512 939 -63 -639 Kristin Halton 1654 Aliso Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -3285 939 -63 -642 Gus Ganotis *M* 26 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6242 939 -63 -645 Carol Forman PO Box 103 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -0103 939 -63 -648 Theresa A Casanova 1672 Piper Crk Beaumont, CA 92223 -7347 939 -63 -649 939 -63 -650 Karin Holloway Joe Sherman 939 -63 -651 40 Villa Point Dr 42 Villa Point Dr Richard Hutton Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 46 Villa Point Newport Beach, CA CA 92660 -6243 939 -63 -652 939 -63 -653 Richard R Bonadio P 939 -63 -654 atricia M o David T Jeffers 6 Inverness Ln 48 Villa Point int Dr Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5110 Ne 36 Monrovia Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 Irvine, CA 92602 -0925 939 -63 -655 Robert C Fick 54 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 939 -63 -658 Thomas & Sonoko Duvalis PO Box 9769 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -9769 939 -63 -661 Romauldo Predkelis 322 20Th St Huntington Be, CA 92648 -3826 939 -63 -664 Dana 0 White 264 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6236 939 -63 -667 Teresa Biggs *M* 86 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -670 Joan Caulfield 80 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -673 Socorro Vasquez PO Box 70866 Seattle, WA 98127 -1305 939 -63 -676 Oliver C Wright *M* 96 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6245 939 -63 -656 Rachel Magallanes 52 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 939-63-659 - Joseph M Manisco 62 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 939 -63 -662 Steve Shmagin 68 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -665 R C Hofstad 90 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -668 Stephen M Morse 84 Villa. Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -671 Steven & Kathleen Anter 78 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -674 Wilber & Deborah Shaffer 72 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -677 Elaine Tillman *B* 92 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -657 Shang Hong 13 Shelburne Dr Oak Brook, IL 60523 -1773 939 -63 -660 Robyn E Ferro 60 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6243 939 -63 -663 Ter 86 a Point Dr N wport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -666 Dana R Hunt *B* 88 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -669 Dean H Fienberg 82 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -672 Ivon N Campo 37962 Panorama Ct Murrieta, CA 92562 -5001 939 -63 -675 Emmes Carr 94 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6244 939 -63 -678 Reuben & Linda Abraham 1450 Washington Blvd 14095 Stamford, CT 06902 -2443 939 -63 -679 939 -63 -680 Anita W Eaton 939 -63-681 Reuben & Linda Abraham 98 Villa Point Dr 1450 Washington Blvd 14095 Katherine Krucker Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6245 Stamford, CT 06902 -2443 106 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6245 939 -63 -682 939 -63 -683 Linda G Griegorian Walter H Nutting 939 -63 -684 Winston Hodge 1021 Meadow Pass Rd 110 Villa Point Dr 24300 Avenida De Marcia Walnut, CA 91789 -1951 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6245 Yorba Linda, CA 92887 -4017 939 -63 -685 Scampers Properties Llc 601 Lido Park Dr 8B Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4405 939 -63 -688 John H & Beth Blacknall 4979 Purdue Ave Seattle, WA 98105 -2145 939 -63 -691 Curtis D Carlson 32412 Via Antibes Monarch Beach, CA 92629 -3413 939 -63 -694 Lawrence F Kerr 132 Villa Point Dr Newport .Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -697 F Sisk 138 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -700 Martin G Flink 2684 Bungalow P1 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1528 939 -63 -703 Miller Akins 150 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -706 Frederick G Hodges 152 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 939 -63 -710 Daniel P Beaver 540 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 -4637 939 -63 -686 Peter Ahearn 116 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6245 939 -63 -689 Robert S Richardson 221 S Royal Ascot Dr Las Vegas, NV 89144 -4310 939 -63 -692 Mary Miller *B* 2030 Vallejo St 602 San Francisco, CA 94123 -4854 939 -63 -695 Catherine Allen *B* 134 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -698 Elaine Whitney PO Box 5460 Balboa Island, CA 92662 -5460 939 -63 -701 James D Shepard 7 Argo Irvine, CA 92603 -5708 939 -63 -704 Barry Khan 424 62Nd St Newport Beach, CA 92663 -1904 939 -63 -707 John D Rowell Inc Money Pp 3511 Country Club Dr Glendale, CA 91208 -1157 939 -63 -711 Antoine Arbaji 4 Glittering Sky Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 -8098 939 -63 -687 Gregory J Cleveland 500 Throckmorton St 2109 Fort Worth, TX 76102 -3808 939 -63 -690 Harvey I Wallack 227 W Janss Rd 125 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 -1856 939 -63 -693 Verkleij Hol 124 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -696 Kahn Lee 2810 Wallingford Rd San Marino, CA 91108 -1550 939 -63 -699 Barbara J Swindall *B* PG Box 499 Newport Beach, CA 92662 -0499 939 -63 -702 Carol M Fredrickson 144 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6246 939 -63 -705 Reese Aplin 2016 Horse Trail Dr Redlands, CA 92373 -6966 939 -63 -709 Charles Lascelles 162 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 939 -63 -712 Scott M Dalton PO Box 324 Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -0324 939 -63 -713 939 -63 -714 939 -63 -715 Wallie Meyer Catherine Dane R Parnell 170 Villa Point Dr 217 166 Villa Point Dr PO Box 7633 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 Tahoe City, CA 96145 -7633 939 -63 -716 Richard J & Shirley Sutherland 172 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -624.8 939 -63 -719 Frank D Iazzetta 182 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92560 -6247 939 -63 -722 Maureen Murphy 184 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6247 939 -63 -729 James & Esther Cavanaugh 554 Dorset Rd Devon, PA 19333 -1845 939 -63 -732 Louis F Sabatasso 1009 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -735 E Dorsey 177 Riverside Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -738 William Ring 1021 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -741 Rene Woolcott 1027 Granville Dr - Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -717 Gerald H Nelson PO Box 11208 Santa Ana, CA 92711 -1208 939 -63 -720 Hilda Baroutie 180 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 939 -63 -718 Brenda Lloyd 176 Villa Point Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6248 939 -63 -721 John F Schaefer 2665 Riviera Dr 92660 -6247 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -1027 939 -63 -723 Deborah Mahon 505 Colgate Way San Mateo, CA 94402 -3205 939 -63 -730 Richard L Roberts PO Box 701533 Tulsa, OK 74170 -1533 939 -63 -733 Paul & Jane Hitzelberger 4760 Highland Dr 604 Salt Lake Cit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -736 John C Warner 1017 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -739 Alex Jianas 1023 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -742 Hobart A Smith 1029 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -724 Robert M Perkins 1506 Seacrest Dr Corona Del Ma, CA 92625 -1230 939 -63 -731 Ursula Eastman PO Box 1313 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 -1313 939 -63 -734 aul e e'r,. 47 � -And Dr-66'04 S It Lake Cit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -737 Eugene Dorsey 177 Riverside Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -740 Rene Woolcott *M* 3213 Five Points Rd Marshall, VA 20115 -3417 939 -63 -743 Drucilla D Finkle 1031 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -744 939 -63 -745 939 -63 -746 Frank Legrand Susan K Meyer Robert E French 1033 Granville Dr 1035 Granville Dr 1037 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -747 939 -63 -748 939 -63 -749 Donald Robinson John Loesel *B* Douglas A Newcomb 1039 Granville Dr 1041 Granville Dr 1043 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -62.05 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -750 Michael & James Mitchell 1045 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -753 Lillian Fluor *M* 1051 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -756 Schielein 1221 W Coast Hwy 314 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5053 939 -63 -759 Steven N & Nancy Nelson 1063 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -762 Eugene Dorsey 177 Riverside Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -765 Gordon Meyer 49511 Canyon View Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 -6783 939 -63 -768 Charles H & A Loos 1105 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -771 Marion C Buie 1111 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -751 Mark & D Susson 1047 Granville Dr 23 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -7.54 Frank Mcgeoy 1053 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -757 Phillip C Diorio 1059 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -760 Ralph L Ozorkiewicz 1065 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -763 Kathleen Chapman 1071 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -766 Thomas J Milano 1101 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -62.51 939 -63 -769 Olivia R Abel 1107 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -772 Jesse W Spears *M* 1113 Granville Dr 44 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -752 Dorothy M Kanowsky 1049 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -755 William N Eddy 1055 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -758 Jack S Leider 1061 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -761 Olivia Chami 5 Rue Fontaine Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5204 93.9 -63 -764 David W & Maureen Cross 1073 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6250 939 -63 -767 John E Stoneman 1103 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6251 939 -63 -770 Kathleen Hansen 1109 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -773 Paul G & Suzanne Mac Millin 1115 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -774 939 -63 -775 939 -63 -776 Marcel Blatter Clifford R & Barbara Hostetler Catalyst Properties Llc 1117 Granville Dr 1119 Granville Dr 14800 Ashworth Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 Shoreline, WA 98133 -6230 939 -63 -778 Robert H Grant 1125 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -781 Estella Quinones 9420 Reseda Blvd 230 Northridge, CA 91324 -2932 939 -63 -784 Linda G Krolop 1137 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -787 Paul D Christ PO Box 9757 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -9757 939 -63 -790 James J Birmingham 1801 Park Court P1 I Santa Ana, CA 92701 -5002 939 -63 -793 Daniel D Darrow 1100 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -796 James T Klingaman 1060 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6249 Labels Submitted: 4/20/2011 r i7 jig } 939 -63 -779 William P Ficker 1127 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -782 David R Ball 1133 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -785 Sheth 1139 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -788 Ileane Doolin 1145 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -791 Craig Davenport 1120 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -794 Michael H & N Fusco 2 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5901 * ** 8.2 Printed * ** 939 -63 -780 Arthur Shapiro 1129 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -783 James Myerson 47111 Vintage Dr 104 Indian Wells, CA 92210 -7379 939 -(53 -786 William E Keenan 1141 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -789 Russell G Allen 1147 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -792 Michael & Carole Wade 1110 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -795 Alma Cherian 1070 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6204 X40 PA2005 (Golf Realty /OHill) 34 Labels 1600 E Coast Hwy (Tennis Club) 1602 E Coast Hwy (Golf Club) iabel size 1” >c 2 518" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 :nm compatible avec Avery ®5160/8160 ---------- -..� ..___ ................ LJ ,. wua i44c,te.vy 0}! E{8016 ug..y 0968 / 0919® A39Ab y ;lm alq!I*dWOo „g /g Z x „g ps lap `)iii 939 -63 -775 939 -63 -776 Clifford R & B x?x''a ostetler Ca alyst Pr - 939-63 -777 ill les,Llc S Lerner Newport each, CA 1480 92660 -6226 Shore ne, WA 98133 -6230 1123 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -778 Robert H Grant 1125 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -781 Estella Quinones 9420 Reseda Blvd 230 Northridge, CA 91324 -2932 939 -63 -784 Linda G Krolop 1137 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -787 Paul D Christ PO Box 9757 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -9757 939 -63 -790 James J Birmingham 1801 Park Court P1 I Santa Ana, CA 92701 -5002 939 -63 -793 Daniel D Darrow 1100 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -796 James T Klingaman 1060 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6249 Labels Submitted: 4/20/2011 r i7 jig } 939 -63 -779 William P Ficker 1127 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -782 David R Ball 1133 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -785 Sheth 1139 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -788 Ileane Doolin 1145 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -791 Craig Davenport 1120 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -794 Michael H & N Fusco 2 Rue Cannes Newport Beach, CA 92660 -5901 * ** 8.2 Printed * ** 939 -63 -780 Arthur Shapiro 1129 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -783 James Myerson 47111 Vintage Dr 104 Indian Wells, CA 92210 -7379 939 -(53 -786 William E Keenan 1141 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -789 Russell G Allen 1147 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -792 Michael & Carole Wade 1110 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6227 939 -63 -795 Alma Cherian 1070 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6204 X40 PA2005 (Golf Realty /OHill) 34 Labels 1600 E Coast Hwy (Tennis Club) 1602 E Coast Hwy (Golf Club) iabel size 1” >c 2 518" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 :nm compatible avec Avery ®5160/8160 442 - 262 -08 Irvine Company Llc 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 421 -11 Granville Community Assn Peckel 4 Park Plz 16Th Irvine, CA 92614 -8560 939 -63 -730 Rich d L oberts PO Box 33 Tulsa, K 74170 -1533 939 -63 -733 Paul Jane tzelberger 4760 Hig yd Dr 604 Salt Lake iCit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -736 John C Warn�r ` 1017 Granvi -Dr Newport B ch, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -739 F.,y Alex Jiana5 1023 Granvill -r Newport Bead ; CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -742 �„sy Hobart A Smith ✓ 1029 Granvill ,li4' Vewport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 442 - 262 -09 Irvine Company Llc 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442- 421 -13 1139 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -731 Ursul Eas an PO Box 13 Laguna Beach, •CA 92652 -1313 939 -63 -734 Paul,,W Hite erger 4760 Dr 604 Salt Lake Cit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -737 Euge e Do y � 177 R i e Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -740 442 - 262 -10 Irvine Apartment Communities 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 939 -63 -729 EEeer Cavanaugh 554 73_ n"'.r.,r oa 4 ms Devon, PA 19333 -1845 939 -63 -732 Loui�Sa,h S atasso 1009 Gr n`wille Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -7 5 E Dor 177 Ri erside Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939\G3-7Z Willi ing 1021 G ville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 Re n Woolco t�ge�W' 939-63 -741, 3213 i Rene o ott 7,o nes Rd 1027 Gr MarsU.Ed.1, VA 20115 -3417 *lle Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -743 D' ucl-L a D Fink 1'. r 103 .+,C�a �'. Newport "! each, CA 92660 -6205 a� 939- 63 -744y„ Fra _ and, - 10 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 9abe8 size V x 2 5/8" compatible VMh Avery 95160/81 So Ligfiette de ?ormat 25 mm x67 ! rr! comps lbie avec Avery ®5960/6160 - .... ...._- --- m. --... no aowwy op oq}mmgj 0968 /09 G9 ®R1aAd itilAA algpdwoo „8/9 Z x,.6 azls {agel 442 - 011 -52 Fainbarg Iii Lp 442- 021 -11 442- 021 -17 2600 E Coast Hwy Irvine Co Irvine Cc Newport Beach, CA 92663 5660 Kato tella Ave 100 Cypress, 550 Newport Center Dr CA 90630 -5058 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 021 -25 Irvine Co 442 - 021 -31 442 - 021 -33 7 W 7Th St Irvine Cc Irvine Cc Cincinnati, OH 45202 -2424 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, to 550 Newport Center Dr 92660 -7011 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 021 -34 Irvine Co 442 - 262 -03 442 - 262-06 7W E 7Th St Irvine Co L1c 550 Ne ✓port Center Irvine Company Llc Cincinnati, OH 45202 Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 262 -08 Irvine Company Llc 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442 - 421 -11 Granville Community Assn Peckel 4 Park Plz 16Th Irvine, CA 92614 -8560 939 -63 -730 Rich d L oberts PO Box 33 Tulsa, K 74170 -1533 939 -63 -733 Paul Jane tzelberger 4760 Hig yd Dr 604 Salt Lake iCit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -736 John C Warn�r ` 1017 Granvi -Dr Newport B ch, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -739 F.,y Alex Jiana5 1023 Granvill -r Newport Bead ; CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -742 �„sy Hobart A Smith ✓ 1029 Granvill ,li4' Vewport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 442 - 262 -09 Irvine Company Llc 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 442- 421 -13 1139 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -731 Ursul Eas an PO Box 13 Laguna Beach, •CA 92652 -1313 939 -63 -734 Paul,,W Hite erger 4760 Dr 604 Salt Lake Cit, UT 84117 -5149 939 -63 -737 Euge e Do y � 177 R i e Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -740 442 - 262 -10 Irvine Apartment Communities 550 Newport Center Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -7011 939 -63 -729 EEeer Cavanaugh 554 73_ n"'.r.,r oa 4 ms Devon, PA 19333 -1845 939 -63 -732 Loui�Sa,h S atasso 1009 Gr n`wille Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -7 5 E Dor 177 Ri erside Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939\G3-7Z Willi ing 1021 G ville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 Re n Woolco t�ge�W' 939-63 -741, 3213 i Rene o ott 7,o nes Rd 1027 Gr MarsU.Ed.1, VA 20115 -3417 *lle Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -743 D' ucl-L a D Fink 1'. r 103 .+,C�a �'. Newport "! each, CA 92660 -6205 a� 939- 63 -744y„ Fra _ and, - 10 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 9abe8 size V x 2 5/8" compatible VMh Avery 95160/81 So Ligfiette de ?ormat 25 mm x67 ! rr! comps lbie avec Avery ®5960/6160 939 -63 -745 Susan Meyer 1035 Gr ville Dr Newport ach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -748 John Loesel \Dr 1041 G ranville Newport Beach, 60 -6205 939 -63 -751 Mark & D Susson 1047 Granville Dr 23 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -754 Frank Mcgeoy 1053 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -757 Anne M Diorio 1059 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -760 Ralph L Ozorkiewicz 1065 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -763 Kathleen Chapman 1071 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6 05 939 -63 -766 Thomas J Milano 1101 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 26.60 -6251 939 -63 -769 Olivia R Abe 1107 Granvil Newport Bead 939-63-7,V2 Jesse Wx'Spear! L113 Gl 'anville lewport Beach, D9t$ /0 G4 ®Kean LV •'" 9ey'W'UlVa{yanad8 d qd!m ejgPdwoo „9 /g d x „d az @s =agei 939 -63 -746 Robert E French 1037 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -749 Douglas A Newcomb 1043 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -752 Dorothy M Kanowsky 1049 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660-,g �5 f g39 -63 -755 W liam N Eddy 10 Granville D Newp t Beach,92660 -6205 939 -63 -747 i Donald Robi on 1039 Granv' le Dr Newport ach, CA 92660 -6205 939- 3 -750 K ?. ael & James Mitchell 87 Airway Ave D IOsta Mesa, CA 92626 -4603 939 -63 -753 Lillian Fluor *M* 1051 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 939 -63 -756 Schielein 1221 W Coast Hwy 314 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -5053 939 -63 -7 Ner Jack S L 939-63 -759 Steven N & Nancy Nelson 1061 Gray e Dr 1063 Granville Dr Newpor, CA 92660 -6205 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6205 y h 9 -63 -761 ivia Chami 939-63 -762 5 Rue Fontaine Eugene Dorsey 177 Riverside Ave Newport Beach, \CA9, 0-5204 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -4032 939 -63 -764 1 David W & Maureen Cross 1073 Granville Dr ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 -62 939 -63 -767 John E Stoneman 1103 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6251 939 -63 -770 Kathleen Hansen Dr 1109 Granville Dr CA 92660 -6226 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 *M* 939 -63 -773 Paul G & Suzanne Mac Millin Dr 44 1115 Granville Dr CA 92660 -6226 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 939 -63 -765 Gordon Meyer 49511 Canyon View Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 -6783 939 -63 -768 Charles H & A Loos 1105 Granville Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 -6226 9363 -771 Mari' n C Buie llllranville Dr Newpor'Beach, CA 92660 -6226 R: 939 -63 -771 Marcel Blat'`.er 1117 Granville Newport Beach. ei pt6p 6516o/8160 Etiquette moma ±bfeaa Avel 616 0/876G Dr CA 92660 -6226 RECEIVED CITY CLERK$ OFF, IQE AFFIDAVIT OF Q, �TING F P-'E C1"Y CLERK CITY CF '.l?O,I l 6:1A, On 3�NJ U &Y 1; 2012, 1 posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Newport Beach Country Club (Golf Realty Fund) PA2005 -140 Date of City Council Public Hearing: January 24, 2012 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) RECEIVED 2012 JAN 23 AN 10: 38 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH /COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Saturday January 14, 2012 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 17, 2012 at Los Angeles, California Signature C^, -iCE OF TH_E CI' Y CLERK CIT�/ I' C- KAC u 1 7490 s 9 uare foot spa' and 5 single - family resit dentiol units (ranging NOWEOfPUBUCHEARING from approximately NOTICE IS HEREBY 2,205 to 4,355 square GIVEN that on Toes- feet in size) day,, January 24, NOTICE IS HEREBY 2012, at 7:00 p.m., , FURTHER GIVEN that a public hearing will be I Mitigated Negative Dec - conducted in the City laration has been pre - Council Chambers Ipared by the City of .(Building A) at 3300 .Newport Beach in con Newport Boulevard, nection with the 8P- Newport Beach. The -, plication noted above. City Council of the City IThe Mitigated Negative of Newport Beach will Declaration states (hat, consider the following the subject development application: will not result in a sig- Newportt Beach Coun-- nificant effect on the ­19 e__r.., environment. It is the Plan Adoption to pro- vide development stan- dards and design club guidelines and f e l tennis club sites and their ancillary uses, Transfer of Devel- opment Intensity to transfer 27 hotel units from General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly Number 43 (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel Site) to 46 (subject site), Vesting Tentative Tract Map to create separate lots for 5 single- family dwelling units, 27h tel units, lettered lots for com- mon areas and a private street on the tennis club site, Limited Term Permit to allow tem- porary uses /structures during the clubhouse re- construction, a Develop- ment Agreement ap- proval and Site Development Review for the development of a 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse with acces- sory facilities; a 3,725 square -foot tennis club with 7 tennis courts: 27 square foot concierge and guest center and e ;ity Clerk's Office) Building 13 3300 New )art Boulevard, Newport 3each, California, 92663 ,r at the City of New - aort Beach website at- www.newportbeachca. gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3208, Bung@ ProlectFi f o� 2005- 140 Activity No.: PC2005- 002, TD 2010 -003, NT2005 -003, ND2010- 008, SD2011 -002, XP2011- 004,,& DA2008- [ion and supporting 1 001 documents. This is not Zone: PC -47 (Newport to be construed as a,- Country Club) ther approval or denial General Plan: PR & MU- by the Cdy of the sub- H3 1PR fact application. The Location: 1600 and 1602 City encourages mem- East Coast Highway bers of the general pub- Applicant: Golf Realty he to review and cam- Fund (Robert OHill) me n on this documentation. Copies Leilani Brown, City CleO of the Mitigated Neg- City of Newport Bead ative Declaration and Published Newport supporting documents Beach /Costa Mesa Dail) are available for public Pilot January 14, 2012 review and inspection at the City Clark's Office or at the City of New- port Beach website at www.newportbeochta. gov ou the Friday prior to the the All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or elsa raised at or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public. hearing. The '1 agenda, staff report, and documents may be' re- viewed at the City Council Attachment 1 Draft Resolution - MND 13 14 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2010 -008 FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 & 1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140) THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102, requesting an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport Beach Country Club. The application included the following requests: 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. A 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, tennis club facility, 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. 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) 15 City Council Resolution No. Paae 2 of 11 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 Planning Commission held public hearings on August 4, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011. At the November 17th hearing with a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1861, recommending the City Council to: a. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. Approve Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the project site which includes the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites; C. Approve a conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units and deny Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; d. Approve Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the Golf Club portion of the project site; e. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and f. Approve Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 4. The City Council public hearing was held on January 24, 2012, 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 City Council at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 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 City Council in its review of the proposed project. Tmplt: 03/08/11 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 11 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. 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 City Council 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. DECISION. 1. The City Council 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 City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration, including an Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 Community Development Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The City Council 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. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Tmpll: 03/08/11 17 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 4 of 11 4. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 5. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, ,-OFF- CE OF CITY ATTORNEY: O i Aaron Harp, City Attorney Nil iq) L for the City of Newport Beach Tmplt: 03/08111 1-g City Council Resolution No. Pace 5 of 11 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 o r t t Phase 2 SC -1 Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the p hotometric ssua of Planning opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates study 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 alit 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 safely 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 monitoring 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 Per iodic During Phases 1 -4 Community SC -4 require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary i monitorng during construction Golf Club Development construction equipment. construction activities Department Site: Phases 1 -4 Tennis Periodic Club Site: Community SC -5 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets monitoring construction phases 1 -4 Development limitations on ROG content in asphalt. during activities activities Department construction Golf Club Site: TmpIC 03108/11 City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 6 of 11 sc/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Phasesl -4 Tennis Club Site: Periodic During Phases 2 -4 Community SC -6 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets monitoring coilstruclion Development limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. during activities Golf Club Department SIle. construction Phases 2 -4 Tennis Submit Club Site: Adherence to Title 24 energy - efficient design evidence of Phases 2 -4 Ph requirements as well as the provision of window compliance Prior to 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 of Planning also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. al/ grading permit 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 Club Site: The City shall provide an opportunity for a Native Submit proof Phase 2 MM- American representative to monitor excavation activities. of Native Prior to Planning 1 The representative shall be determined by the City based American issuance of Golf Club Division on input from concerned Native American tribes (i.e., observer grading permit Site: Gabrielino, Juanefio, and Tongvas). Phase 1 Geology and Soils Tennis All grading operations and construction shall comply o Peri moni todic ring During grading Phases 1 -4 Club Site: SC with the applicable City of Newport Beach Grading Burin and Building -9 Code and Grading Manual and the most recent version g grading and construction Golf Club Division of the California Building Code. construction operations Site: Phases 1 -4 Tmplt: 03108111 20 City Council Resolution No. Pace 7 of 11 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 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 g 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 Cl ub Division Site: building plan building permit check Phase 3 process Tennis Club Site: Submit Prior to Phase 2 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 Submit Tennis evidence of Club Site: PDF Design of buildings shall take into account the location compliance compliance Prior to Phase 2 Building 1 of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency plan issuance of Division and incorporate natural ventilation. check building permit Golf Club Site: process Phase 2 Tmplt: 03108/11 21 City Council Resolution No. Paae 8 of 11 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 2 PDF The buildings shall incorporate energy - conservi ng during issuance of Building -2 heating and lighting systems. building plan building permit Golf Golf Club Division Site: check Phase 2 process Submit evidence of Tennis compliance Club Site: during Please 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 Cade of Regulations Section 1532.1, which monitoring During Club Site: SC- provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, during demolition, Phases 1 -4 Building 15 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 SC- Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Submit Prior to Tennis Building 16 applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent evidence of issuance of Club Site: Division and NOI with the appropriate fees to the State Water Not filin grading permit Phase 2 Public Works Tmplb 03/08/11 22 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 9 of 11 Sc, PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Quality Resources Control Board for coverage of such Department future projects under the General Construction Activity 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 of Division and 17 the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a minimum WQMP grading permit Public Works the routine structural and non - structural measures 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 -tern 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 prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site. Prior to Phase 2 Division and 18 8 1 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 ib construction Golf Clu Public Works Newport Beach. and site activities Mile: Department inspection Phases 1 -4 Land Use and Planning No si gnificant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mineral Resources No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Tennis Show on Club: During rock crushing operations, a temporary barrier grading During rock Phases 1 -4 MM- using a pile of accumulated demolition debris or a plans and crushing Building 3 sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight Golf Club Division exists between the crusher and any off -site homes. site operations Site: inspection phases 1 -4 Tmplt 03108/11 2S City Council Resolution No. Pace 10 of 11 SC, PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Tennis Show on Club Site: Phases 1 -4 MM- All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall grading During 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 consfnrclion 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 Phases1 -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 B 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 Healing, 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 Community MM- the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A- weighted (adjacent to issuance e 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 !on/Traffic Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction Approval of Tennis staging, g p approval y g g, parkin and traffic control Ian for royal b construction Prior to Club Site: planning MM- the Public Works Department, which shall address staging, commencement Phase 1 -4 Division and 8 issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak Parking and of each major Public Works traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street traffic control phase of Golf Club Department Site: parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the plan construction proposed construction staging area(s), construction Phases 1 -4 crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of Tmplt: 03/08/11 24 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 11 of 11 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. vehicles that will occur during each phase, the proposed arrival /departUre routes and operational 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 constriction 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 hase. The left turn pocket on Irvine Terrace at the Coast Construct Golf Club MM- Highway shall be increased in length to a minimum of improvement Prior to Site: Public Works g 100 feet plus transition in order to adequately or provide issuance of Department p accommodate left -turn movements. equivalent building permit Phase 3 bonds Utilities and Service Systems No si niflcanl impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Tmplt: 03108111 215 M City Council Attachment 2 Draft Ordinance -PCDP 27 22 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. PC2005 -002 FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 AND 1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140) THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102, requesting an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport Beach Country Club. The application included the following requests: 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. A 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, tennis club facility, 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. a. 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) 29 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 2 of 8 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 Planning Commission held public hearings on August 4, 2011 and October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011. At the November 17°' hearing with a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011 -1861, recommending the City Council to: a. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. Approve Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire project site which includes the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites; C. Approve a conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units and deny Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; d. Approve Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site. The Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration; e. Approve of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and f. Approve of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 4. The City Council public hearing was held on January 24, 2012, 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 City Council at this meeting. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by City Council on Tmpll: 11/23/09 30 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 8 January 24, 2012, by adopting certain CEQA determinations containing within Resolution No. 2012 -_, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The City Council 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). C. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit development (bungalows), the 17 tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The conversion of eliminated 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units is consistent with the General Plan based upon the recognition that the General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island, hotel rooms, and housing units within Newport Center. Additionally, the proposed conversion TmpIC 11/23/09 31 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paae 4 of 8 revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages hotel development and the conversion does not create traffic impacts. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 provide inflexible standards that are inappropriate for the project implementation and long -term administration, an alternative PCDP has been prepared. 5. 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 Tmplt: 11/23/09 S2 City Council Ordinance No. Page 5 of B 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. SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The Newport Country Club Planned Community Development Plan (PC -47) shall be adopted to provide use and zoning development standards for the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites which includes the 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse, 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 as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 3. This action shall become final and effective thirty days after the adoption of this Ordinance. 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 24th of January, 2012, and adopted on the 14th day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: Tmpll; 11/23109 33 City Council Ordinance No. AYES, COUNCIL MEMB NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS 71 01y, •: ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach of TmpIC 11/23/09 S4 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paae 7 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Tmplt: 11/23/09 S5 so City Council Attachment 3 Draft Resolution -TDR, SDR & VTTM 37 S2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE CONVERSION OF 17 TENNIS COURTS TO 27 HOTEL UNIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD2011 -002, LIMITED TERM PERMIT NO. XP2011- 004, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. NT2005 -003 AND DENYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS NO. TD2010 -003 FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 & 1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140) THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102, requesting an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport Beach Country Club. The application included the following requests: 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. A 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, tennis club facility, 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. 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 39 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 23 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, 2.010. 3. The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 4, 2011, October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011. At the November 17h hearing with a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1861, recommending the City Council to: a. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. Approve Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire project site which includes the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites; C. Approve a conversion of 17 tennis court to 27 hotel units and deny Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; d. Approve Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site reserving for future consideration the identification of improvements to the Golf Club portion of the project site; e. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and f. Approve Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 4. The City Council public hearing was held on January 24, 2012, 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 City Council 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. Tmph: 03/08/11 40 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 23 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by City Council on January 24, 2012, by adopting certain CEQA determinations containing within Resolution No. 2012 -_, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The City Council 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. Tennis Courts Conversion. Finding: A. The conversion will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: A -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. A -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. A -3. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit development (bungalows), the 17 tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The conversion of eliminated 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units is consistent with the General Plan based upon the recognition that the General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island, hotel rooms, and housing units within Newport Center. Additionally, the proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages hotel development and the conversion does not create traffic impacts. 2. 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. Tmpll: 03/08111 41 City Council Resolution No. Paae 4 of 23 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 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 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. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The portion of the application that applies to the 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 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 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 TmpIC 03/08/11 42 City Council Resolution No. Paae 5 of 23 and adequate landscaping and open space separate the proposed development from Gast Coast Highway. The 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 Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. 3. 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, 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 and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Tmplt: 03108/11 //'' City Council Resolution No. Page 6 of 23 Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The existing Tennis Club site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. The Tennis Club 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 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 Tennis Club 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. Tmplt: 03/08111 RIN' City Council Resolution No. Paqe 7 of 23 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 - malting 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. Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to la 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. Tmplt: 03/08/11 City Council Resolution No. Paae 8 of 23 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. 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. TmpIC 03/08/11 40 City Council Resolution No. Paae 9 of 23 Finding: 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 but 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. SECTION 4. DECISION. 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby: a. Approve the conversion of eliminated 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units and deny Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; b. Approve Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 for the improvements to the Tennis Club 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); C. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 for the creation of separate lots for five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, twenty (27) hotel units, tennis club facility, lettered lots for common areas and private street; and d. Approve Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 for the temporary modular buildings to be located on the Tennis Club site only, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after the effective date of Planned Community Development Plan by Ordinance No. 2012_ 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: Tmpll: 03108/11 A City Council Resolution No. Pape 10 of 23 AYES, COUNCIL MEMB NOES, COUNCIL MEMBE ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMB MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, ,OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorney (3 12 for the City of Newport Beach Tmplt: 03/08/11 T City Council Resolution No. Facie 11 of 23 �aai- 3rrvevi 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 in accordance with the Subdivision Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted consistent with the Subdivision Code and Subdivision Map Act. The expiration date shall be extended for the unexpired term of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 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 Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration. The plans shall be revised to remove all representations of future development on the Golf Club site. 5. Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 is limited to the 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 tennis 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. Tmpll: 03108/11 /' City Council Resolution No. Paae 12 of 23 6. Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 shall expire in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, unless an extension is otherwise granted consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The expiration date shall be extended for the unexpired term of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 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 Tmplt: 03106/11 150 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 13 of 23 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 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. Tmit: 03/08/11 JT1- Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM Between the hours of 10:OOPM and TOOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 5OdBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Commercial Property I 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. Tmit: 03/08/11 JT1- City Council Resolution No. Paqe 14 of 23 and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or Holidays. 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 Tmpll; 03/08/11 City Council Resolution No. Paae 15 of 23 Enforcement Division to confirm control of all lighting sources. 34. Kitchen exhaust fans for the clubhouses shall be installed /maintained in accordance 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 indernification 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 Tmpll: 03/08/11 J�3 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 16 of 23 applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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). Tmplt: 03/08/11 54 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 17 of Z 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. 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. 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. 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. Tmplt: 03/08/11 1515 City Council Resolution No, Page 18 of 23 49. Fire Department turnarounds shall have a minimum diameter of 80 feet with no parking allowed. 50. All elevators shall be gurney accommodating. 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. Tmplt 03/08111 S0 City Council Resolution No. Paae 19 of 23 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. 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 Tmplt: 03/08/11 57 City Council Resolution No. Page 20 of 23 805 -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 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. TmpIC 03/08/11 152 City Council Resolution No. Paae 21 of 23 EXHIBIT "D" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TmpIC 03/08/11 159 Mo City Council Attachment 4 Draft Ordinance- DA O1 02 ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2008 -001 FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 AND 1602 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2005 -140) THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102, requesting an approval to redevelop the existing private golf course and tennis club of the Newport Beach Country Club. The application included the following requests: 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. A 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, tennis facility, 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. a. 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) o3 City Council Ordinance No. Pace 2 of 6 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 Planning Commission held public hearings on August 4, 2011 and October 20, 2011, and November 17, 2011. At the November 17th hearing with a vote of 3 -2, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011 -1861, recommending the City Council to: a. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b. Approve Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire project site which includes the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites; C. Approve a conversion of 17 tennis courts to 27 hotel units and deny Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003; d. Approve Site Development Review No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site. The Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration; e. Approve of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and f. Approve of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. 4. The City Council public hearing was held on January 24, 2012, 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 City Council at this meeting. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration, an Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by City Council on Tmplt: 11/23/09 04 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paae 3 of 6 January 24, 2012, by adopting certain CEQA determinations containing within Resolution No.2012 -_, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The City Council 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, 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. 2. Consistent with Government Code Section 65867.5, the Development Agreement provides vested rights and public benefits for the proposed development which is consistent with the General Plan based on the following findings: a. The project site is located within Newport Center /Fashion Island. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Golf Club site as Parks and Recreation (PR) and the Tennis Club site as 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. Tmplt: 11/23109 05 City Council Ordinance No. _ Page 4 of 6 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). d. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit development (bungalows), the 17 tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center and the proposed conversion does not require a general plan amendment. The proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages hotel development. SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Development Agreement shall be adopted as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 3. This action shall become final and effective thirty days after the adoption of this Ordinance. 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 24th of January, 2012, and adopted on the 14th day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: Tmpll: 11/23/09 00 City Council Ordinance No. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, reFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: Aaron Harp, City Attorne' 13 (1 Z for the City of Newport Beach Tmpll: 11/23109 of 6 07 EXHIBIT "A" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paae 6 of 6 02 City Council Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No.1861 :FD RESOLUTION NO. 1861 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. 71 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 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: 03/08/11 72 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 th e 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). Tmpit 03/08111 73 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paqe 4 of 32 d. In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 hotel -unit development (bungalows), the 17 tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center and the proposed conversion does not require a general plan amendment. The proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages hotel development. 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 Tmplt: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 5 of 32 proposed PCDP contains detail and design regulations that are too specific and 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. Tennis Courts Conversion. Finding: A. The conversion will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Facts in Support of Finding: A -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. A -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. Tmplt: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 6 of 32 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. 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. Tmpit: 03/08/11 70 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 7 of 32 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. 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. Tmplt 03/08/11 77 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 8 of 32 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 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. Tmplt 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Pape 9 of 32 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. 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. Tmplt 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 10 of 32 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. 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. Finding: 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. Tmpit: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Pape 11 of 32 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. Tmpil: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 145 -acre 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 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) as the 133 -acre Golf Club site has been reserved for future consideration, Vesting Tentative Tract Map NT2005 -003, and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004 f or 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. 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" Tmpit: 03108/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 13 of 32 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: Ameri and Hawkins ABSTAIN: Myers ABSENT: None. m in ian Tmpll: 03/08/11 RS Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 14 of 32 Iw /:11:lk v-lm MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (All references to the golf course or golf clubhouse are reserved for future consideration) sa PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phases) 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 issuance of Planning opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates study 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 Quality 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 monitoring 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 Phases1 -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 o/, U , Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 15 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. _ Tennis Club Site: Phases 2 -4 Periodic During 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 biologic I 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 of Planning also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. al/ Division Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project paleonlologi grading permit 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. Curalion costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Tennis The City hall y provide an opportunity for a Native Club Site: American representative to monitor excavation activities. Submit proof Prior to Phase 2 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 Gabrielino, Juaneno, and Tongvas). observer Site: 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 G rating monit oring 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 TmpIC 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 16 of 32 SCI 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 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 pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on Site: 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 2 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 locati on compliance Prior to Building 1 of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency during plan issuance e Golf Club Division Site: and incorporate natural ventilation, check building permit r Phase 2 process Tmplt: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 2 PDF The buildings shall incorporate energy- conservi ng during e of issuance Building -2 heating and lighting systems. building plan buildding ing per Golf Club Division check Site: 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, slate 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 monitoring During Club Site: SC- provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, during demolition, Phases 1 -4 Building 15 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 inspection accordance with the applicable provision of the Phases 1 -4 California Health and Safety Code. H drolo and Water Qua ty 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 (Not) with the appropriate fees to the State Water evidence of issuance of Phase 2 Public Works Quality Resources Control Board for coverage of such Not filing grading permit Department future projects under the General Construction Activity Tmplt: 03/08/11 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 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 of Division and 17 the "first flush" The WQMP shall identify at a minimum WQMP grading permit Public Works the routine structural and non - structural measures 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 prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site. Prior to Phase 2 Division and 18 1 8 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 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 crushing Golf Club Building Site: 3 sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight si te operations Division exists between the crusher and any off -site homes. inspection Phases 1 -4 Tmplt: 03108/11 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 19 of 32 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Tennis Show on Club Site: Phases 1 -4 stationary All construction equipment, stations and mobile, shall grading During MM- be equipped with properly operating and maintained plans and construction Building 4 muffling devices. site activities Golf Club Division inspection Site: Phases 1 -4 s 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 5 project - related and cumulative construction noise schedule issuance of Golf Club Development levels. and site grading permit Department Si le: inspection Phases 1 -4 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of Tennis the construction schedule for the proposed project, and Submit Club Site: shall keep them informed on any changes to the evidence of Prior to Phases 1 -4 MM- schedule. The notification shall also identify the name compliance issuance of Building 5 and phone number of a contact person in case of and site grading permit Golf Club Division Site: complaints. The contact person shall take all inspection reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Phases 1 -4 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 MM- the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A- weighted (adjacent to Prior to Community 7 sound pressure level of fifty (50) clBA or not to exceed residential issuance of Golf Club Development Site: an A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty -five (55) areas) building permit Department dBA. during Phases 2 -4 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 !on/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 Tennis the Public Works Department, which shall address Approval of Prior to Club Site: MM- issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak construction commencement Phase 1 -4 Planning traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street staging, of each major Division and $ parking, safety. This plan shall identify the p g, y. p y Parking and phase of Golf Club Public Works proposed construction staging area(s), construction traffic control construction Department Site: crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of plan Phases 1 -4 vehicles that will occur during each phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational Tmplt: 03/08/11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 hase. 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 antici aled and no mitigation measures are required. Tmplt 03/08/11 90 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Pape 21 of 32 1 *: /:11 311ii1 1 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TmpIC 03 /08/11 9� Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 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. Tmpit: 03/08111 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 03/08/11 93 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 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 94 Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM Between the hours of 10:00PM 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 50dBA 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 94 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 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 buildinq 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 I" 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 TmpIC 03/08/17 95 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paqe 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 03/08/11 90 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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 03/08/11 97 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 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: 03/08/11 92 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 ___._..._.._._ Page 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 03/08/11 99 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paae 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: 03/08/11 100 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Paqe 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: 03/08/11 101- Planning Commission Resolution No. 1861 Page 32 of 32 EXHIBIT "D" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Tmplt: 03/08111 102 City Council Attachment 6 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 4, 2011 103 1-04 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 4, 2011 Agenda Item: 2 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 E. Coast Highway Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2005 -002 • Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 • Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008 Temporary Structures Use (Limited Term) Permit No. XP2011 -004 APPLICANT: Golf Realty Fund PLANNER: Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949)644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov OBJECTIVE The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Planning Commission: 1) a detailed description of land use entitlement requests of the proposed project and 2) alternative recommendations for considering the application. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Consider applicant's request and potential alternatives; 3. Provide appropriate direction to Planning staff; and 4. Continue the application to October 20, 2011. 105 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Newport Beach e "a _ Country Club - Golf Club & Tennis Club -' 41 Yom.: Sitesv x"YR 1 t J �` L v pq�^ (I Q iLYlibt� �vli� �� •- W.P��_ GENERAL PLAN ZONING —es uu .11)i L T�� PLJ 11 1 IR v NN� 1 y�a 8,i be PewE (� �• l \lF PC.]9 f X62. 221 V� s6.� '✓ 2 I PL �':' IdFRI89 / (��b j��S1 1iN1 � J {L )��R� )/ }p_,� V)P IF ,, � /l /)ffl�:]_F \ \,)\�I l/ •� fPl l/ �.F NIEI] 1 i �,- � III "']II lI1AV0 UII V , 11. Ilt�••! B91 � � + —� EIN.i � B01 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE PR & MU -H3 /PR PC -47 Private Golf Course/Tennis Club NORTH PF, OS & RIM APF & GEF NPB Chamber of Commerce, residential development & NPB Fire Station SOUTH RS -D & PR PC -30 & R -1 Armstrong Garden Center, residential development & Coast Highway EAST CO -G, RM, CV, CO -R, & PC -40, RMD, Marriott Hotel, office & residential MU -H3 /PR APF, & PC -54 developments & tennis club WEST OS, PF, CV & RM PC -21 & PC -41 Residential development & Jamboree Rd 100 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Settin 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 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 five (5) single -unit residential dwellings "Villas" and 27 short -term lodging units 'Bungalows ". The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: 1. A Planned Community Development Plan adoption to provide zoning 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 (Attachment PC1). 2. 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. 3. A Development Agreement pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.c of the Municipal Code and General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.14.8. 107 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 4 4. A Tentative Vesting Tract Map pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code to create separate lots for five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, 27 hotel units, lettered lots for common areas and a private street on the tennis club site. 5. A Temporary Structures Use Permit to allow temporary use of structures during construction pursuant to Section 20.60.015 of the Municipal Code. 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. Golf Club Site The proposed project would replace the existing 23,460 square -foot golf clubhouse with a new two - story, 35,000 square -foot golf clubhouse and its ancillary facilities. The new clubhouse is designed to have the same core amenities as the existing clubhouse, including a golf shop, offices, dining facilities, locker facilities, and cart and club storage areas. The proposed two -story golf clubhouse will be approximately 50 feet in height and is designed with a classical California Mediterranean architectural style. The lower level floor contains an informal dining area, men's and women's locker facilities, a golf shop, club and cart storage areas, and employee lounge /lunch room. The upper level is mainly devoted to formal dining and banquet facilities, executive offices, meeting rooms, and a main lounge /bar area. The golf club's main parking lot and entry will be reconstructed to provide 300 surface parking spaces. Main entry at Irvine Terrace will be improved to provide a landscaped median with stripped entering /exiting lanes. A small 240 square -foot hand car wash structure for club members is also proposed within the main parking lot. The existing private access easement for Armstrong Nursery located along the frontage of Coast Highway is proposed to be eliminated. No changes are proposed to the golf course; however, future course design changes would be allowed. Tennis Club Site The Tennis Club site will be redeveloped into three (3) distinct components: The Villas, The Bungalows, and The Tennis Club. Detailed descriptions of each component are as follows: 102 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 5 The Villas Designed as semi - custom homes, the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings will be located at the end of a new private street (continuation of the existing Country Club Drive), adjacent to the tennis courts and the ninth green of the golf course. The residential dwellings would occupy the area currently devoted to several tennis courts. These dwelling units will be two - stories and will range from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 5,297 square feet (Plan D), with guest house and basement options. Enclosed parking spaces will be provided for each individual unit. The Bungalows Located on both sides of the Country Club Drive entry, the proposed 27 hotel units (bungalows) will be built in a clustered setting of single and two -story buildings. A 2,170 square -foot concierge and guest meeting facility and a 7,490 square foot spa /fitness center are proposed to be operated as ancillary uses with this boutique hotel development. A total of 50 parking spaces would be provided for the accommodations and ancillary uses. The Tennis Club Eighteen of the existing 24 tennis courts and the existing tennis clubhouse will be removed to accommodate the Villas, the Bungalows, a new 3,725 square foot tennis clubhouse, six (6) lighted championship courts, and one lighted stadium - center court. The proposed tennis club facility will be located at the most easterly side of the subject property, abutting the Granville Townhome development's drive entrance and the parking lots for Corporate Plaza West. The new 30 -foot high clubhouse is attached to the new spa /fitness center proposed for the Bungalows. The tennis clubhouse includes a lobby area, a pro shop, offices, and men's and women's locker facilities. The lighted tennis courts will be fenced and screened from adjacent residential uses. A total of 38 parking spaces are allocated for the tennis club use. The follow table provides a summary of the existing and proposed improvements: 109 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 6 The Golf Club Site Existing Improvements Proposed New Improvements Component Floor Areas . ft. Component Floor Areas . ft. Clubhouse 23,460 Clubhouse 35,000 Cart Barn 6,050 Cart Storage 5,8342 Snack Bar 180' Snack Bar 180' Restroom Facilities 630' Restroom Facilities 630' Greens Keeper 2,010' Greens Keeper 2,010' Starter Shack 140' Starter Shack 140' Total 32,470 Total 43,794 The Tennis Club Site (Tennis Clubhouse tip Courts, Bungalows & Villas) Existing Improvements Proposed New Improvements Component Floor Areas . ft. Component Floor Areas . ft. -- Clubhouse 3,725 Clubhouse 3,725 24 Tennis Courts 7 Tennis Courts' 27 Bungalows 28,219 Bungalow Spa 7,490 Concierge &Guest Meeting Facility 2,170 5 SFR N/A 'Existing structures to remain 'Exempt from General Plan Development Intensity Limits — Ancillary to Golf Course. '18 of 24 courts will be demolished; and one new stadium court will be constructed °Exempt from General Plan Development Limits — Ancillary to Tennis Club Parking A total of 408 parking spaces will be provided for the entire project and these spaces are designated as follows: 110 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 7 Land Use Pat-king Required' Parking Provided Bungalows 27 hotel units 34 50 Villas 5 SFR units 12 20 Tennis Club 7 tennis courts 28 38 Golf Course (18 holes — including clubhouse 270 300 Total 344 408 'Zoning Code 2Proposed PCDP Standards The proposed parking regulations were based on a parking demand study prepared by LSA (Attachment PC2) for the applicant and evaluated by Kimley -Horn and Associates (Attachment PC 3) on behalf of the City. In addition to the on -site parking spaces, the applicant has an existing perpetual off -site parking agreement with the Irvine Company for the use of parking lots at Corporate Plaza West (approximately 554 spaces). Of these spaces, 188 spaces will be available after business hours and 366 spaces during the weekends and holidays. Project Phasing The applicant proposes to implement the project in two (2) independent stages (Attachment PC4). The Tennis Club site will be implemented first, over a period of approximately 36 months, in a four -phase construction effort. Below is the applicant's anticipated construction phasing. 111 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 8 The Golf Club site will be implemented at a later date, separately from the construction on the Tennis Club site. The golf clubhouse component of the proposed project will be implemented in four (4) distinct phases. Although a definitive schedule has not been developed, demolition and construction of the golf clubhouse and parking lot are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 34 months. Below is the applicant's anticipated construction phasing. 112 Reference to Revised Tennis Club Site — Phasing Duration Phasing Plan Exhibits Phase Description Months Dated Ma , 201 Installation of Temporary Modular 12 1 Tennis Clubhouse' Demolition of Tennis Club building, 9 1 tennis courts, perimeter tennis court fence remains, portion of Tennis Club 12 2 parking lot (61 parking spaces), landscaping and small portion of existing site wall Demolition of three (3) tennis courts, small portion of Tennis Club parking lot 14 3 and remaining Tennis Club Building 2 Construct three (3) of the five (5) Villas, Private Street, New Tennis Clubhouse 1 4 and Parking Lots Demolition of three (3) tennis courts, remaining portion of old Tennis Club 3 5 3 parking lot and removal of Temporary Modular Tennis Clubhouse Construct Center Court area and 1 6 Bungalow Pool Demolition of two (2) tennis courts, removal perimeter tennis court fence in front of the three (3) completed Villas and removal of perimeter tennis court 1 7 4 fence in front of the Golf Bungalows after substantial completion of the Golf Bungalows. Construct 27 Bungalows and remaining 15 8 two 2 Villas. Total Schedule 36 'Anticipated state date is September 2011 2Activities occurring during Phase 1 are within the same month The Golf Club site will be implemented at a later date, separately from the construction on the Tennis Club site. The golf clubhouse component of the proposed project will be implemented in four (4) distinct phases. Although a definitive schedule has not been developed, demolition and construction of the golf clubhouse and parking lot are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 34 months. Below is the applicant's anticipated construction phasing. 112 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 9 DISCUSSION General Plan The Golf Club site has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) and the Tennis Club site has Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) designation. 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. The proposed PCDP and anticipated improvements to the Golf Club site and recreational components for the Tennis Club site are allowed. The Mixed Use Horizontal 3 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. The Villas and Bungalows are consistent with this designation. The General Plan limits development intensity at the Golf Club site to 35,000 square feet (Anomaly No. 74) and 3,725 square feet for a tennis club building and 24 tennis courts at the Tennis Club site (Anomaly No. 46). Incidental buildings such as maintenance equipment sheds, supply storage, and restrooms are not included in determining intensity limits. Residential use is also permitted in Anomaly No. 46; in accordance with MU -H3 /PR designation. 11S Duration Phase Golf Club Site — Phasin Descri Lion Months) Demolition of East Side Golf Clubhouse Parking Lot and PCH 1 1 Entry' Construct East Side Parking Lot and PCH Entry 2 4 Demolition of West Side Golf Clubhouse Parking Lot 1 2 Construct West Side Parking Lot and Temporary Golf Club 6 modular buildin Demolition of Golf Clubhouse 2 3 Construct New Golf Clubhouse 14 Demolition of portion of Greenskeeper Area, Temporary modular Golf Clubhouse and northern portion of Golf 2 4 Clubhouse Parking Lot Construct Greenskeeper Area and Golf Porte Cochere and 4 Parking Area Total Schedule 34 'Start date to be determined. 'Includes club member car wash DISCUSSION General Plan The Golf Club site has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) and the Tennis Club site has Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR) designation. 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. The proposed PCDP and anticipated improvements to the Golf Club site and recreational components for the Tennis Club site are allowed. The Mixed Use Horizontal 3 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. The Villas and Bungalows are consistent with this designation. The General Plan limits development intensity at the Golf Club site to 35,000 square feet (Anomaly No. 74) and 3,725 square feet for a tennis club building and 24 tennis courts at the Tennis Club site (Anomaly No. 46). Incidental buildings such as maintenance equipment sheds, supply storage, and restrooms are not included in determining intensity limits. Residential use is also permitted in Anomaly No. 46; in accordance with MU -H3 /PR designation. 11S Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 10 The applicant seeks no changes to the General Plan designations or development limits. The proposed new golf clubhouse is within 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 with the same square footage. The five single -unit dwellings will be drawn from the remaining dwelling units that are allocated for the Newport Center /Fashion Island Statistical Area (there are 450 allocated with 430 allocated to the North Newport Center PC and 20 units unallocated to any specific site). In order to accommodate the development of the boutique hotel component, 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. Please refer to the Transfer of Development Rights Section of this report for a discussion of this request. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies is included in Table 10 of the Land Use and Planning Section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), pages 76 through 81. In summary, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan provided the transfer of hotel rooms is approved. Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Golf Club site as Parks and Recreation (PR), and the Tennis Club site is designated as Mixed Use Horizontal 3 /Park and Recreation (MU- H3 /PR). These designations mirror the General Plan Land Use designations. The MU -H3 /PR designation recognizes the private recreational tennis courts, the potential development of short -term rental bungalows, and a limited number of 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. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable Coastal Land Use Plan policies is included in Table 11 of the Land Use and Planning Section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND), pages 82 through 87. In summary, the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) The subject property has a zoning designation of PC -47 for the Newport County Club Planned Community. This PC zoning designation was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance 97 -10, as a part of the City -wide amendment of the zoning districting maps in order to be consistent with the 1988 General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code. The City 114 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 11 later assigned the PC with a number of 47 for tracking purposes. A PCDP 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' subsequently amendments, which is typical when a PC does not have development standards. No use permit was issued on the Golf Club site. PC -47 also includes the abutting Armstrong Nursery property. The nursery is governed separately by Use Permit No. 3641. Upon approval of the proposed project, the boundary of the PC adoption will clearly define the boundary of newly adopted PC. As currently proposed, the nursery is not part of the proposed project and would remain governed by Use Permit No. 3641 should the proposed application be approved. The applicant submitted a draft PCDP in order to create and provide zoning development standards and design guidelines for the proposed project. The proposed PCDP encompasses the Golf Course site and Tennis Club site as a single, cohesive and comprehensive large -scale planned development. The PCDP is being created specifically to accommodate the applicant's development. The draft PCDP provides use regulations, density and intensity of the proposed uses and very specific development regulations (building height, square footage, setbacks, and parking standard) for each uses, including architectural styling and a complete internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system for both the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites. Detailed site plan, elevations, and floor plans of each land use components, landscaping plan, sign plan, and lighting plan are also included in the plan. Staff believes that the proposed site plan detail and design regulations are too specific and provide inflexible standards that are inappropriate for the project implementation and long -term administration. Any changes to the PCDP, other than minor adjustments would require an amendment to the PCDP which must be accomplished by ordinance and City Council approval. Therefore, staff does not recommend the applicant's proposed PCDP. Furthermore, the proposed regulations do not allow a discretionary review process of the site plan(s) and ability for the City to place conditions of approval. Code amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. Transfer of Development Rights The applicant requests 27 hotel units presently allocated to the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa (Marriott) site by the Land Use Element of the General Plan to the Tennis Club site; specifically, from Anomaly No. 43 to Anomaly No. 46. The Marriott site originally had a total of 377 hotel units. In 1983, a general plan amendment was approved to allow an additional 234 hotel units in Newport Center /Fashion Island, for a cumulative total of 611. Subsequently, the Marriott constructed 209 additional hotel units, leaving 25 available hotel units to be constructed in the Newport Center /Fashion 115 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 12 Island. In 2004, the Marriott renovated their hotel and reduced the number of hotel units from 586 to 532; this reduction increased the number of available un -built hotel units in Newport Center /Fashion Island from 25 to 79. General Plan Land Use Policy LU4.3 lists a number of criteria for transfer of development rights. In particular, transfer of development rights in Newport Center /Fashion Island (Statistical Area L1) is governed by Policy LU6.14.3. According to this Policy, development rights may be transferred within the Newport Center /Fashion Island, subject to the approval by the City Council with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The donor site (The Marriott Hotel) has a General Plan Land Use designation of CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the reduction of 27 hotel units would not change the nature of that developed site as it exists today. The recipient site (the Tennis Club site) is MU -H3 /PR that allows hotels and residential uses (i.e. transfer is consistent with the intent of MU -H3) and PR is maintain with retention of the tennis club. Staff, therefore, believes that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan in that both the donor and recipient sites remained consistent with their General Plan designation. The tables below illustrate the traffic trip generation rates for the existing and proposed uses. Please note that the trip generation rate for a golf course is based on number of golf holes (18) and tennis club is based on number of courts (24). Tennis clubs are a high traffic generator based upon ITE Trip rates; and 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. The transfer of 27 hotel units is trip neutral as the transfer is within the same Newport Center /Fashion Island statistical area 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. Trin 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 35.74 Tennis Club ITE Court 1.31 3.35 38.7 Hotel ITE Room 0.56 0.59 8.17 SFR ITE DU 0.75 1.01 9.57 110 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 13 F_xistina 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 Pr000se Use Land Use Rate Type Size /Unit AM Peak Hour (Total) ETL�n 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 1 68 77r64 1183 Staff is in receipt of a letter dated July 22, 2011„ from the law firm of Latham & Watkins, LLP, who is representing HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host "), which owns the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa (Attachment PC11). Host is objecting to the proposed transfer of 27 hotel units from their site to the Newport Beach Country Club site. Staff has reviewed with the City Attorney's Office the legal issues raised in the correspondence. The City Attorney's Office has advised that the Planning Commission may take action on the application as recommended by staff. Development Agreement General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.14.8 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 remaining 20 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 proposed draft development agreement is being reviewed by the City Attorney and will be available for the Planning Commission consideration at the continued meeting. Vesting Tentative Tract Map The applicant proposes a vesting tentative tract map (Attachment PC10) on the Tennis Club site to create separate lots for the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, 27 hotel units, the tennis club facility, their common open space areas and a private street to 117 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 14 support the propose uses. Upon approval of the vesting tentative tract map, the Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed tentative tract map complies with the required findings in accordance with Title 19 (Subdivision Code). Staff foresees the ability to make the required findings provided that the PCDP adoption and transfer of development rights are approved and they will be included in the draft resolution for Planning Commission to consider at the continued meeting. Temporary Structures Use Permit During the construction of new golf clubhouse, three (3) temporary modular buildings for a total of 10,800 square feet (60'x60' each, equaling 3,600 square feet each) will be used as a temporary clubhouse. They would be placed to the north of the parking lot, between the existing clubhouse and cart storage barn. These modular buildings will be removed from the project site upon completion of the new golf clubhouse in approximately 24 months. In order to accommodate on -going tennis club operation, a 2,880 square -foot (48'x60') temporary modular building is proposed to be used during the 18 -month construction of the new tennis clubhouse. A smaller modular building is also proposed to be used as the clubhouse's restroom facilities. These modular buildings would be placed on the existing tennis courts and would not interfere with the construction phases on this site. The modular buildings will be removed from the project site upon completion of the new tennis clubhouse. Staff has no objection to the use of modular buildings during construction of either clubhouse since parking will not be displaced. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3 (Attachment PC5). The MND indicated that the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project, in terms of Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic could be mitigated to below levels of significance. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment from September 20 to October 19, 2010. Comments were received and the consultant and staff have prepared written responses (Attachment PC6). The mitigation measures, standard conditions, and project design features have been incorporated in the draft MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Planning Commission consideration (Attachment PC8). The MND, Response to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been distributed to the Planning Commission for review previously. Subsequently, a revision to the Response to Comments to the Irvine Company comment letter (Letter #4) was prepared and distributed to the Planning Commission on July 14, 2011 11g Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 15 (Attachment PC7). The purpose of this revision is to address the construction phasing plans for the tennis club site and tennis club site of the Newport Beach Country Club project. The changes are necessary to: 1) clarify the description of each construction phasing and 2) correct the order of referenced exhibits as they relate to the constriction phases identified in Tables 2 and 3 of the MND and the proposed phasing plans. These documents are not attached to this report due to their extensive volume, but are available at the City Hall in the offices of the Planning Division and online at: http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1325. Summary Golf Realty Fund proposes a PCDP that provides the planning framework for both the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites that meets the intent and purpose of the General Plan and Planned Community District regulations. It encompasses both sites as a single, cohesive and comprehensive large -scale planned development with a complete internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. Staff's only concern is that the proposed PCDP is too specific with very precise development regulations including overly detailed architectural style references (i.e., building architectural style, roof type, building materials, paint colors, etc.). It contains development specifications beyond what a zoning document should include and does not provide sufficient flexibility to be implemented. The transfer of 27 hotel units from Anomaly No. 43 to Anomaly No. 46 is consistent with the intent of the General Plan as the donor site (Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa) has a General Plan Land Use designation of CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the reduction of 27 hotel units would not change the nature of that developed site. The recipient site (the Tennis Club site) is MU -H3 /PR that allows hotels and residential uses. The transfer of hotel units is consistent with the intent of mixed use designation of the site and recreational uses are maintained with retention of the tennis club. Because the transfer of 27 hotel units is within the same Newport Center /Fashion Island statistical area, it is trip neutral and will not result in a net negative impact on the overall circulation system in the immediate area. Staff foresees the ability to make the required findings provided that a PCDP is approved. The proposed vesting tentative tract map on the Tennis Club site to create separate lots for the five (5) single -unit residential dwellings, 27 hotel units, the tennis club facility, their common open space areas and a private street to support the proposed uses are supportive, and staff foresees the ability to make the required findings provided that the PCDP and transfer of development rights are approved. The draft development agreement is being reviewed by the City Attorney to ensure that it is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.14.8 and Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.c. Staff has no objection to the use of modular buildings during construction on the golf club and tennis club sites. 119 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 16 Staff does not object to the overall project and recommends project approval; however, staff does not believe the proposed PCDP is appropriate and staff recommends adopting a less specific and more flexible legislative document. Staff has prepared an alternative PCDP (Attachment PC9) that contains necessary use and development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. For comparison purposes, the following table provides a summary of the main land use components included in the applicant's plan and staff's alternative plan. Land Use Component Alternative Plan GRF Plan IBC Plan Golf Club Site Golf Clubhouse 56,000 sf. 35,000 sf. 56,000 sf. Tennis Club Site Tennis Courts 7 7 N/A Tennis Clubhouse 3,725 sf. 3,725 sf. N/A Villas (single-unit residential 5 5 N/A Bungalows hotel unit 27 27 N/A Process of Site Plan Site Plan review by Planning Commission with conditions of approvals Yes No No Non-Legislative Modification process for Site Plan Yes No No Adopted via Planned Community Development Plan 2Requires an amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan, which must occur by adoption of an ordinance 3This maximum limit is dependent upon approval of GP2008 -005; should City Council not approve it — the maximum limit shall be 35,000 square feet As demonstrated in the table above, the alternative PCDP contains the same key land use components proposed by the applicant. The alternative PCDP also provides a development limit of up to 56,000 square feet on the Golf Club site that could accommodate a larger golf clubhouse if deemed appropriate. 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. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure new development proposals within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the standards set forth in the adopted PCDP. The applicant does not want to return to the Planning Commission and this is one reason the applicant's draft PCDP is so specific. 120 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 17 Alternatives Alternative #1 — Staff Proposal: To address the applicant's desire for a specific project -level approval, the applicant can be directed to repackage the project plans and specific project details as Site Development Review application, which would be considered by the Planning Commission at the continued hearing. This approach in conjunction with a more flexible PCDP would provide a flexible regulatory framework through the legislation process while ensuring an appropriate project -level review by the Planning Commission. In conjunction with this approach the City may incorporate project specific conditions of approval. Under this scenario, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. Continue all of the requested items to October 20, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to allow sufficient time for the applicant to modify their application to include a Site Development Review request; and 2. Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for the following recommendations to the City Council: a. Approval of the transfer of development intensity, development agreement, tentative vesting tract map, temporary structures and use permit, site development review, and mitigated negative declaration; and b. Approval of the PCDP as proposed by staff as an alternative to the PCDP proposed by the applicant. Alternative #2 — Deny the Project: Should the Planning Commission conclude that the proposed project would not be compatible with the surrounding uses; the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. Alternative #3 — Approve the Project as Submitted: Should the Planning Commission conclude that the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding uses and the proposed planned community development plan meets the intent and purpose of the General Plan and Planned Community District regulations, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval. 121 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 18 Future Foreseeable Application on the Golf Club Site The City is currently reviewing an application filed by the International Bay Clubs, Inc. (IBC), the golf club operator and long -term lease holder of the Golf Club site. IBC is seeking land use entitlements (general plan amendment and planned community development plan adoption) to construct a 55,000 square -foot clubhouse on the Golf Club site. The application also includes a development agreement. Site Plan Conflicts between Golf Realty Fund and IBC The applicant and IBC have submitted their own individual site plan for the Golf Club site. The following are some of the key conflicts between the two proposed site plans: • Size of golf clubhouse • Massing and location of golf clubhouse • Parking Lot layout and circulation • Landscaping along Coast Highway • Retention of views through the golf course Staff will continue working with the applicant and IBC to resolve these conflicts. The alternative PCDP is a working draft; and is subject to changes to accommodate both the applicant's and IBC's requests. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. The notice and posting were completed for the June 9, 2011, Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission continued this application to August 4, 2011 meeting. Since the continuation was to a certain date, no further notice and posting are necessary. Prepared by: Submitted by: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jim Campbell, Principal Planner 1-22 Newport Beach Country Club -Golf Realty Fund August 4, 2011 Page 19 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 New oa-Beach- Countq�-Clul I?Ial tined- GommLauity- DQvelepmer}t -P- lap- instuding P-rejeGt- P-laRs (exhibits) PC 2 LSA Parking Supply Analysis PC 3 Kimley -Horn Traffic & Parking Evaluation PC 4 Phasing Plan Pr F Initi21 -sw egla4: tQr-' RGC�— f- iesgapss2o- Cer�r�teats' RC:- 7—Responsa to- lr-uipg 6etpapvy-Lc f-' I?G- �--- AAiiigatiep -Map+ ter- ir�g- ,ap�Re�er -tipg- Program -' P-C-O Alternative-Rlanned- CommLmUyZeuelopmen.t -P -lan - 9-- P- rejesi -W t-hW/l-aq 12C 11. Latham raWR&—L at d I„I�R,,z221, Note: 'These attachments are not included in the staff report package due to their size and bulk. They are available at the City Hall in the offices of the Planning Division and online at: http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1325. F:\USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008- 152\PC Staff Report.dou Tmpll: 11123/09 12.3 ��t:�ac ��7����t Nc•�, F''C '• • ol 03 IMM or. 124 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 0CRNELEY FORT COLLINS RIi'r RSIUP. 10 EXECUTIVE CARE, SUM 200 9,19.553.0666 TEL 1ARLS6AD PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 949.553.3076 PAX COLNA POINT RICIIMONN SAN LUIS 'AISPU August 20, 2008 pECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AU 2 2 :1000 Mr. Robart 0 Hill CITY OF NEWPOR RACH Golf Realty Fund One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Newport Beach Country Club Perking Supply Analysis Dear Mr. 0 Hill: LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to provide this analysis of the parking supply for'rbe Bungalows, The Villas,'feanis Club, and Golf Course /Clubhouse proposed as part of (be Newport Beach Country Club (NBCC) IvIamer Plan. This analysis has been prepared using project description information provided by Golf Realty f?und, site plans prepared by S(earns Architecture, and parking rates front the City of Newport Beach (Ci(y) Zoning Code and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Conernlion, 3rd Edition. 'File project evaluated heroin includes a boutique hotel with n total of 27 rental Gungalows (one- and two- bedroom), including a pool and spa; five for -sale Villas (two- and Four - bedroom); renovations to the existing'fennis Club to include seven tennis courts, a new Tennis Clubhouse, and fitness area; and an expanded Golf Clubhouse. The site plot; is shown in Figure I (attached). The overall parking demand and sapply is shown ill 'fable A (attached). Each component ofthe project, along with the anticipated parking demand and sapply, is described below. The Bungalows A total of 27 bungalows are proposed on file cast side of (be NBCC in the area near [lie existing Tennis Club. The Bungalows will be a high -end boutique hotel and will cater to guests of members, families, corporate guests, and couples. Twenty -two of The Bungalows will be one bedroom, while [lie remaining five will be two bedrooms. The Bungalows will include n pool for use by bungalow guests only. Adjacent to the pool and attached to lhe'rennis Clubhouse will be a spa. The spa will primarily be an ancnily for guests of The Bungalows; however, members of the Tennis Club will also be able to scbcdole spa lreatalents when the spa is not being utilized by bungalow guests. A 20 -space parking lot is adjacent to the spa to acconunodatc file demand for its use; however, it is anticipated that most of the pnbous will walk from the bungalow units. 'rbe parking requirentont for The Bungalows was determined using the parking requirement for bed and breakfast inns from Ilse Newport Beach Zoning Code, which requires one space per guest 1,00,11 plus two spaces. Review of the ITE Parking Generation Manual shows that parking denlaul rates for hotels and hotels range front 0.64 to 1.1 spaces per room, less than that required by the City's bed and breakfast parking rate. Using ITE parking demand vales for hotels or motels, the parking 08120108 ,P:W1IC060BParNWg ARRI55is,dow PLANNINO I EN1'IkONIIENTAI I .U10N 125 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. requirement for The Bungalows would be behveen 17.2 and 29.7 parking spaces. As a result, the bed and breakfast rite provides a conservative estimate of parking demand for The Bungalows. Many of the two-bedroom bungalows may be occupied by a family or group traveling together and therefore would not typically require two parking spaces, Flowever, the additional parking supply could be utilized by visitors and maintenance and housekeeping personnel. In addition, because the Spa and pool are amenities for The Bungalow hotel guests, no additional poking would be required, as The Bungalow guests will already be parked in the spaces provided for those uses. Application of the bed and breakfast rate to the 27 Bungalows would result in a parking requirement of 34 parking spaces. Based on review of the project site plan, a total of 54 parking spaces (22 one - bedroom units at one space per unit, plus 5 hvo - bedroom units at two spaces per unit, plus 20 spaces adjacent to the spa, plus two additional spaces) will be provided adjacent to The Bungalows and along the roadway providing access to The Bungalows. As a result, adequate parking will be provided for bungalow residents and visitors, with a surplus of 20 spaces. The Villas Five Villas are proposed adjacent to The Bungalows, The Villas are intended to be single - family vacation hones. Plans A and B would have two bedrooms, Plait E would have three bedrooms, and Plans C and D would have three bedrooms plus a one - bedroom guesthouse. Plans A and B will have a two-car gunge plus one guest parking space located in the driveway. In addition, Plan B will have a small garage that could be used for a golf carl or other small vehicle. Plan B will have a two-car garage and a two-car auto court for guest parking. Plats C and D will have a three -car garage and a Ibrec -car into court, plus a small garage fora golf cart or other small vehicle. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires two parking spaces per single- fanily residential unit. The Villas would provide at least two garage parking spaces per unit and would therefore meet the City's Code requirement. Additional parking for visitors or housekeeping and maintenance personnel could be accommodated in the into courts. The Tennis Chub The Tennis Club will include seven courts, including one stadium court. A 3,544- square -t'oot (sl) tennis clubhouse will be constructed for the use of lennis club membos, The Tennis Clubhouse will provide amenities such as changing rooms /lockers, reslrooms, and a pro shop. A fulness area will be provided adjacent and connected to the Tennis Clubhouse. The linness area is primarily for use by nnembers and guests of'fhe Bungalows, but may also be used by members of the Tennis Club, and will not be available for use by the general public. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires parking to be provided at in rate of four paking spaces per court for tennis clubs. This is more conservative than the average peak parking demand rate of 3.56 vehicles per court in the ITE Parking Generation Mantel, It should be noted (bill a tennis club, as defined by the ITE, includes ancillary facilities, such as swiuuming pools, whirlpools, saunas, weigh) rooms, snack bars, and retail stores. As a result, the rate of four parking spices per court would include parking for the amenities such as the lockers and pro shop. Because the fitness area is an amenity for The Bungalow hotel guests and the Tennis Club members only, no .additional parking 06/20103 oP:UJDC06011PaiMng AnalnSis.dnro 120 I.SA ASSOCIATES. INC. would be required, as The Bungalow guests and the Tennis Club members will already be parked in the spaces provided for this use. Based on City Code, 28 pnrking spaces would be required for the Tennis Club. Per the project site plan, a total of 38 spaces will be provided, respltiug in a surplus of 10 spaces. In addition to the parking surplus, the Tennis Club land his a parking easenrenl with the adjacent Corporate Plaza West office buildings to Ilse the office parking on evenings, weekends, and holidays. This provides an additional 554 pinking spaces, 188 of which are adjacent to (lie project, and would fulfill nay overflow parking needs during charilable Tennis Tournaments (i.e. Hong's Team Tennis, The Adoption Guild, and Top Gun) for evenings, weekends, and holidays. 'File Golf Clubhouse Newport Beach Country Club includes at exisling championship 18 -hole Golf Course and proposed new Golf Clubhouse (approximately 40,000 so. The project will redesign the current parking and circulation adjacent to the comse and coaisUUCI a larger Clubhouse facility for its members and guests. The Clubhouse will include a grille, locker rooms, a pro shop, it 19111 Hole bar, and meeting rooms. These amenities are only ivailable f'or use by Golf Course patrons. The Newport Bench Zoning Code does not provide a specific parking rate for golf courses. Per discussions will] City staff, pa iking rates for golf facilities are al the discretion of file City Planning Director and vary by location. 'therefore, LSA utilized life parking rates in the ITE Parking Generation Manual to derive the required number ofparking spices needed For the Golf Course, or 8.68 vehicles per hole. Based on this, 157 parking spaces would be required for the Golf Course.'1'his is a conservative rate, as four players Per hole would result in 72 players. If each player drove to the corpse, it would result in 72 spaces ]or a typical clay. "Shotgun" golf lountanlen(s at NBCC typically have 128 players, which would also be accommodated in (lie new parking lot. The resichml spices world be used by employees. Preliminary plans for the projccl also includo it 3,034 sf dining room and a 2,567 sf banquel room to be localcd %vilhin the Clubhousc. These amenities may be available for residents of The Villas, The Bungalows, and members of the Tennis Club. The dining and banquet rooms may be available on a very limited basis For private events sponsored by a golf member. Packing rates for restauranfs areal the discretion of the City Planning Director and vary by type and natri'e ot'the facility. According to the Newport Beach Zoning Code, restaurants have a parking rate between I per 30 sf and I per 50 sf for full-service restaurants, and I per 75 sf for full- service, small -scale restaurants. USA utilized the one per 50 sf because it fell between the highest and lowest picking rates listed in the City Code. In addition, review of the ITE Parking Generation Iblanuai shows that Parking dcmind rites for a quality restaurant are 15,4 spaces per 1,000 sf, or 1 space per 65 sf. As a result, the parking rate of I space per 50 sf provides a more conservative estimate of parking demand For the dining and banquet rooms than that of the nationwide average. Based on this rate, 113 pinking spices woulil be required for tle dining (61 spaces) and banquet (52 spaces) rooms for it typical day.'I'hc total niaximum required parking for the Golf Course /Clubhouse, including lie dining and banquet rooms, is 270 parking spaces. Per the project site plan, a total of 300 spaces will be provided I'or the Golf Course /Clubhouse as well as the dining and banquel rooms, resulting in a sill-pips of 30 spices. 08/20 /08 uP: W UC'OMWarking Analjsladm), 1-27 LSA. ASSOCIATES, INC. Conclusion As discussed in the analysis and shown in Table A, 54 spaces will be provided for The Bungalows, with 22 spaces for The Villas, 38 spaces for the Tennis Club, and 300 spaces for the Golf Course and Golf Clubhouse, totaling 414 spaces. Based on the analysis of each use discussed above, 344 parking spaces will be required. The project would provide 70 surplus spaces on site on a t),pical day, Ill addition to the on -site surplus, NBCC has a parking cascmcut with the adjacent Corporate Plaza West office buildings to use the office parking on evenings, weekends, and holidays. This easement would provide an additional 554 parking spaces, 188 of which are adjacent to the Tennis Club. While it is not anticipated that these additional spaces would be required oil a regular basis, the additional parking is available for use during large events at the Golf Course or Tennis Club, In tine event that a large gathering occurs during weekday business hours, which would cause the parking supply to be exceeded on a typical weekday, or dining the weekend (i.e., the Toshiba Classic Golf Tournament), a separate Parking Management Plan will be required to address off-site parking needs. LSA trusts this infonudiou will be useful in your planning efforts. If you have any questions, please call line at (949) 553 -0666, Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Ken Wilhelm Principal cc: Leland Stearns, Stearns Architecture Byron de Arakal Jerry Johnstone, Adaias- Streeter Attachments: Figure I: Site Plan Table A: Parking Requirement 03 /20108,& NnC0601n N, eking Anal)sisdoo� 122 T „0.j i u J o t 1 / ✓1 W U y N N o k. U x b X V T „0.j i u J o t 1 / ✓1 11.19A p(1Itl... ", Table A: Newport Bench Country Club Matter Plan Parking 12equb'entenl City of Sen'potl Beach Zoning Code, Chaplet 20.66 Off= Siteat Parking and Leading ltegalalions. Bed and Bieakfasl Inns. x Spa,. Pool, and Fimess Area are only available for use by Bungaimvguests and inenib vs of the Tennis Club, and there rare (could not create additional parking demand ' Cify of Nenlwtt lkach Zoning Cede, Chapter 20.66 Off Street Parking and Loading Rrgnlations, Single family Residential. City ol'Kesgwtl Beach Zoning Cole, Chapter 20 :6600'-SOatl Parking rand I:wding Regnlaiions; l \`nnis Chtb s City of \eq mm( Beach Zoning Code does not contain pilling rates for golfmuues. Thenrow, the packing iota as w&rrnced born the institute of Transportation Hugineers Purling Generation, lid Edition (2003). LnnJ Use •130. Ciolf Course. P )\nCe601V,vking UPI lesls \Nett (2)(34U3003) ISO Parldug licqub•entent I Parking Laud Use Uall,s Per. Unit Spares Provided Bungalows, 1 I. One Bedroom 22 DU I 22 Two Dairoom 5 DU 2i 10 Additional spaces required by Code I 1 2 34 Spa and Pool' 20 Total Bungalows 34 Sd Sutphts for Buegnlons I 20 Villas' A I I DU 2I 2 3 B I DU 2+ 2 3 C I I DU 3I 3� 6 D I I DU 31 3I 6 C I I DU j 2.1 2 1 1 Total Villas i I 121 22 Surplus a). Villas i to Tennis Club i Tennis Courts i 7Couns 41 23j 33 Slnphis joi- Temils Club 1 10 Snbtolnl (Bungalows, Villas, rand Tennis Clab) I 7,1 It,] SYnplus ,Subotoll - +I i d0 Gulf Course nnJ Clubhouse' ! IS Holes 3.6S IS71 Dluing Room 1 3.034 TSF 20I 611 Bnnquct Ruont 2.567 TSF 20 521 300 Subtotal 2701 300 Surplus Subloial i I i I JO Total Parking Required 1 34,1 Total franking Provided 1 414 Total Parking .Surphns I I 70 City of Sen'potl Beach Zoning Code, Chaplet 20.66 Off= Siteat Parking and Leading ltegalalions. Bed and Bieakfasl Inns. x Spa,. Pool, and Fimess Area are only available for use by Bungaimvguests and inenib vs of the Tennis Club, and there rare (could not create additional parking demand ' Cify of Nenlwtt lkach Zoning Cede, Chapter 20.66 Off Street Parking and Loading Rrgnlations, Single family Residential. City ol'Kesgwtl Beach Zoning Cole, Chapter 20 :6600'-SOatl Parking rand I:wding Regnlaiions; l \`nnis Chtb s City of \eq mm( Beach Zoning Code does not contain pilling rates for golfmuues. Thenrow, the packing iota as w&rrnced born the institute of Transportation Hugineers Purling Generation, lid Edition (2003). LnnJ Use •130. Ciolf Course. P )\nCe601V,vking UPI lesls \Nett (2)(34U3003) ISO Attachment N ®o PC 3 Kimley -Horn Traffic & Parking Evaluation 131 Traffic and Parking Evaluation for; In the City of Newport Beach Prepared for City of Newport Beach August, 2009 © Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2S2 TRAF'F'IC AND PARKING IWALUATION FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE /TENNIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACI1 Prep a I -e 11 fur: City of Newport Beach Prepared Gpr Kin ley -1 -lore and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suile 400 Orangc, California 92968 Aiegusl, 200 13.3 TRAFFIC AND PARKING EVALUATION FOR THP N MPORT BEACH COUNTRY CL,UR CLUBHOUSE / TENNIS LIIYItOVI?A9ENT' PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TABLE OF CON'1'FNTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................... ............................... PROJECT DESCITHN ION .......................................................... ............................... ExistingProject ........................................................................ ............................... ProposedProject ...................................................................... ............................... PROJECTTRAPPIC ................................................................... ............................... ProjectTl ip G cncration ............................................................ ............................... SITR ACCESS AND CIRCULA"ITON ....................................... ............................... SI'Z'E PARKING .......................................................................... ............................... LIST OF FIGURES .................. . I .................. I .................. 1 2 .................. 4 .................. 4 .................. 5 .................. 7 FigureI — Proposed She Plan ............................................................................ ..............................3 Figure 2 — Proposed Improvements to late' nwee ...................................... ............................... G LIST OF TABLES Table I — Sunonary Miming and Proposed Uses .......................................... ..............................2 "Fable 2 — Summary or Project Trip C ienerntion ................................................. ..............................4 Table 3 — Surnmary or Parking Rates ............................................................... ............................... 7 Table 4 — Summay or Parking Asluired and Provided ................................... ............................... S IS4 TRAFFIC AND PARKING EVALUATION FOR TIE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB CLUBHOUSE /TENNIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION This report has Been prepared to provide a traffic and parking evaluation fix the proposed Newport Beach Country Club Clubhouse and Tennis Improvement Projecl. Newport (Beach Country Club (NBCC) is an cAstAg private golf and tennis club located on Bast Coast Highway in the City or Newport Beach. The NBCC owner proposes to remodel the lacilily to remove or reduce the size or some or the site facilities, increase others, and to add residential and resort lodging components. Information for this report has been taken from the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District plan (the PCD Piny which provices details about the proposed changes to the NBCC site. and provides parking and development standards hor the Proposed projccl. '-his report will provide a ieviwv of the proposed changes to the site uses, site access, and on -site circulation; and will provide an estimate or dw cli nge in traffic generation that would resuh from the proposed site changes. This report will also provide an evaluation or to proposed poking standards and the adequacy of the parking supply. PROJECT DESCRIPTION P;iisling Project The Niowport Beach Country Club is located on the north side of Gist Coast Highway, between .lamborce Road and Newport Center Drive, in the City of Newport Beach. The site is compriscd ofprivale golrcluh aml tennis club facilities, totaling approsimatcly Id= acres. The golrclub portion or we site wmsisls or an I&hole championship golf course, putting green, golf" clubhouse, and golf accessory buildings. "]'Ile clubhouse contains dining and drinking areas for numheis, a pro shop, and men's and %vomen's locker rooms. Golf accessory buildings nclude a golfuut storage harn, a greens - keeper building, restroom facilities, a snack shack, and a starter shack. 1'hc tennis club portion or we site consists or pro shop and lounge, locker roosts, and 24 tennis courts. NBCC Clubhouse / Tennis Improvement Project - 1 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation 1 5 "fhc primary access to the Newport Beach Country Club is piovided On a drive aisle (hut connects to (lie end of Irvine Terrace, which in (111,11 connects to East Coast Highway (Slate Highway I). Irvine 'terrace also provides access to the adjacent Corporate Plaza \vest development. The intersection of Irvine Terracc at Ease Coast highway is signalized. 'I'he main N13C:C drive aisle (labeled Country Club Drive on the site plan) splits in both directions front Ilse end of Irvine'icrrace, with the drive aide it) the Iefl leading to the main parking area in front or the golrclubhouse, and the drive aisle to the right landing to the parking for the tennis courts. On the far side or me lunis parking area is a driveway connection to Granville Drive, which provides a direct connection to Newport Center Drive. Parking for NBCC consists of a large surtitce parking lot in front or the grill' clubhouse building with 420 parking spaces, and a surface lot adjacent to the tennis courts with 125 parkins spaces. Proposed Project 'I'hc proposed project involves the remodel or replacement of some of the sire facilities, the removal or some lsedilies, and the conskuclion of a number of new facilities. Upon completion, the site will consist orthc I$-hole golrcourse, 7 tennis courts, 27 rental bungalows, and 5 custom single- fmtily homes. A copy of the proposed pro>jccl site plan is provided on Figure I. A siunmary of the existing site uses and the proposed site changes is provided on Table 1. TABLE I NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB SUiiMNIARY OP EXISTING AND PROPOSED USES Land Use Uuils Quantity IPsistin ProxrsetI Cham'e Golf Course Holes 13 18 n 'fennisCourts Com1s 24 7 -17 Buri='alows Rooms 0 27 27 Villas Dwellim Units 0 5 5 `rile site plan indicates OW the project entry and circulation through the site will be modified, and We parking areas will be rcconligured. A total ol'413 parking spaces will he provided to serve the new site uses. NBCC Clubhouse I Tennis Improvement Project - 2 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation ISO Kl� 0 G q�q b� uj I-- V/ LU '^ VJ ®!q v/� LL w LL IL C n v S F i h 9 7 F I-S7 13 110.)LC'1' TRAI?PIC Project Trip Generation 1) if) generation estimates For the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project here derived Cron) the Institute of "I'ransporlation Engineers (I "IT3) "I1rip Generation, (8 °i 1-diliou) publication. Based on the existing and proposed land uses at the project site, Four H -E Land Use Categories were used lox this analysis: • Goll'Course (Category 430), • Raquel /Tennis Club (Category 491)" • Hotel (Category 310), and • Single - family Residential (Category 210). -the daily and peak hour u'ip generation rates used for each category are shown on 'Cable 2. TABLE 2 INMPORT REACH COUNTRY CLUB SUMMARY OF PROJE.C'r•PRIP GENIFA ZION Land Use IT'E Code Unit 'I'd 1 (3eneraliim Rates' A1LNI Pea It Ilunr PM Peak liour Daily In Out Total In Oat ToUl (loll Cnulsc 430 Mule 35.74 1.76 0.47 2.23 123 1.51 2.7 -1 Tc nn is Cuu I Is 491 Court 3570 0.66 0.66 1.32 1.6S 1. 6X 336 llotcl 310 Room 8.17 0.34 032 - 0.56 0.31 0.28 0.59 Single -Find ly Residential 210 DIJ 9.57 0.19 056 0.75 0.640 0.370 1.01 Lund Use Units Trip Genenniou Estimates Daily AM Peak Hour I -NI Peak Hour, In Out Total lu Oil( 'PoLd Exisdn„ Uses 6oll'Coulsc IS 1Io1cs (,•13 32 8 •III 22 27 49 Fellllis Clmns 24 Colll'Is 929 I6 111 i2 4U kl $1) Total'I'rips - Existing Uses 1,572 48 24 72 62 67 129 I'vollosed Uses Golf Coucs IS holes 643 32 X 40. 2� 27 49 Tennis( :OU'Is 7 Con l'Is 271 5 5 In 12 1-, 24 Ihllel((iUl1 aoll 'I'Cllaiel3lllhld(IWS) 27 R( %ells 221 9 6 15 S S 16 Single- PamiIv Residential ('the Villas) 5 131.1 -18 1 Total Trips - Proposed Uses 1,183 47 22 69 45 4') 94 Net Nete Trips -389 -1 -2 -3 -17 -IS -35 ' Sol] rcc: Inslitutc.ol "rnulspor tilt it) n l fncinccrs(I'I'I•:I TI i p Genc ration pub[ ication(S lh Edition) D(J = M%cllinclJnil NBCC Clubhouse / Tennis Improvement Project - 4 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation ISO Trip generation Mr file existing and the proposed project uses are based on the land use quantities for each land use, as shown on Table 2. Trips generated by the existing land uses were calculated and subtracted from the trips that will be generated by the proposed development. 'fable 2 shows lh;a with the removal or 17 tennis corals, and the addition or 27 hotel rooms (The Bungalows) and 5 custom homes (The Villas), the proposed Newport 13arch Country Club project is estimated to generate 389 newer hips per day than the existing uses, with 3 newer trips it the morning Peak hour, and 35 fewer trips in the evening peak hour. Since the proposed blewport Beach Country Club project will tenerate less daily and pad: hour iran than the existing development on the site, no analysis of the project's Ira frs impact nn the surrounding street system is necessary. SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The project sire plan rellects proposed on -site changes to the main parking area in r ont or the Goll' Clubhouse, including landscaping and beautification or the area, and minor changes to the she circulation. 'rhe site's access to the public street system at Gast Coast Highway (via Irvine ,terrace) and ill Granville Drive will remain. A copy or the proposed improvements on h -vine Terrace is provided on Figure 2. I vi ie Terrace will be improved to provide a landscaped median, anel will he striped to delineate two inbound lines and two outbound lanes. h is recommended that the leli-lurn pocket on the intersection of-E. Coast Highway be lengthened to provide a minimum or 100 Net phis the transition. Access to the golrclrbhouso will be improved as follows: O A new drive aisle with it drop -olT area will be added to Ilse front or the clubhouse. A second internal envy point to the main parking lot will be added at the northwest corner or the lot. The parking rows in the main body or file parking lot will be reconfigured to an call -west orientation, with access aisles provided on both ends of parking lot. Each or the drive aisles is shown to be 26 feet in width, which provides adequate room for circulation, turning. and backing for 90- degree parking spaces. The secondary entrance to the golf course parking lot which is located immediately adjacent to the Irvine Terrace / li:ast Coast Highway intersection, as well as the external drive aisle that runs parallel to roast Coast Highway between the parking lot and ]-'its( Coast Highway, will be eliminated, and the aflccted area will be incorporated into the parking area. e Pedcolan access front the golf course parking lot will he improved by a pedestrian walkway with enhanced paving through the center of the parking lot, connecting directly to the Boll' clubhouse. NBCC Clubhouse / Tennis Improvement Project - 5 - August, 2.009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation I39 J U ti Xl� I l tIII v U ro d d h d c i ev�3I1-4U East Coast Highway 6- U)y z 2 z D �W uj (1) uj® IL �® C 0 O J H mmti a U 1-40 Access to the lennis area and new development will be improved as Billows: The drive aisle leading to the tennis area will be Rifled slightly to the south (closer to Bast Coast Highway) to aceommodale the new development. A new access road and cul -de -sac will provide access to The Bungalows and to The villas, which will be constructed on a portion of the area now developed with tennis courts. Parallel parking will be allowed along the road, but not on the cul -de -sac. U Small parking rotas will be added by the tennis courts, . lennis clubhouse, and bungalows, to provide convenient access for each or these uses. SITE PARKING The development standards in the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Conununily District Plan (PCD Plan) include parking requirements for each of the proposed site uses. A summary of the parking, rates spccilicd in the Planned Community District Plan, compared to the parking code requirements specified in the City of Newport Beach Toning Code is provide([ on 'fable 3. TABL,G 3 NEWPORT BEACH COUN'T'RY CLUB SUN414ARY OF PARKING R.YI'fsS Laud Use Parkinr, Rcr uirmuent NBCC PCD Plan Newport Beach Zoning Code Golf Course 244 total As specirlel by Thu Planning Director Tennis, Club 4 per court 4 ter Court I e O Spa 4 Per' 1,000 5r 4 Per 1,000 SI' Bungalows (Bed It Breakfast) I Per rental unit I ter !-tics( roam, plus 2 villas (Sim,le- ramilyResidence) 2 covered and 2 off- street Per home 2enclosed Pei unit As reflected on Table 3, The parking standards proposed in the PCD Plan are generally similar to We CRy*s pa king code requirements, with the exception of the Parking requirement for the Golf Course. The PCD 11% has established a parking requirement or 244 parking spaces for the Golf Course and the Goll' Clubhouse. The City's "Zoning Code does not specify a parking rate rut golf' courses, but rather indicates that the parking requirement firs "other con nierckil recreation uses'. will be "As spccilictl by the Planning Director ". NBCC Clubhouse / Tennis Improvement Project - 7 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation 1-41 Although the PCD Plan does not provide a breakdown or how file 244 -space requirement was derived: it appears to be reasonable, based on the following analysis: "1'he Institute of I'mnsportalion Engineers O F) I'arkiiie Generation publication contains parkin_ rates for golf courses, based on empirical data collected at a number or golf course facilities, including I8-hole golf eourses. The ITE data indicates that the parking demand ror an 18 -hole g011'course. ranged Rmil 533 to 10.33 parking specs per hole. 'rile average preach orthe peak parking dmnmWs lir all golf cmwws studied was 8.6S spew per Mile. Irlhe highest parking rate of 10.33 spaces per We is applied, file parking requirement ror the NBCC. golf course would be 186 spaces (18 holes x 10.33 spaces per hole = 185.9 spaces). Assuming a worst -case condition during Boll" course operations. 4 of the 10.33 spaces per hole would account for a foursome on every hole, ifovery golfer shove Tel own vehicle io the golf course. This would leave 6.33 spaces per link lir other people waiting far their lee time, plus people on the driving range, at the pulling green, in the lounge, or in the restaurant. The parking rcquirernma or 244 parking spaces suggested by the PCD Ilan would provide an additional 58 spaces ror parking demand Iln t might occur above and beyond the 10.33 per hole (244 spaces required by the PCD Plan — 186 spaces required using I'rl, maximum rates = 58 additional spaces). A parking requirement ol'244 spaces appears reasonable for the NBCC Coll' Course and Clubhouse. The project site plan (Figure I, preA usly presented) indicates that a total of 300 parking spaces are proposed for the golr course parking lot. The parking required for all or the uses proposed for the Nl3CC: project is summarized on Table 4. Based on the parking requirements established by the PCD Platt, the proposed site uses would require 341 parking spaces. 'rABLE.1 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB SUfNINIARY OF PARKING REQUIRED AND PROVIDED Land Use Quantity Unit Parking It-lie' Parking Required Parking Provided Surplus (Pe icit) GoIfC'oume IS Hole NA 244 300 56 "Tennis Club 7 Coma 4 28 58 S Tennis sa 5.56 KS17 4 22 Bungalows 27 noon 1 27 34 7 Villas i DU 4 20 21 l 1%11 341 •11.3 72 Source: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan Development Slmidards NBCC Clubhouse I Tennis Improvement Project - 8 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation 142 The project site plan indicates that a total or 413 parking spaces will be provided, resulting. in a parking supply (hat exceeds the parking requirement by 72 spaces. Moreover, the parking supply provided specifically fix each individual use exceeds the parking required for that use. r\40sl notably, the Boll, course parking lot will provide 300 spaces, which exceeds the 244 -space requirement established by the PCD Plan by 56 spaces. "tire proposed parking supply or 413 spaces will be adequate to meet the flay -to -day parking needs of the proposal NBCC project. In addition tit the on -site parking supply, the site plan indicates that the NBCC has a parking casement with the adjacent Conporme Plaza West development- A parking analysis prepared Ibr lire NBCC project (Newport Beach Country Club Parking Supply Analysis, LSA, August 20, 2008) indicates Ihal through this parking casement, an atl hional 554 parking spaces would be available to the NBCC in the evenings and on weckcgds and hoRNys, it need"! Air parking overflow during tennis and golf events. The parking analysis also indicates than in the event that a large gathering occurs during weekday business bows, which would cause the parking dclin n d to exceed the parking supply on a typical weekday, a separate Parking Management Plan would be required to address ol'r -site parking needs. NBCC Clubhouse / Tennis Improvement Project - 9 - August, 2009 Traffic and Parking Evaluation 14S Attachment No. ''C 4 Phasing Plan 1-44 D z c-� r D z G�i!] ;J C'J � J 145 j T, IPP L tit It A144 13 4� 4 45 lilt ❑0❑ q > m 0 40 -1 — 4 !'� I.a u al \`11 V �y 4 0 ,5�,,✓ �i'f -�� AR //////// 4 Mani/ _ ✓ p [:�� 6 y, ism ;' D t+ � z ,z i � m I n.c o m 4 !'� I.a u al \`11 V �y 4 0 ,5�,,✓ �i'f -�� AR //////// 4 Mani/ _ ✓ p [:�� 6 y, ism ;' D t+ � z ❑ i � m my ,o n.c o m z ➢ m oc ~ n 3 z N' w a 3 S 6 N ni e 'ell V my ,o n.c o m z ➢ m 3 z N' w H /I `o ^S lip 1 b ,y-l�y lilt i i I1�rI� 1' � • U \�\ \t� \� \�„`� \�l1 /.- / " +�>�I �� Q ? M h �t n� _ I f f� Li' 17 x � II r it n q"�,_ JRI 'i�``Z'o�,g����?°m.•� fi a I II z41 `e.`',�� y_ViGt, I `I,�1•' {; \'1 (�iT��"t� � tc'�i.� \ � +� �'r,'.�_ �a f z a D x �� ❑ c°i m e e �� ag M Cm m v 9 D m w cm e Vl £m n m m c m in a C O � N � � 9 O Z l U y�� 1 I �. IIY�'�'�r,��� / �I ' \ 3 J.! yI,`✓ 1��` r I� •�T i\ k y lJf cz. D2 IF F� .I; t • I I 'F + I� () 1 4 9.�\a�D/•.a.._ .a i .y" {i , I r / 6 n7 �� 1 rA, ,y -�_/ -r-r 1�f.• mom.., Sryj't ws x m Lm a p ry � 7 1 N y z A 9 n P 1 ���.A 1i5 � � �° � ji pqq ,� a ,..� I 6pVAvA yv v 1v e ��lit' 9II� .,14rh1'' 1' v F° ,,� -��� •�. 1`�° •,�i, fr '.i I IT, '1 4111 r ill it \ \•„\\�\ \\ \ ll� 1 � j i14 � � I�Tl / /(/�!/ ///r/�77' �1,� t ..� � •'��..� m t,!. ...1 �Y�R 1 � R�,�;,//%/� /! I. J �'J ✓� � � Z'''IT P� \ , 1 6 w A � O s 2 J W�c n ` l Ty.N �r r m o C d p O S n '•\� /\�(/ rti \� .L eran.,j •- xIl- •1:1;; m � 3 0 x3 1 m 2. D?. p,a .1 2 o i m ti m � O o r r C 2 O O H W Z d 1 ; r 1 tj a ,Ii 1 // J <r i y lh If ji 1 lY ss � � n� v_z ❑O❑ A y a C m y 0 Z o� rl f I r�•`�I, I� 1jtl,ti= �� 4t � J � \�4�J�� �!jn J I � �,° tilt fl�� I. IITI1fiSi'1TITIl f1TT�i�; �� "N I , r I 'S ery II •. � // / / / / /. /il o All � ins Y/ J 4 - ¢ -(fi j `rI Z �-� / %i�/ry �' rrlW'�,' ��i � f i1 .,���o � /�i1TlTTPL"� �,✓ � C�7 '���rf' /� "''4y � y 1 l }} ref � , I � � h �,y�I£ / / a � • r ! LA�i rJi 'R'^ D n °O Z ❑ f 4 � i m u n 6 ~ z W J ° N N r 1 � IM CE III S,�I w:'II�II d v 11.1 E v`Fi /� �J !/ ' {+! 'i ��Jr ✓ /�� `� \�`•itl�t GT� Asa � ;! C eZ �� k i i I WSM •1' w,�j Ate, ? � � S /� >_—r l J ��_��� T �`1kT� ?.>j1IJ ZTi o 'sue � J7r• Y it/ ✓f czima\ X17 �>�``ZF,� A/` tJ %/ �J� <i4 �_/! /J �� � 1' { � +,� . vii✓ a C�m�'• � >tn Jit 11i>> <`y Cr y ( j�\ J /\\ �� �' i '`_ •� � `,�^ mot. al��czJ �rl7T.(/��� J� `,i� % ��f (''o' ^':� t 1:10 El r . F� 3N � O O z N vrlL�:) , -'y,l lik1 c LI 'q5 OR �x vt�', . K 11I1 rI!i i \i u IIII�y,'Sla \ 1 y _ i�.�7T� r p' [ /%1 /71'// I �} 01 /' d v ✓ , 7 I +• y \} / L) F � o �7 z rnG rl F �.ls'.. A!/i r �nanlr l� GJ�I In �' < 1' ,y °I !:I O �r�j7lC { q •� a �✓ � i/Z zv� ✓� ��r ��, t ,? �y�15 �"�' i �1\ [ �`�i� f `�� �J/F��� 'w•\. y j�S ",'a. r� i i I!�I .t VV ii ''Ii�r r �. 1 \ ✓ Y7 ,�lti�, iii , /�r..� �TfIlloi2l ,4 ' � �� � ///'✓� �� err, , ✓" „ sx� � / i "� sl ffv�/v/�.', IN sow �„ I ii II -; tom, '.,+ �� ✓ i / r. _ c : rllzY� „��� 1.0 eft' li �•�k �Y'" �+' . /" 'e D x ❑ 11 m Gi c ~ � � N � p � � L•i N Gl Z 3 _ a = n s c s 0 c + � ! III —A �+ c G , � x , 1 _ >ilf - 1� r �1, ,Irby ,I ; `I�•G;'f6'6'�ifr�SffK n � �� ��, I� tzI , 1 I �� E I I e� \\ n ' I � J� � _., F` �.r- �4�'� <4 � �C• � I�l MY y r it l�ii II�� 34 x 1; ,., 9 �'' —� }, �j fir` 1 �L i�n� +�' � l�Qr���>� lvs •� i rR�� I�, ,�I L ,�I rl tir����� /. / �I�/ %jet i�r1� / .E;J ��� � \• Grp a �,y f,' r• r z � j/� nii nVr �` // yy j i ,L/f �� ( \ R7 I tom`, j fy�lly_ „nS: ( + ?t"tF +!. A Oe D„ v_z ❑O❑ a o FC z N tO N d 1, tr1i ��� 4'��� S `•• � ` � r y; V \yM.,�p�\.AA A GJ<CCC 1 A, S $ 5e 51 1 3.T ' Q sue. it /1 It fj 1 � 11 �t` '° VW!' c-e!� I�I ��>`.7 o Phi � "a •!„ x � r J a ✓lS � X31 s �_ i ,�f�cu�I1b I�1 1 r�ri `l F' < >a3•/�I/ 4�f/ `vll�i i� /'•rr ((v ��•�Il b [n YY, ��)Tr ?�Ylr�'`rt� v�A4 �..1 \�lf l�l^ ���/ r/ IF '"�, �'� k � it N��✓✓� �/� \�s'`��' ���' ✓�`,���� ��`:. e `J {�t'y I' r •y err \��� � i d /l l i IY�' tY' t�1Vt U / D x �� ❑ it m W Ps. C .� C o o• r 3 o z o � 0 � S QWn � N N 6 1 A \ `1 \ , Z` 4 - ?G 11114, lN TKQ e .,� \^�.� ..—.f 3� cz 'r x lio �b 1 � � i F I 1�a /�'../•J' t r wI`I �'� w nil, t / � f lip" �i� i <-,._t , �,�C � -/j� 1t��n_ el tip. i 7a° i T '�'� ��-•, ✓� � Ulf` ae ➢ x m2 ❑❑❑ p p m O Z A p ? G b p i1 Oct 1 i 1„ r_1 +'`'� �� —f- .��.? A� \\\ )psi 1.�(LC111C,ljjj/ ik i%- �g 14 XU Yi 11 1 I / I { •`21i e� r p < ',Peo ➢ n ❑ cl e Ll a A m W m 3 c o a a 3 z 0 � � 6 IN fit= 1 a� 5 t n T JI 0.y�yl `1. r�rl , -, � ` 1 -jl , 1pill {11/ � ITT —'� � 1 �/ ,.1✓�''�\ ]� (�r['���1�!( �t}"\ —f � ✓/! j� _......s. M.I. �r C� ..� I � ��� :J'?\ f /`j"(�� IL Iron IfC /(✓ L�vW \� ~G � '�f�A�� MI tz If Nh�m. 4< ovt' �1% Jn `I` nC t� 4•r Q4imY' , Y /!� /' 1 k - ' "I" \,!1 j r 5 V4 1rt DOD r on m v � 'o G/ 2 �I O Z o �L 41 � r' ( � � ♦ � � Q m (/ J 1: 'qtr Il, xg ie r " III �y % +n \�'� • `I I , < s �`.�, ( Y .., i U 3( c t .�411m� `�t\,I� .rat✓ s /ir1 rte )�,� � / /�� �,/ \ !� t J 1 T /3 � 4y / � �Y��45' � r �U I ✓ 1 ) � ' �� � 7 v�J rip o D N �Z ❑ u e e 7 s ° ,. ; Z 3 . ➢ V7 me n a o CY m a rn � °c �, 1 ���, ��� ---ter- -- '�'���•� a 7 r In \ �� ! jr �.m V, 'YCIF Mill if Ilt ill - kv �,Tr�` A",-1 N'�� "s�..%'� /fi•7 /% / %/ ? <T r +� rz�/ /1/ An ha ;-q D r vZ ❑O,❑ x � O 102 City Council Attachment 7 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 4, 2011 103 104 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, August 4, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 4:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Commissioner Hillgren. C. R L CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, Myers, Toerg , and Unsworth ABSENT (EXCU D): None. Staff Present: Kimberly Brandt, Community Deve pment Director, James Campbell, Principal Planner, Greg Ramirez, Acting Planning Manager, Leonie Mulvihill, Assista City Attorney, Tony Brine, City ffic Engineer, Rosalinh Un Associate Planner, and Marlene Bur , Administrat/Assista D. PUBLIC COM MENTS Barbara Peters, resident, spoke regard%thistter. an at 3002 Breakers Drive and in opposition to the City's current position on Community Development Director Kimbgrfy Brandt Commission regarding the project at 3W2 Breakers I E. REQUEST FOR CONTINIJ'ANCES — None. F. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 mutes of July 21, 2011 to provide an in -depth report to the Motion made by ommissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Ah,eri, and carried (4 — 0, 3 abstentionpf to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Kramer, and Unsworth NOES None. ABS T(EXCUSED): None. A TAIN: Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge G. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chair Unsworth recused himself from participation in Public Hearing Items No. 2 and No. 3, citing his membership in the Newport Beach Country Club. Commissioner Myers recused himself from participation in Items No. 2 and No. 3, citing his economic interest in the Golf Realty Fund. They both left the dais and the Chamber for the remainder of the meeting. Page 1 of 12 105 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Vice Chair Toerge presided over the meeting and outlined the procedures for the consideration of Items No. 2 and No. 3. ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club — Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 E. Coast Highway ITEM NO. 3 Newport Beach Country Club — International Bay Clubs (PA2008 -152) 1600 E. Coast Highway A staff report was presented by Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner. A PowerPoint Presentation was displayed. Ms. Ung outlined the three (3) options recommended by staff. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing on Item No. 2. Robert O Hill, applicant, representing Golf Realty Fund, displayed a PowerPoint Presentation which detailed the history of the subject property. Vice Chair Toerge requested Commissioners announce any ex -parte communications with Mr. O Hill and /or the NBCC applicants. Commissioner Hillgren stated that he met with both applicants and toured both properties. Commissioner Ameri announced that he had toured the project sites and met with the NBCC representatives and the Marriott. Commissioner Hawkins announced he had toured the project sites and met with Mr. O Hill, the NBCC representatives, and spoke with a representative of the Marriott. Commissioner Kramer announced he had visited the site several times and met with the lessee (NBCC). Vice Chair Toerge announced that he had met with Mr. O Hill, Mr. Wooten and the NBCC team, and has had conversations with representatives of the Marriott. Commissioner Hillgren also noted that he had conversations with representatives of the Marriott. He disclosed that his family has a membership in the Balboa Bay Club, and based upon his discussions with the Assistant City Attorney, it was determined that there was no conflict of interest in his participation in Items No. 2 and 3. Mr. O Hill disclosed and distributed documents that he said show that the easement on the property has been terminated. He also noted that he is not in opposition of NBCC's proposed larger clubhouse; however, he is objecting to the proposed public use of the clubhouse, which is not consistent with the General Plan and will also create negative impacts for a private equity club use. Mr. O Hill stated that he does not object if the proposed larger clubhouse retains the same type of use and is in support of a condition of approval in this regard. Mr. O Hill also stated that none of the hotel units will be lock -off units, which would increase the number of units. Mr. O Hill stated that, in general, he is support of the proposed expanded PC text Page 2 of 12 100 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hawkins regarding ownership and lease agreements with the property and property owners, Mr. O Hill responded that Golf Realty Fund is the managing co- tenant or lease fee owner. He detailed various aspects of the lease agreement with NBCC. In response to further inquiries from Commissioner Hawkins related to written correspondence from the other property owners with vested interests in this property, Mr. O Hill disclosed that two of the tenants in common of the property have an alternative concept for the property, the group met in mediation and determined a price for buyout. In closing, he stated that a date is still to be set for the buyout. Commissioner Hawkins stated that the Commission had received written correspondence from the Marriott related to the transfer of property rights. Mr. O Hill explained his proposed "draw down" of units process. He was told that it was available to transfer units from the Marriott. Tim Paone, counsel for the applicant, noted that the General Plan states the rules on the transfer of development rights and that the Marriott is not claiming vested rights in the property. Commissioner Hawkins stated that if the development right was vested, then they are part of the development agreement. Mr. Paone stated that he has not seen any documents that state that the Marriott has a vesting right. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hawkins, Mr. O Hill noted that the easement is owned by the property owner, and that Golf Realty Fund pays a pro rata share to the Irvine Company for maintenance of the parking lot. He also detailed the revenue studies that were conducted as related to the bungalow hotel units. Mr. O Hill has not yet determined the specific hotel operator for the project; however, he has several viable parties interested in the hotel operations contract. Commissioner Kramer asked that Mr. O Hill substantiate how the hotel bungalows would generate $1 million dollars in Transient and Transfer Occupancy Tax, Mr. O Hill referred to a fiscal impact study that values these taxes at approximately $1 million dollars and added that there are other items that are included in the amount; however, the majority is made up by the Transient and Transfer Occupancy Tax. Commissioner Kramer requested to see the study in the future. As a result of a further inquiry from Commissioner Kramer regarding if a hotel operator had been identified, Mr. O Hill stated that his company has targeted and received inquiries from various hotel operators, but a final decision has not been made. Commissioner Kramer asked whether the architect had designed a golf clubhouse as of yet and Mr. O Hill responded that the architect had not but that he has designed hospitality suites. Commissioner Ameri asked Mr. Tim Paone if he agreed with his definition of the General Plan versus the Zoning Code as it related to the Marriott's vested right, Mr. Paone responded that the General Plan controls as related to the matter relative to the Marriott, and that the Zoning Code cannot be inconsistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Ameri expressed his understanding of how the General Plan prevails over interpretations of the Zoning Code. Page 3 of 12 107 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. O Hill to please identify his architect for the record. Mr. O Hill identified his architect as Leland Stearns, who was in attendance during the public hearing. Commissioner Hawkins spoke regarding the recreational impacts (tennis courts) of the proposed project, which he interprets as a loss of a community resource. Mr. O Hill stated that there are sufficient tennis courts for the members that are there now, and that they are building a larger clubhouse with updated amenities, which will be an improvement for the existing members. Commissioner Ameri inquired as to Mr. O Hill's objection to the larger clubhouse, and whether a condition of approval that would support his position would be acceptable. Mr. O Hill stated that he is not in objection of a larger clubhouse; however, he would be in support of a condition of approval for the larger size that would restrict the use to private, Club members only. Commissioner Hillgren disagreed with the private club being referred to, by Mr. O Hill, as an equity club, but added that it was immaterial to the discussion. Commissioner Hawkins inquired whether staff was in accordance with the ownership interests who filed the applications and the transfer of development rights. Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill stated that staff is confident that the applications were filed properly under the prior Zoning Code; however, a condition of approval will be included that all ownership interests must sign prior to moving to the building permit stage. Ms. Mulvihill noted that it is the City's position that Marriott is not a required signer to the transfer of development units. Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt noted that there is the ability within the Newport Center statistical area to transfer development intensities between different anomaly areas. If there is an unbuilt entitlement, which is vested, it would require the signature of the entity who retains the vested entitlement. Vice Chair Toerge explained the public testimony process and opened the public hearing. Paul Christ, resident, expressed that in the past there have been noise impacts related to the adjacent marriage lawn and banquet facility. He also stated concern regarding the reduction of the number of tennis courts and recommended fourteen (14) to twenty -one (21) courts. Addressing Mr. Christ, Commissioner Hawkins asked how many tennis courts would be ideal. Mr. Christ responded that he would prefer fourteen (14) tennis courts, however, no more than twenty -four (24). Elliot Feuerstein, owner and managing member of Mira Mesa Shopping Center West and Mesa Shopping Center East, who, along with Irving Chase, owns fifty (50 %) percent ownership of the Newport Beach Country Club and Tennis Club properties, noted that he supports the NBCC plans for the Country Club. He stated that he is not in favor of the Golf Realty Fund's plans and that he has not authorized them to submit plans for development on this property. Mr. Feuerstein commented that it is not the proper role of Golf Realty Fund to submit a competing plan on the property that NBCC rents from them for the next fifty -six (56) years. He expressed support for the access easement for Armstrong Nursery. He mentioned that he had spoken to Mr. O Hill regarding their opposition to the tennis club development and that Golf Realty Fund's plans are economically unfeasible. Page 4 of 12 m NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Feuerstein what his position was related to Mr. O Hill's easement. Mr. Feuerstein responded that he questioned the legality of the easement agreement entered between his father and Mr. O Hill. Irving Chase, manager of the Feuerstein Trust, strongly endorsed the NBCC plan for the new clubhouse and parking facility for the Country Club. He expressed concerns that the proposed project by Golf Realty Fund could not be built, even if approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and that the proposal is not financially feasible. In closing, Mr. Chase stated that they would be in favor of a residential project with public tennis courts, or some public -use element. Marisa Wayne, Tennis Club member, requested that the Commission not delay in having the members get new courts and clubhouse. Carol McDermott of Government Solutions, representing HHR Newport Beach LLC, which owns the Newport Beach Marriott Resort and Spa, spoke regarding the transfer of property rights between anomalies. They disagree with staffs opinion regarding the property rights on this property and believe that Marriott has a clear understanding that they retain the rights to the six hundred and eleven (611) units. Ms. McDermott suggested that the Community Development Director utilize her discretion to impose a condition requiring Golf Realty Fund to gain Marriott's sign -off and distributed documentation to this effect. She further requested that the condition be attached to the Tentative Map and that Marriott would like to find a solution to the removal of valuable property rights which have long been connected to the Marriott. Commissioner Hawkins asked Ms. McDermott if it was the Marriott's position that rights are vested. In response Ms. McDermott stated that Marriott, as a result of the original approval, had an assumption of vested rights even if not part of a development agreement. She stated that had they known there was going to be such a need, they would have filed a Development Agreement to protect their vested rights. In response to inquiries from Commissioner Hillgren, regarding the number of total units, the number of times for the approval process for the total number of units, how many units were built, if there was a renovation which removed the number of units, and if there were future plans to renovate in order to increase the number of units or change the plans, Ms. McDermott commented that the six hundred and eleven (611) units were approved over two (2) separate approval processes, and that currently, even with the 2004 remodel, all but seventy -nine (79) hotel rooms are constructed. She stated that Marriott does not have current plans to build out the seventy -nine (79) units. Commissioner Ameri asked if there was an assessment made regarding the need to build the six hundred and eleven (611) units, the maximum, thereby assuming that there would be control over the units or if the remaining unbuilt units would be floating. Ms. McDermott replied that at the time Host Marriott purchased the land from the Irvine Company they also purchased a number of units, of which Ms. McDermott could not recall. She continued that at the time of the renovation they then negotiated the purchase of the remaining number of units under the sales agreement to obtain the maximum number of six hundred and eleven (611) units. They had an entitlement for the six hundred and eleven (611) units; however, they did not have a development agreement. Commissioner Kramer requested that the Assistant City Attorney provide the City's position relative to the units in question. Page 5 of 12 log NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that staff disagreed that the six hundred and eleven (611) units, just by their inclusion in a Land Use table of the General Plan, creates a vested right in the owner of the property located within Anomaly 43 and that this has been discussed with Ms. McDermott. The 2004 remodel was not a substantial conformance finding; rather, it was a minor change. The units are available for those who are going to pursue development by way of a Development Agreement, and, until then, they are up for use in the Newport Center statistical area. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Kramer regarding if Marriott would be open to sharing a number of units, Ms. McDermott stated that Marriott is open to sharing the units since they are not being used and noted that there is no projected use. However, she commented on the value of the entitlements and Marriott's interest into entering into a compensatory agreement with Golf Realty Fund. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning on behalf of Newport Beach Country Club, stated her objection to Golf Realty Fund's plan for the golf course clubhouse, due to the long -term lease over the property. Ms. Schaffner expressed concern regarding the potential for the proposed bungalows to encroach over the lease -hold and suggested that staff require the bungalow position to be revised and the set -back be appropriate to avoid the lease -hold boundary. Commissioner Hawkins inquired as to the encroachment and Ms. Schaffner noted that the buildings do not encroach over the lease -hold property, rather, the landscape is what encroaches (pursuant to information provided by Mr. Doug Lee, architect for Newport Beach Country Club). Commissioner Hillgren requested a visual guide as to the property lines of the respective proposed projects. Seeing that there were no further speakers to provide public testimony, Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing on Item No. 2. Motion (Item No. 2) made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (5 — 0, 2 recusals) to table Item No. 2 to a later time in the meeting. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT (RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing on Item No. 3. David Wooten, CEO of the Newport Beach Country Club, provided a historical picture of the Country Club, its membership, tournaments, and reiterated that they will continue the current business plan. With the development of the clubhouse, they are looking to increase the tournament activity which will provide a valuable resource to the community. It is also home to the Corona del Mar High School Boys and Girls Golf Teams. The clubhouse is over fifty (50) years old, and needs refurbishment, and its small size does not fit the current business model. The ballroom is less that ten (10 %) percent of the proposed increase, and the biggest increase Page 6 of 12 170 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 is in the locker room and the kitchen. Mr. Wooten spoke regarding the steps for designing the clubhouse and would like to start right after the Toshiba Tournament in 2013, with the soonest start date being late March 2013, assuming they have obtained the necessary approvals from the City and the Coastal Commission. During construction, amenities will be available to existing members. Mr. Wooten stated that the Irvine Company has approved the project. Mr. Wooten stated that the banquet room seats approximately one hundred twenty (120) to one hundred thirty (130) guests and spoke regarding the larger number of people who need to be served dinner during the tournaments. Commissioner Hawkins asked for clarification regarding what the percent increase was attributed to. In response, Mr. Wooten stated that the increase of the square footage in the new facility, only seven (7 %) percent was due to the additional ballroom, and the additional "sit - down" restaurant is about the same size. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hillgren regarding the current level of seating throughout the clubhouse, Mr. Wooten responded that the clubhouse can accommodate approximately two hundred (200) guests and stated that the banquet facilities are open for rental by outside entities for over fifty (50) guests. He also stated that this is not an "equity' club, it as a "for- profit" business. Doug Lee, architect for the proposed development at the Newport Beach Country Club, presented a PowerPoint Presentation highlighting the details of the upgraded clubhouse. He spoke regarding the parking elements, ocean view opportunities, noise impacts, and stated that the existing property does not provide enough space for their current and future needs. Mr. Lee stated that the design of the porte - cochere was to create an impressive entry into a world -class development. He stated that he would be open to changing the proposed entry; however, he noted in his professional opinion that it was not a large structure. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, stated the comparison seating for other similar banquet facilities and that their proposed plan is only thirty (30) seats above the number of seats Mr. O Hill is proposing. Mr. Lee stated that there are guidelines for the slope on development projects and that they have been accommodated and met. He mentioned their concern regarding the visual impact of the parking lot and would prefer the sunken parking lot design. In closing, he stated that the pad level of the proposed project would be two (2) feet higher than the current level, and the second story would be fifteen (15) feet above that to achieve an ocean view. Commissioner Hillgren stated that the location of the porte- cochere adjacent to the proposed residential units was not a good planning concept and creates conflicts — particularly in the evenings. Further, the entry drive with three (3) small road segments is choppy and the number of entrances, three (3), to the club can be confusing and may not be optimal for members and guests. He suggested that the porte- cochere should be located at the end of a single drive and located more in the center of the building to facilitate circulation of both automobiles and pedestrians. Mr. Lee stated that most clubs do not want to mix the banquet facility with the member's entry; however, they would be open to reviewing the porte- cochere and make entrance to the development more direct. Page 7 of 12 i7i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Commissioner Hillgren expressed concern related to the Prairie design concept — specifically that it is a little known and non - distinctive style which is not in keeping with a world class location and does not appear consistent with any of the other notable properties along PCH. Commissioner Ameri stated that the frontage road, from the physical aspect, unless absolutely necessary for access to Armstrong Nursery, should be eliminated altogether. He expressed concern that access to the frontage road as it exists today is dangerous and that he would rather see a direct entry into the project. Mr. Lee stated that there would be no signs on the building; however, there is a placeholder on the corner of the property for a monument with low, understated signage. Shawna Schaffner CAA Planning, supported staffs recommendation to continue this matter to October and is in support of the alternative PC text that staff has developed with a few minor modifications. Mr. Wooten clarified that he is the President of the NBCC and has not provided any input or comment to Mr. O Hill, as Mr. O Hill had stated earlier in the public hearing. Given unanimous consent from the remaining members of the Commission to take a fifteen (15) minute break. The Commission recessed at 7:12 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 7:28 p.m. Tim Paone provided comments on NBCC's proposal. Golf Realty has no objections to the Monday tournaments, member and their guest's events, charity events, or the Toshiba tournaments. Their main concern is with the public use of the facility. In addition, Mr. Paone expressed concerns that the clubhouse was created independently from the Planned Community concept and that he would prefer a classic arrival entrance to a world -class resort. He expressed interest in working with NBCC, as their primary concern is the public use of the facility, not the size or the design. Mr. Paone expressed concern regarding the nine (9) weeks of import of fill materials. Commissioner Ameri stated that the final implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Code issue must be answered prior to entering into a final Development Agreement. Mr. Paone stated that they do not believe that public use is allowable under the lease and those issues should be sorted out privately. Dan Purcell, resident, stated his agreement with Mr. Paone, and that the alternate plan is likely driven by the desire for public events. Mr. O Hill stated that the elevation of the NBCC proposed clubhouse is two (2) feet above the existing clubhouse; however, because the land is sloping, in certain areas it is twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet higher than the existing clubhouse. Seeing no speakers to provide further public comment, Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Page 8 of 12 z72 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, stated that the General Plan allows for the golf course and clubhouse and requested staff to come to an understanding of this. She stated that the hedge can be reduced on the perimeter fence, so that views can go through to the parking lot. Landscaping can also be layered in this area, and if the frontage road is retained, the landscaping can be viewed from Coast Highway. In closing, she stated that all on -going events have been fully disclosed in the required CEQA documents, and that the import of fill materials will only take twenty -seven (27) days as stated in the development documents. Motion (Item No. 3) made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (5 — 0, 2 recusals) to table Item No. 3. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT (RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Vice Chair Toerge reopened the public hearing for Item No. 2, for the purpose of allowing rebuttal arguments. Mr. Paone stated for the record his concerns regarding the potential for staff to interpret the Ordinance that any entity with an interest in a piece of real property can object and stop it from being built. He stated this means that any partner in a business relationship can intervene, even where there is a document showing that they have granted the authority solely to another individual to represent the entity in obtaining permits and submit applications, and this would create a barrier to development in the City. Mr. Paone stated that a General Plan Amendment could accomplish what the Marriott is trying to achieve with the transfer of development rights sign -off process. In closing, he commented on the proper process for encroachments, and the requirement of the developer to adhere to the building permit requirements. Commissioner Hawkins expressed concerns related to the partnership issue and would object to a condition that would require signature or consent of all partners. He requested that Mr. Paone provide evidence that the owners have delegated that responsibility to a single owner. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hawkins stated that consideration of these projects was difficult, and expressed hope that within the sixty (60) days, all parties can return with a unified plan that addresses all concerns and does not have impact on the tennis court site. Commissioner Ameri expressed his concerns regarding the signage identity of the project; however, he was in agreement with Mr. Paone regarding the Planned Community Development. He stated his support for a unified entry from Coast Highway for the entire project, and recommended to NBCC to revisit the circulation and the aesthetics of the project from the perspective of Coast Highway. Commissioner Hillgren expressed support for developing world -class units. He expressed concern regarding the parking lot issue and suggested landscaping as a way to mitigate the view of the parking lots from the proposed units. In closing, he recommended reconciliation of the projects by potential relocation of certain development elements or limits to the hours of operation of certain features between the club community and the residential /hotel section. Page 9 of 12 1�3 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 Motion (Item No. 2) made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren and carried (5 — 0, 2 recusals) to continue this item to October 20, 2011. Vice Chair Toerge requested that Golf Realty Fund provide documentation regarding ownership and the authority to move forward on development at the proposed site. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT (RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Vice Chair Toerge reopened the public hearing on Item No. 3 Vice Chair Toerge requested clarification as to the ownership of the easement and to NBCC's objection in removing it. He suggested that NBCC consider reorienting the landscape and asked staff to clarify the rights of a use in this particular zone to conduct activities such as banquets that are open to the public. He inquired whether the rights would change if the Commission approves a new use. Vice Chair Toerge requested additional information as to the relative differences in heights of the projects and how the height of the proposed building compares to the existing structure. In closing, he stated that access to the entire development should be logical as related to the primary access points. Commissioner Hawkins requested additional information on the heights of the proposed project and expressed concerns regarding grading, the banquet room size, and that the NBCC applicant needs to apply further consideration in terms of standards in the banquet industry. He also stated that in regard to page four (4) of the parking study submitted for NBCC's project, there is no similarly sized parking plan in the City. Commissioner Hawkins requested clarification on the parking plan. Commissioner Kramer noted that NBCC has the right to build and is requiring a certain size for their facility. He stated that parking is not a concern due to the reciprocal agreements in place, and that the banquet room size is acceptable. He expressed concerns with the Prairie style and requested the addition of Craftsman -style elements to the design. Commissioner Kramer stated that the proposed fence may create an exclusivity to the project that may not be necessary, and that a hedge or landscaping could be used to mitigate this need for the project. He stated that the parking lot should be oriented in the direction of the guest's or resident's destination and that NBCC has the preferred design. Commissioner Kramer suggested the elimination of the easement. He stated that he has no issue with the building size, although he recommended that the porte- cochere should be redesigned because of the impact on the lessor's future development. In closing he noted that staff should provide resolution and clarification related to the use issues. Commissioner Hillgren stated his concerns /comments as follows: 1. Clarification is needed for the easement with and access to Armstrong's Nursery. 2. Verification of the managing partner regarding who has the authority to make decisions regarding the property. He further stated that the Commission is only opining on land use issues — not who might have the right to entitlements — including those which might be transferred or transferrable. 3. The parking plan proposed by IBC is preferred and should provide sufficient parking and the only time there may be a parking issue would be during evening events; however, adjacent properties may be open to parking agreements. Page 10 of 12 -174 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/04/2011 4. Commissioner Hillgren suggested it might be possible to remove of a few parking spaces in order to create more area to devote to landscape along Coast Highway if removal of the access easement to Armstrong's is not possible. The entry design and landscape need to be enhanced to be more consistent with adjacent properties including Newport Center project and recommended that a fence may not be necessary for this proposed project as this creates a barrier and the security is not necessary given the public nature of the use. 5. He encouraged the applicant to reconsider an architectural alternative to the Americana Prairie design. 6. In closing, Commissioner Hillgren stated that he would like the planning process to assist both projects and allow them to move forward efficiently, particularly so they are not constrained navigating through the Coastal Commission review process. He stated his hope that the applicants would use best efforts to maximize the opportunity at this site to create a world -class project. Community Development Director Brandt affirmed that staff has the appropriate direction to move forward in analyzing the concerns and comments raised during tonight's public hearings as related to Items No. 2 and 3. Vice Chair Toerge clarified that at the next Regular Commission meeting, the Commission will consider the creation of one PC text, and can approve one, both, or neither of the proposed plans. Community Development Director Brandt stated that the PC text would be applicable to both applications and would provide overarching standards for the subsequent site plan reviews. At that point in the process, the projects can take different paths. Motion (Item No. 3) made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins and carried (5 — 0, 2 recusals) to continue this item to October 20, 2011. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT (RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. NEW BUSINESS — None. COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 munity Development Director's report. Community Development Directo andt reported that t ity Council will review the Mariner's Pointe Project at their August 9, 2011, ular Me ' g. Staff noted that the Whitacre residence project will be reviewed at a City Council mee ' n September at the applicant's request. ITEM NO. 6 AnnounceTpat6 on matters that mission members would like placed on a futw6agenda for discussion, actin report. Community Deve ment Director Brandt stated that staff would retu at the next Regular CommissiortRrGeting with a report on 3002 Breakers Drive. NO. 7 Request for excused absences. Page 11 of 12 175 170 City Council Attachment 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 20, 2011 177 172 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 20, 2011 Agenda Item: 2 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002 • Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 • Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 • Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008 • Temporary Structures Use (Limited Term) Permit No. XP2011 -004 • Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -003 APPLICANT: Golf Realty Fund, Property Owner PLANNER: Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner (949)644 -3208 rung @newportbeachca.gov INTRODUCTION On August 4, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application submitted by the Golf Realty Fund to redevelop the existing golf course clubhouse and tennis club. During the hearing, the Commission expressed general acceptance of the project; however, many issues remained unresolved. The Commission directed staff and the applicant to address conflicting elements with the Newport Beach County Club (NBCC) application. Issues associated with the frontage road easement, hotel transfer request, loss of tennis courts, parking lot design for the proposed golf club site, golf clubhouse building height, and bungalow encroachment on the adjacent property were expressed during the hearing. The Planning Commission also directed staff to further refine the alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) and supported Site Development Review (SDR) process as proposed by staff in the alternative PCDC. The applicant has submitted plans for a SDR application (Attachment PC1) including a site cross - section as requested by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION 1. Conduct a public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending the following: a) Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Adoption of Planned Community Development Plan as proposed by staff, c) Approval of Tentative Vesting Tract Map, Transfer of Development Rights, Development Agreement, and Limited Term Permit, and Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 2 d) Approve Site Development Permit for the improvements to the Tennis Club portion of the project site only. 2. Continue the hearing to November 3, 2011, for the adoption of the resolution. DISCUSSION Staff met with both applicants on several occasions to address the issues raised at the prior meeting and conflicting site plans. Each applicant has their own desire for the architectural style and size of the golf clubhouse, parking layout, and overall landscape preferences. Because of these unresolved differences, a composite site plan as it relates to the clubhouse and parking lot is not possible. The applicant submitted a "white hole" site plan that exhibits a general outline of the location of a new clubhouse with the applicant's parking lot design in an attempt to demonstrate that this plan could accommodate a larger golf clubhouse. The "white hole" site plan was submitted for analytical purposes only and it is not proposed by the applicant. The "white hole" site plan remains the same for the Tennis Club portion of the project site (bungalows, villas, tennis courts, tennis clubhouse and associated access and parking). NBCC indicates that the larger clubhouse, and additional parking required cannot be accommodated within the applicant's proposed site plan. Staff agrees that the "white hole" site plan cannot accommodate the NBCC proposal without a significant redesign. Issues from the Prior Meeting 1. Frontage Access Easement Comment: Has the frontage access easement been terminated? The applicant submitted a copy of the Termination of Access Easement (Attachment PC2) showing the document terminates the access easement by the owners of the Armstrong fee interest and was properly executed and recorded ( "Frontage Road Termination "). The existing access easement is approximately 26.5 feet wide. Although the termination document attached describes the easement as being 25 feet wide, two title companies stand by their opinion that there is 1.5 feet remainder because it is clear in the body of the document itself that the access easement /frontage road easement was terminated. The applicant has contacted Fidelity National Title Company to seek removal of the easement from Fidelity National's Preliminary Title policy issued to the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. Elliot Feuerstein, co -owner of the Golf Club and Tennis Club sites and also land owner of the adjacent Armstrong Nursery property (beneficiary of the easement) disputes the 120 Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 3 termination and supports the frontage road easement remaining to serve the Armstrong Nursery property. The ongoing dispute over the existence of the easement is a private matter. The easement appears to be terminated; however, if the easement. and driveway is maintained, the applicant would need to redesign the parking lot and the extensive landscaping along Coast Highway. 2. Hotel Transfer Comment: Provide status of the hotel transfer and further interaction /communication with Marriott. The applicant has made arrangements to meet with representatives of HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host "), which owns the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel & Spa to discuss the hotel transfer request. No updates were given to staff by either the applicant or Host prior to the preparation of this report. Staff continues to believe that the requested transfer is consistent with the General Plan and can be approved if determined appropriate. 3. Loss of Tennis Courts Comment: The loss of tennis courts could be potentially a loss of recreational resources. The number of tennis courts proposed has been designed to meet the needs of the Tennis Club's current membership. The applicant consultant has advised that an appropriate "rule of thumb" is to provide one court for every 35 members. By providing a total of seven courts, the tennis club will be able to meet demand for up to 245 members. The current membership is 224 and will allow modest growth of the membership. As a private club, its courts are not generally available for the public to use. While the tennis club has allowed the Corona del Mar and Sage Hill tennis teams to use the facilities in the past, it was a temporary accommodation to allow the schools to complete work on their own courts. The reduced number of courts will reduce peak hour play and it will spread out play more evenly throughout the day. It is not anticipated that club members will choose other courts due to scheduling issues especially given the proposed renovations to the clubhouse and courts. Consequently, there is no expectation that there will be any impact on public recreational use at courts open to the public. Additionally, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the project site 'is located within an area that has adequate park and recreation facilities, due to this reason, there is no significant impact on recreational uses anticipated. The reduction in the number of courts should not impact public tennis playing opportunities, overburden the club, or place an increased demand on public facilities. 121 Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 4 4. Property Ownership Interests & authority for development Comment: Provide information as to the property ownership interests & authority for development on the golf club site. The applicant maintains that he is the managing owner of the Newport Beach Country Club property (both golf course and tennis club sites). The application has been appropriately filed in accordance with the City procedures and regulations. Whether or not the applicant can construct the project given the current ownership agreements and lease provisions remains a private matter. Please see the attached letter dated October 5, 2011, from Alan Kessel of Baker Hostletler (Attachment PC3). 5. Site plan and parking lot design Comment: The orientation of the parking lot The applicant's design provides parking spaces that are perpendicular to the clubhouse and Coast Highway and it would require users to walk between parked cars to access the clubhouse. The NBCC design provides parking spaces that are parallel to the clubhouse and Coast Highway. Both designs have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer for safe and efficient vehicle operation. Both designs meet City standards and they will adequately serve their respective clubhouse. Staff does not have a preference for either design but notes that the larger NBCC clubhouse cannot be accommodated within the site plan as proposed by the applicant without significant redesign. 6. Encroachment of Patios for the proposed Bungalows and Landscaping Into NBCC Lease -hold. Comment: The Golf Course leaseholder has a concern about the patios of the bungalows encroaching on their lease. The site plan proposed by the applicant has four (4) patios and landscaping that encroach on the Golf Course leasehold. The bungalows can be built with or without the four (4) extended patios and the revised new language in the site development review application is intended to allow for that possibility if an accommodation cannot be reached with the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. to allow the proposed encroachments. The encroachment of these patio features across the property line does not conflict with applicable building, subdivision, or zoning provisions. The proposed patios are important amenities to the bungalows and should the encroachment of the patios as proposed be infeasible due to the lease (a private matter), adequate area exists where they can be redesigned to eliminate the encroachment. 122 Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 5 7. Building height comparison Comment: Provide additional information as the relative differences in heights of the projects (proposed by the applicant and Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.) and how the height of the proposed buildings compares to the existing golf clubhouse. The applicant has provided cross sections (attached as Exhibit 11 of the Newport Beach Country Site Development Plan) showing the applicant's proposed golf clubhouse and the Newport Beach Country Club's at the north and west elevations. The chart below provides a comparison of building height: 'As measured from the lowest existing grade ' Width is measured parallel to East Coast Highway Alternative Planned Community Development Plan The attached alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) that contains necessary use and development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. The draft has not prescribed architectural theme. This PCDP has been further refined from the prior draft with input from both applicants (Attachment PC4). The development limit for the golf clubhouse can be modified depending upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Development Agreement The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a separate report. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Planning Commission provided comments to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to potential land use impacts of the two projects, the applicant's and the Newport Beach Country Club's (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts); the applicant's proposed planned community development plan; potential impacts of the loss of 17 tennis courts; and potential aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project. Response to these comments have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC5. Additionally, response to comments received from KLR Planning also have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC6. l es Existing NBCC, Inc. Golf Realty Fund Hei ht at Peak 22 feet 50 feet, 9 inches 53 feet, 6 inches Distance from Coast Hwy 344 feet 300 feet 424 feet Building Width' 262 feet 378 feet 265 feet 'As measured from the lowest existing grade ' Width is measured parallel to East Coast Highway Alternative Planned Community Development Plan The attached alternative Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) that contains necessary use and development regulations to accommodate the applicant's project with more flexible architectural guidelines to facilitate project implementation. The draft has not prescribed architectural theme. This PCDP has been further refined from the prior draft with input from both applicants (Attachment PC4). The development limit for the golf clubhouse can be modified depending upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Development Agreement The draft development agreement and a discussion of its contents are provided in a separate report. Mitigated Negative Declaration The Planning Commission provided comments to the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to potential land use impacts of the two projects, the applicant's and the Newport Beach Country Club's (i.e., interface and cumulative impacts); the applicant's proposed planned community development plan; potential impacts of the loss of 17 tennis courts; and potential aesthetic impacts of the elevations, perspectives, and cross sections for the project. Response to these comments have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC5. Additionally, response to comments received from KLR Planning also have been prepared and attached as Attachment PC6. l es Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 6 An Errata to the 1VIND (Attachment PC7) has been prepared to provide clarifications to the project and will not result either in the creation of any new impacts or more severe impacts than these identified and described in the MND. The analysis presented in the MND, therefore, remains adequate and recirculation of the document is not required. Alternatives The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. In association with staff's recommendation outlined above, approve Site Development Review as submitted by the applicant for both the Tennis Club and Golf Club. This option would preclude the NBCC Site Development Permit application. 2. Deny the project. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code due to the addition of Site Development Review application. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Correspondence Received Staff received a letter dated September 27, 2011, from Irving Chase and Elliot Feuerstein, co- owners of the Newport Beach Country Club properties requesting that the Golf Realty Fund application be continued to a later date so that unresolved issues between the owners can be resolved (Attachment PC8). Prepared by: Submitted by: CC1VL1Y h Ung, Associat PIa�ner Jim Campbell, Principal Planner 124 Golf Realty Fund October 20, 2011 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Site egrAQnt R4aR4w4I*e*hibits) PC 2 Termination of Access Easement !7�l±♦ -_ _ e _ - •_rte . p � : � _ • APii7l . ._ �ti7_t.�7_ . 2_ 4 • _ •_ _ tee•• -• •_uu e,-, _ • • • ■ • 2 _ • • • • rp miss; • • ■ 1 ■ 2_ ■_ • •� • F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 152 \PC Staff Report.docx TmpIC 11123/09 125 Termination of Access Easement 120 r RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: NBCC LAND One Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 Recorded in the County of Orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk /Recorder 21.00 19970630399 4:29pm 12/08/97 005 22033011 22 42 T01 6 6.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT THIS TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT is made as of November 30 , 1996, by ARNOLD D. FEUERSTEIN and ALLAN FAINBARG (collectively referred to as "Owners "), who are the fee owners of the property located at 1500 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property ") ARTICLE I RECITALS A. The Property is partially served for ingress and egress by a secondary access road which runs parallel and adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway and is located upon the adjacent Newport Beach County Club property (the "Secondary Access "). R. The Property's rights to use the Secondary Access is by way of that certain non - exclusive easement and right of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress set forth in that certain instrument entitled "Declaration of Access Easement" dated as of September 29, 1992 and recorded on October 1, 1992 as Instrument No. 92- 662452 in the Official Records of Orange County, California, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Declaration of Access Easement dated as of October 15, 1992 and recorded March 1, 1993 as Instrument No. 93- 0139175 in the Official Records, such easement being described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ( "the Existing Easement "). C. The City of Newport Beach has requested that the Existing Easement be abandoned because the Secondary Access creates a hazardous traffic condition at the entry to Newport Beach Country Club and contributes to an unsightly condition along Pacific Coast Highway, and Owners concur and are willing to comply with the City's request to abandon the Existing Easement. terminat.acc 127 D. Owners of the adjacent Newport Beach Country Club property intend to remove the Secondary Access through a portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property described in Exhibit "C" and replace it with landscaping along Pacific Coast Highway per Newport Beach Country Club Master Plan, Tentative Tract 15348, and a landscape plan approved by the City of Newport Beach. The result will be a significant aesthetic improvement along Pacific Coast Highway. ARTICLE II TERMINATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT Owners hereby terminate and relinquish their rights in the Existing Easement. 2. Owners' termination of the Existing Easement is conditioned on the City of Newport Beach not prohibiting ingress and egress to the Property primary and direct access from the existing two Pacific Coast Highway curb cuts in front of the Property which have been in use for many years. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument as of the date fast above written. .1 1%OWU„ G, �- Arnold D. Feuerstem uw,tl A an Fambarg temtinat.ace 122 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 13, 1996 , before me a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Allan Fainbarg, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument he, or the entity upon behalf of which he acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. y� Q� M. PRISCILLA HANVELT / �a �_•'•�, COMM. #1029404 1 � •• NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA T Notary Public in and for said County and State ORANGE COUNTY My Comm. Expires June 10, 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 13, 1996 , before me a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Arnold D. Feuerstein, personally known to me (or proved to me on the i basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument he, or the entity upon behalf of which he acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. �/ M. PRISCILLA HANVELT �•��a— of ry Public in and for said County and State a NOTE PUBLIC•CALIFOgONq ORANGE COUNTY 7J. atY Comm. Expires June 1Q,. 1998 a 1 temiinat.acc 1 eq DESCRIPTION TION OIF PROPERTY Lot 1 of Tract No. 11937, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 656, Pages 24 through 29, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, as corrected by that Tract or Parcel Map Certificate of Correction recorded February 5, 1991 as Instrument No. 91- 052940 of Official Records. Ilifnllx BIT "A" tenninatmc E ' NON- ENCLUSIVE EASENST FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PORYMUS AN RADMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURP032B OVER THE saUTHMWT2RLY 29.00 P213T OF PARCEL D OF PARCEL NAP NO. 79- 700, IN THE CITY OF NMMORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORAMR, STATE OF - CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A NAP RECORDED IN BOOR 86a, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL NAPS, IN THE OFPICE OF THE COUM RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. 9p _ lRaO•)E Y R Y N �0 . 9 1 0 2 7 /t a N48,7 A PE 109.62 247.43' X80 /V' ' � 04 -W AV fl-2000.07 07 � $ I 6 =2051' I h 2%00• MADE HON- EXCLUME EGRESS Nff roPURPOSES WD Jus Estff. MOWED TO THE CRY OF NEt9POHP 04' 9EAcH M TPAMC s• •'� PFt1 O.R..12890/160A ID F n IR Ealatln0 S1.0n Il q. MAM Boom Dam � T4 �g N4B02'39°E 114.71• �} 'All B% drill 80a2' a{{ 6 Mr coW A.3 N40'S2'3$°E 140AW 6m3�0.27' 6m- 53.01• If �llailllli; I I " li{ temAriat.ac0 9I- 0 s i. h , Oo m NEWPORT BLEACH COUNTRY CLUB (Portion containing Secondary Access) Parcel 3 and Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 152, Pages 17 through 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. EXIIBIIT "C" terminat.ace LEGAL (DESCRIPTION THE TENNIS CLUB Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102. 193 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE, GOLF CLUB Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County. t94 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE, GOLF CLUB PARKING LOT Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County. i �9 l 0 .➢ cw �+ _ YogP�.- .r.:tna AN BASENENT POR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES OVER THE SOUTHIMTERLY 25.00 FM OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL NAB• NO. 78m 704, IN THE CITY OF NMMORT BEACH, COUN'PY OF ORAW13, STATE OP CALIFORNIA, AS SHOM ON A. NAP RECORDED IN BOOR 152, PAGES 87 THE 20, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL NAPS, IN THB OFFICE OP TAB COMM RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, q g� N4o3a'19°e �I gy t R N 0, 79037 18132 327.42' a &FW33'W Rm2084.w Lm201311 2 a ea.oa qR , N4aaa3cre `��v� p�4a3s'1er Rmaaeo.oc Lo20.59' 0 0 84' q g� N4o3a'19°e �I gy t R N 0, 79037 18132 327.42' a &FW33'W Rm2084.w Lm201311 2 —17 X Existing sign ¢ mm Houm Imm (v&mm) EXTL9lflfDllT 6610199 EM Y tiE t) iX a ti. ® ESMY. RESUM TO YHE CiR' OF KwCWP BEACH MR YRAFM WGRAL OM PER 0A 1 P0P2am/lon D M tem» nat.acc �9 r�J 0 0 I 1 i t• a, n,• —17 X Existing sign ¢ mm Houm Imm (v&mm) EXTL9lflfDllT 6610199 EM Y tiE t) iX a ti. ® ESMY. RESUM TO YHE CiR' OF KwCWP BEACH MR YRAFM WGRAL OM PER 0A 1 P0P2am/lon D M tem» nat.acc �9 City Council Attachment 9 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated October 20, 2011 ?97 %° g NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club - Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) 1600 and 1602 East Coast Highway Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt reported the agenda item received more than one request for a continuance and noted that staff is recommending that the Commission allow staff and the applicant to provide an update on the item as necessary. In addition, she noted that it will be up to the Commission to consider receiving any public testimony in conjunction with either agenda items. Vice Chair Toerge stated that at the last hearing it was discussed that the items were going to be discussed as three (3) separate hearings to review the PC text first to see if each application would comply with the PC text and inquired as to whether the PC text was going to be done in the first application. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Community Development Director Brandt stated there is a brief PowerPoint presentation containing information on the PC text and clarifying the necessary steps the Planning Commission would need to take action on the applications being brought forward. Vice Chair Toerge agreed to move forward with the presentation. Commissioner Hawkins expressed his concerns whether moving forward with the presentation and approval to continue the item would automatically deny all requests received for the item. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Hawkins, Community Development Director Brandt reported that at this time the Commission can take action on the continuance or it can allow a presentation on both of the applications and then make a decision as to whether to continue the application. In addition, she stated that the Commission would have the option to continue the item without receiving public testimony and consider the item for another meeting or continue the item, receiving public testimony today. Vice Chair Toerge suggested receiving information today and consider the continuance at the time the applicant testifies. Commissioner Hawkins agreed to receive as much information as possible in order to move forward. Community Development Director Brandt provided a brief presentation providing an overview of the applications and the mechanics that are necessary for reviewing the applications. The City is reviewing two (2) applications for the same property and the Commission cannot recommend approval of both projects as submitted, to Council. She stated that, since the last meeting, both applicant teams have been extremely cooperative in meeting with staff to address many of the concerns that have been raised by the Planning Commission but, not all of the concerns and issues raised by the Planning Commission have been resolved. She addressed the structure for considering both applications. Regarding Item No. 2, Ms. Brandt reported the project site encompasses 145 acres and is composed of two (2) components; the Newport Beach Country Club Golf Club site and the Newport Beach Country Club Tennis Court site. She addressed multiple requests associated with the project application including environmental clearance for the application, conveyed through approval of a mitigated negative declaration. Legislative standards or zoning for the property must be established which will be accomplished with the adoption of a planned community development text. Once zoning standards are put into place, the Planning Commission can consider a site development plan or the land use permit for that property as well as other related applications including a tentative tract map, a transfer of development rights, and a use permit for temporary structures. The resulting development agreement will then provide a vested development right to the property owner for the term of that agreement. Ms. Brandt provided a summary of the project proposal. She reported the application results in the maintenance of the 18 -hole golf course, the construction of a new 35,000- square -foot golf club house and associated parking lot, the reconfiguration of the tennis court for a remainder of seven (7) tennis courts and one (1) stadium court, and 3,725- square -foot tennis club house and parking lot, five (5) single - family units (bungalows) and 27 hotel units with ancillary units. Page 2 of 16 i9-9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Regarding Item No. 3, Community Development Director Brandt stated it is the Newport Beach Country Club application which is a "sub -set" in terms of the project area. It encompasses 133 acres of the original 140 -acre site and includes the golf course, the golf club house, and parking lot. She noted the primary difference of the two (2) applications is related to the size and design of the proposed club house and parking lot. In terms of the legislative level, she reported 35,000 square feet is currently allowed by the General Plan and the project application includes an increase in the club house of 56,000 square feet. All of the remainder statistical information, as allowed by the legislative document would remain unchanged with the second application. She listed requirements needed to move forward with the application including environmental clearance, conveyed through a mitigated negative declaration, an amendment to the General Plan, for the larger club house, as well as an amendment to the PC text considered with the first application. Once the legislative standard is adopted, the action can be taken on the site development plan or the land use permit to allow the construction of the larger club house, new parking lot and the request for a temporary use permit. Similar to the first application, there is a development agreement being considered that would convey the vested development right for the term of the agreement. The maximum development potential for this application is limited to the 18 -hole golf course and the 56,000- square -foot club house. Ms. Brandt spoke on the inconsistencies in the site development plans related to the design of the club house and the parking lot and noted the two (2) items will require two (2) separate public hearings, and not three (3). Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification on the amendments needed to the PC text. Community Development Director Brandt reported the PC text works for both applications except for the limitation of the club house size. She noted the club house square footage is established by the General Plan (limited to 35,000 square feet) the first application does not require amending the General Plan. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, provided a brief status update on Item No. 2 addressing the mitigated negative declaration, public input and responses as well as analyses and results. Ms. Ung reported that there are no new impacts identified and the analysis presented in the mitigated negative declaration remains adequate and the recirculation of documents is not required. Regarding the alternative planned community for the development plan, she reported that staff is proposing could be utilized for either project with the exception of the development limit of the golf club house. Ms. Ung reported that staff further defined the draft plan presented to the Planning Commission at its August 4, 2011, meeting and incorporated further input from the applicants. She reported both applicants have had the opportunity to review the draft and provide comments to staff. The revised document has no prescribed architecture but identifies the zoning document that could be implemented by either project. The development limit for the golf club house currently in the alternative plan community development plan is 35,000 square feet. She reported the Commission expressed support for the site development review application as part of the alternative plan community development plan. She noted that the applicant had submitted an application to redevelop the existing golf and tennis club sites with detailed plans and addressed the existing frontage road easement, the status of the hotel transfer request, the loss of the tennis courts, the golf club site parking lot design, the golf club building height and encroachment on the adjacent property. Staff is still working with the applicant on the details of the development agreement; therefore, she recommended continuing the item to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawkins inquired as to whether staff would like to see the item listed on the next Commission meeting as a Public Hearing. Staff confirmed Commissioner Hawkins' inquiry in having the item continued to the next meeting as a public hearing. Vice Chair Toerge invited the applicant to address the Commission. Applicant Robert O Hill reported changes made to the NBCC Master Plan at the request of the IBC's architect. He reported there still has not been a comprehensive, agreed -upon IBC site compromise. He requested approval of the PC plan, as recommended by staff, the site development plan and that the Commission hold Page 3 of 16 200 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 both applications to the highest principals of good planning. Mr. O Hill reviewed the Master Plan and reported that in developing the plan, input was obtained from all of the stakeholders. He addressed the landscape buffer across Coast Highway, terracing of the parking lot and explained concessions made at the request of IBC's architect. In addition, he addressed a new access road to the greens- keeper area, increasing the size of the club house and stated opposition to the Prairie style of architecture and to a "club house disguised as a banquet facility," but stated desire for a compromise. Mr. O Hill described the benefits of the parking lot design and noted IBC's club house footprint works with the proposed parking lot. He presented a comparison of the existing and proposed club houses and addressed grading, and the inconveniences associated with prohibiting carts in the golf course parking lot. Mr. O Hill stated the architects agree that the signage, landscaping and lighting plan should be cohesive, coordinated and harmonious within the planned community. He presented the landscape, lighting, and signage plans. He reiterated concerns regarding the size of the club house, the banquet room, increased traffic and parking needs, and design. He stated the importance of the bungalows and requested the Commission act on and approve their project, first and requested any action regarding IBC be treated as an amendment to the PC. He indicated they do not want to be tied or delayed further by a 21,000- square -foot General Plan amendment to accommodate a public banquet facility. Commissioner Hillgren inquired as to the size of the proposed banquet facility and questioned how it would affect the bungalows. Applicant Robert O Hill provided clarification on the square footage of the proposed banquet facility and the difference between their plan and the other applicant's plan for the banquet facility use noting the latter includes other meeting rooms and pre- function areas and added that is not typical in a high -end, private club. He explained their plan has a lot of different entries to do a public banquet business in a private golf club. He did not object to the use of the banquet facility, but rather the frequency of its use He reported that the purpose in asking for a continuance is to have the opportunity for engineers and architects to meet with staff and show that the parking lot will work with IBC's club house. Vice Chair Toerge stated he did not think the Commission would be in a position to approve the item presently and that most likely, it would be continued. Vice Chair Toerge opened the public hearing. Paul Singarella of Latham & Watkins spoke on behalf of Host Hotels and Resorts, introduced Carol McDermott of Government Solutions as well as Bob Shob, Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development for Host Hotels and Resorts. Mr. Singarella thanked staff and the City Attorney's office for their help and provided a short PowerPoint presentation including background of his organization. He addressed traffic intensity, unfair unilateral transfer, alternatives to conditions, and progress made. He declared opposition to Item No. 2 due to prejudices. Michael Recupero spoke on behalf of half of the ownership of the property being discussed and stated how they were not included in the decisions made on their property. He stated the importance of obtaining the consent of his clients relative to any decision made on this property. He reported inability to see the development agreement affecting their property. Mr. Recupero reported that there is a long -term lease on the property that allows the tenants, with the owners' consent, to make improvements on the property and referenced upcoming arbitration. Commissioner Hillgren clarified Mr. Recupero's comments relative to his suggestions that, approval of the first application requires approval by his clients and that their approval is required for the Newport Beach Country Club as well. Mr. Recupero affirmed support for Item No. 2, with the frontage road, as proposed. Paul Christ requested and was provided with clarification regarding the property lines and location of the wedding lawn. Mr. Christ expressed his concerns regarding loud noise heard from the existing building on the property and expressed his opposition to the proposed location of the wedding lawn. He addressed the number of members Page 4 of 16 201 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 in the tennis club and felt the current membership would support a larger number of courts; suggesting 16 courts would be equitable. Commissioner Hawkins disclosed that he met with both applicants earlier in the week prior to the meeting and referenced a related conference call with Mr. Singarella and Ms. McDermott. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning reiterated comments from the Planning Commission meeting of August 4th, objecting to a club house and a parking lot on a property where there is a 56 -year lease, objecting to the placement of the bungalows which go over the lease -hold line. She referenced an upcoming formal presentation and spoke in opposition to Item No. 2. Nancy Vanderpool, member of the Country Club spoke in support of the hometown feel of the course and in opposition to Item No. 2. Commissioner Hawkins requested and was provided with clarification regarding the item currently being considered, affirming it as the Golf Realty proposal. Tim Paone, Land Use Counsel for Golf Realty Fund spoke in favor of Item No. 2, and addressed converting uses and disputes with partners; the latter of which he felt were inappropriately discussed by a previous public speaker. Mr. Paone emphasized the willingness to come up with mutually acceptable solutions. In response to an inquiry by the Commission, Mr. Paone affirmed support for the idea of looking for ways to convert tennis courts to bungalows as well as continuing the item. Applicant Robert O Hill provided a brief history of the partnership, described disputes and clarified allegations made by a prior public speaker. Mr. O Hill stated his proposal is not for a resort, but for an amenity for the club members and noted what happens on the golf club property affects the value of the tennis court property. He stated his belief that this is the best plan for all concerned. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Toerge requested and was provided with clarification regarding possible review and actions to be taken. Ms. Brandt added that the Commission does not have documents that would allow it to take action, but encouraged input and direction. Commissioner Hawkins inquired regarding Golf Realty's authority to make the application and whether the applicant was eligible to submit the application. In addition, Commissioner Hawkins inquired as to whether the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the application. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill responded to the inquiry and stated the applicant was eligible to submit the application and that the application was indeed reviewed by the attorney's office. Discussion followed regarding unresolved property line and boundary issues and adjustment in discrepancies regarding the maximum height of the golf club house (peak of the roof). Staff reported property line issues remain unresolved. Commissioner Hawkins commented on significant land use and aesthetic impacts, discrepancies between the plans but expressed concerns that there are no resolutions to those discrepancies. Staff noted they would look into the issues, and recommended to continue the item to November 3, 2011 Commissioner Hillgren inquired whether all the issues could be addressed by the next meeting. Page 5 of 16 202 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Staff noted that there is a substantial amount of information to be reviewed, and that there are two (2) applications, which are not compatible with the layout of the Golf Course and that more time may be needed to explore the options. Commissioner Kramer stated that he was in favor of the continuance but requested staff address the use convergence solution. Brief discussion followed regarding setting a date for continuance that would allow staff to address all of the issues. Motion made by Commissioner Ameri, seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (5 — 0) with two recusals (Myers and Unsworth) to continue the item to November 17, 2011. AYES: Amen, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. I :4;[@] M M-FAI Z 11l :1 x919] L 19 4 k1 1 Members of the Commission concurred to recess at 6:08 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 6:40 p all Members, except for Commissioner Myers and Chair Unsworth due to their recusals, present. NO.3 Newport Beach Country Club — Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (PA200 -152) 1600 East Coast Highway Rosalinh Associate Planner provided a status update, noting that since the August 4 Planning Commission meeting, staff s been working with the applicant to resolve some of the issues of ncern presented by the Commission inclu the mitigated negative declaration and responses to comme received from the Planning Commission and the neral public. Analysis concluded that the current info ation in the mitigated negative declaration remains adeq to and there were no changes to the docume Ms. Ung addressed the planned community development plan, nd reported that if the larger club house is eptable, the development limit would be modified from 35,000 square t to 56,000 square feet to accomm ate the development. She reported the Commission also expressed suppo or the site development rev' w application process included in the draft alternative development plan. Since the he applicant has sub ed the application to redevelop the existing golf club house and the parking lot. They also dressed than s to the Porte- cochere, increased the separation between the club house and the bungalows, a nced t entry driveway, improved views of the golf club from East Coast Highway and as part of the revision, e r ed preference to the site plan that includes the frontage road easement. Ms. Ung reported that staff is still w with the applicant on the development agreement and it is therefore, not available for consideration at this ' e. Ms. ng recommended continuing the item to November 3, 2011. Commissioner Ameri inquired regardingtKe appropriate date of Community Development Direct Brandt reported the date of continuan will be part of the Commission's determination in its action this ening. Vice Chair Toerge open the public hearing. David Wooten, C of the Newport Beach Country Club and applicant, spoke on his plans a thanked staff for their support consideration to review their application for the Club. He addressed improvemen to their plans and deferr to Shawna Schaffner for a report. fa Schaffner of CAA Planning provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing the changes made to' t- e in response to comments received from the Planning Commission at its August 4th meeting, including th Page 6 of 16 203 204 City Council Attachment 10 Planning Commission Staff Report, November 17, 2011 205 200 CITY 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 207 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 — Mitiaated Neaative 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 202 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. 209 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: 6Jsalinh Una, Ass o ate Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: James Campbell, Principal Planner F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 152 \PC Staff Report.docx 210 City Council Attachment 11 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 17, 2011 211 212 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, November 17, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. A.\ CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. B. -RLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Commissioner Hillgren Vice Chair oerge announced that Chairman Charles Unsworth resigned f m the Planning Commission. Chair Toerge recognized and appreciated Chair Unsworth's s ice to the Planning Commission. All Nimmissioners agreed. C. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toe e, and Kramer ABSENT (EXCUSED): \Administratiii Staff Present: dt, Community evelopment Director; Brenda Wisneski, unity Devel ment Director; James Campbell, Principal ie Mulvih' , Assistant City Attorney; Tony Brine, City r; Ros ' h Ung, Associate Planner; and Marlene Burns, si nt D. PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chair Toerge invite d comments Am those in a audience who wished to address the Commission on other than Agenda ite There was no res nse and the Public Comments portion of the meeting was closed. E. REQUEST FOR F. CONSENT ITEM NO. 1 ES — None. utes of November 3, 2011 Motion made by/Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren,Rnd carried (5 — 0) with Commis ;' ner Kramer, abstaining, to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, and Toerge NOES None. AB NT(RECUSED): None. AZ TAIN: Kramer G. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Commissioner Myers recused himself from hearing Items No. 2 and 3 due to an economic interest in Golf Realty Fund and departed the dais and the Chambers. Community Development Brandt reported this is the third public hearing on the Newport Beach Country Club applications, noting that this is an unusual circumstance in that there are two (2) applications Page 1 of 14 213 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 covering at least a portion of the property being reviewed. She provided an overview of both projects through a PowerPoint presentation noting that the first application, Item No. 2, encompasses the entire 145 -acre property and that the second application, Item No. 3, encompasses only the 133 -acre golf club portion of the property. She discussed the General Plan designations involved. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Ms. Brandt reported that because there are two (2) overlapping applications as they relate to the golf club house and parking lot, the Planning Commission will be unable to recommend approval of both applications to the City Council as they would be in conflict with one another. She added that the presence of a development agreement for both applications is not what would deem the inability of the Planning Commission to recommend approval of both applications, but rather the area related to the golf club house and the related parking lot. She added for the first application, that staff is recommending that the club house and related parking lot be "white holed" and that approvals go forward on the tennis club part of the property. Ms. Brandt reported that the Planning Commission has the option of filling in that "white hole" with the proposal requested with the second application, if so desired. Ms. Brandt further explained that the development agreements would apply to each applicant since the development agreement would relate to the first application would be limited to the 12 -acre tennis club property if the Commission takes staff's recommendation. The development agreement to the second application would be applicable to the larger 133 -acre golf club portion of the property and would not be in conflict with one another. Regarding the documents, Ms. Brandt reported that necessary adjustments would be made to the development agreements to reflect the entitlements once they are acted upon by the City Council. Commissioner Hawkins commented on the development agreement for Golf Realty noting there is almost 20,000 square feet that has no benefit fee attached to it and asked for clarification. Staff reported that the terms of the Golf Realty development agreement refer to the additional construction and related public benefit, once the hotel units are built, the City would be in a position to receive transient occupancy tax. There is no associated per square footage fee included as additional terms of the development agreement. That was a subject of negotiation between the City Council ad- hoc committee and the applicant. ITEM NO.2 Newport Beach Country Club (PA2005 -140) 1600 & 1602 East Coast Highway Principal Planner James Campbell presented details of the project and referenced the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration noting there are no significant impacts that could not be mitigated. He added there are several mitigation measures included in the packet and noted key areas of discussion including land use, traffic, aesthetics, recreational impacts and architectural style. Mr. Campbell stated staff recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Campbell reported the planned community development plan encompasses 145 acres, 133 -acre golf course, club house and ancillary maintenance facilities, 12 -acre tennis club, tennis club house and supports twenty -seven (27) hotel rooms, ancillary spa and meeting rooms, and five (5) single - family homes. He noted that the draft text, which staff has prepared, provides for use and development standards and is a fairly flexible document without any prescribed architectural themes. He referenced a draft document prepared by the applicant, which is extremely specific, but added that staff is recommending adoption of the text prepared by staff. He added that the specifics the applicant is seeking would be accounted for within the site development permit. Page 2 of 14 2-14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Mr. Campbell addressed transfer of development and referenced a letter by Host Hotels and Resorts indicating possible solution to eliminate the need to do a development intensity transfer relating to converting the eliminated tennis courts into hotel rooms. He noted that staff has found nothing in the records indicating that Host has a vested right to build those hotel rooms and staff does not believe that the elimination of the tennis courts and converting them to floor area to accommodate hotel units is inconsistent with the General Plan. He added that the General Plan provides a specific development intensity limit of 3,725 square feet for the project site and what Host suggests is taking an area and creating a building mass that was not intended. The General Plan does provide for transfer of development intensity and Mr. Campbell reported the applicant has applied for that consideration. The other alternative would be for a General Plan amendment. Commissioner Hillgren commented that it would be beneficial to all parties if it could be determined how the conversion of tennis courts to bungalow units might occur; thus eliminating taking rights that are not vested today from another site and vesting them on the property through the development agreement and tentative map. Mr. Campbell responded that if a transfer is approved, it would vest through the development agreement to the project site. He indicated that staff does not believe Marriott (Host Hotels and Resort) has a vested right and that the General Plan indicates 611 rooms as a maximum number of rooms. Commissioner Hillgren referenced the General Plan relative to the development intensity limit of 3,725 square feet, noting the assumption that there is an existing development in place, which happens to be tennis courts. He also referenced the analysis noting that from a traffic point of view, it is better to proceed with the proposed development than having the current use. He inquired as to contradictions of proceeding with the proposed. Community Development Director Brandt reported that the General Plan sets specific thresholds in the land use element when considering any type of development proposal. She reported that it is a multi - pronged test, not limited to only one criterion. Ms. Brandt reported that the criteria includes traffic generation, floor -area ratio for non - residential buildings specifying the maximum limit for a particular area, or land -use designation in order to help define intended use, bulk and scale. She added that floor -area ratio for non - residential development works in concert with trip budget in order to keep with the anticipated bulk and scale for an area but also not impacting the circulation system or the transportation element of the General Plan. There are instances where you can have land uses that do not have floor -area ratio assigned to them but have a corresponding trip budget. Ms. Brandt indicated that this is the case for the tennis courts. Ms. Brandt continued reporting that in the case of a conversion within the anomaly; a site - specific land -use designation, with the conversion proposal, Host asks to look at that anomaly only and to convert the use that generates trips but does not have floor -area ratio or building intensity assigned to it and convert that into a building. She explained that one of the intents of floor -area ratio is to help regulate bulk, scale, and massing. Continuing to respond to inquiries by Commissioner Hillgren, Ms. Brandt reported that the transfer of use can be accomplished within the context of what the General Plan has established. She noted that the specific anomaly area must be considered as well as the larger statistical area for Newport Center Fashion Island (1-1). The General Plan has established an over - arching trip budget for the entire statistical area as well as overall development potential comprised of residential and non- residential development potential. The General Plan, by policy, specifically allows the development potential and trip budget can be transferred throughout the statistical area providing that traffic impacts remain neutral, does not create a negative effect nor additional floor -area ratio or unit. In Page 3 of 14 215 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 the analysis of the bulk and scale for the area, staff does not find it inappropriate for the location, given the transfer allowance by the General Plan. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the conversion could be accomplished. Commissioner Hillgren expressed a belief that it might be consistent with the General Plan, while Vice Chair Toerge noted that the project could be done with a General Plan amendment, which is not, however, the subject of the present hearing. Vice Chair Toerge explained that Host is not the applicant, but rather Golf Realty is and they are choosing to pursue an avenue supported by staff. If the Planning Commission would desire, it could make the findings necessary to expand the floor -area ratio but, that would need to be accomplished through a General Plan amendment. Ms. Brandt noted that under Item No. 3 the applicant is requesting expansion of the club house for the anomaly area; therefore, a General Plan amendment has been filed. Commissioner Ameri inquired regarding the positives and negatives of the intensity conversion, noting the most important issue is traffic and by eliminating the tennis courts and replacing it with floor -area, there is no increase or decrease of traffic. He questioned if there would be a negative impact by adding floor -area. Mr. Campbell explained that the development intensity for entire statistical area could not be exceeded so if a use conversion were to be granted, then Marriott could build additional rooms at a future date and the statistical area would then be exceeded. With the proposed transfer, the entire statistical area would not be developed beyond what the General Plan would allow. Commissioner Ameri wondered if the Planning Commission has the authority to proceed with the intensity conversion without a General Plan amendment. Vice Chair Toerge noted that the avenue being proposed by Host is not the appropriate mechanism that the Planning Commission has the authority to engage in a General Plan amendment, should that application be submitted, but that currently it is not under consideration. Commissioner Kramer indicated that he would be in favor of a conversion because it would be the best route for the applicant, Host, and the City, because of the economic benefit. He questioned whether the only route to a solution would be a General Plan amendment and opined that the Commission has the discretion to make the conversion adding that care needs to be taken regarding limiting the scope of the Commission's authority. Commissioner Hawkins referenced the North Newport Center hearings wherein the Irvine Company transferred hotel rooms to an office building and that these hotel rooms were lost under the General Plan. He stated that the General Plan also encourages the development of hotel rooms and questioned the need for a General Plan amendment. He also indicated that both the tennis club and the country club are sites that are in need of "revitalization." Vice Chair Toerge expressed concerns with the interpretation and whether other locales within the City could later use it against the City. He proposed that if the Commission were to support a General Plan amendment, the applicant may be compelled to return with an appropriate application and the problem would be resolved accordingly. Mr. Campbell addressed a comparison site plan submitted by the applicant to illustrate that a larger club house, as proposed under Item No. 3, may theoretically work with the applicant's parking lot plan. He reported the draft development agreement has a ten (10) year term and conveys a vested Page 4 of 14 210 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 right to develop the components discussed and listed the public benefits contained within the document. He listed the recommendation as the adoption of a resolution recommending to the City Council the: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -008, with an Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005 -002, as proposed by staff, for the entire 145 - acre project site; Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the applicant; Approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, as proposed by the applicant, for the 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; Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and Approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge, Mr. Campbell reported the vesting tentative tract map is isolated to the 12 -acre parcel and does not include the entry driveway, the frontage road, the landscaping on Coast Highway, the parking lot, the design for the golf club nor the club house. He added that staffs recommendation is to address those items with the second application. Staff responded to an inquiry from Vice Chair Toerge regarding the determination of the public benefit fees, noting that it was the subject of negotiations between representatives from the City Council and the applicant and stated that offsets for the demolition is based on new construction and addressed how the funds are used. Commissioner Hawkins commented on the loss of seventeen (17) tennis courts. He disagreed with the environmental document claim that there is no impact and questioned if a public benefit would include the addition of tennis courts in public parks. In response to his inquiry, staff noted that the development agreement requires the payment of fees that could be used at the City Council's discretion. Vice Chair Toerge invited the applicant to provide a presentation Robert OHill, Manager Owner of the Newport Beach Country Club, expressed agreement with staffs revised planned community district text and most of the site development plan recommendations, but disagreed with the approval of the site development permit limiting it to just the twelve (12) acres. He provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the proposed entry way to the project, and reported the proposed project reduces traffic, brings substantial revenue to the City, preserves the tennis club, adds a new tennis club house as well as a stadium court, addresses the aesthetic issues along Coast Highway, and provides a landscape buffer to Irvine Terrace residents. He listed the reasons for the importance of the project. Mr. OHill opined that IBC's proposed club house parking lot; Item No. 3, does not work functionally and addressed the grade difference and the inability of golf carts getting to it. He stated that the application is slightly different than the original proposal noting an addition to the number of parking stalls in response to IBC's desire to have 334 parking stalls for their larger clubhouse, 34 more than the original proposal and 90 parking stalls more than what the parking study stated was needed. He addressed access to additional parking through a non - exclusive easement at Corporate Plaza West, the aesthetics of 700 feet along Coast Highway would be improved, and preserve the open space views along Coast Highway. He reported the building footprint approximately mirrors the existing club house but noted it is two stories high. Mr. OHill presented a comparison between the IBC proposal and his NBCC master plan developed long ago, the proposed application. He stated that their Item No. 3, proposed expansion of the club house would eliminate much of the open space views and he addressed the grade separation. He reported their effort to make sure the grading of the tennis club and the golf club sites balance and Page 5 of 14 217 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 took into consideration crushing the tennis court concrete and reusing it to avoid traffic congestion and dust from trucks during construction. Mr. OHill requested the site development plan approved as submitted but indicated understanding the concept of the "white hole" so that the IBC club house or master plan club house could be built in the future. He stressed his parking lot plan works with many of the elements requested and proposed by IBC. Commissioner Hawkins inquired whether the parking lot issue was the sole remaining area of controversy. Mr. OHill stated that their concerns involve the parking lot, the General Plan amendment and the architecture of the golf club house that IBC, Item No. 3, is proposing. He added his "white hole" concept is a compromise but he objects to approving the project with just the twelve (12) acres. He stated their preference would be for the Commission to approve the project with the entire land owned. Commissioner Hillgren inquired regarding the differences in the two (2) proposed parking lots and landscaping. Mr. OHill reported that his plan was not designed to hide cars, but to hide asphalt and create a more aesthetic parking lot. He also addressed fill issues and in response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry affirmed support of a General Plan amendment by Marriott. He referenced previous General Plan amendments and indicated that he would not like to go through another. Commissioner Hillgren noted that no Irvine Terrace residents have appeared before the Commission regarding the item. Mr. OHill reported spending a lot of time speaking with all the stake holders in an attempt to understand their needs but indicated that residents of Irvine Terrace have not been notified. Depending on the outcome, Mr. OHill stated they may need to be. Paul Singarella of Latham & Watkins spoke on behalf of Host Hotels and Resorts, stressed the importance of the hotel units and introduced his colleagues. He expressed appreciation for staff's help but stated disappointment with the fact that staff does not believe that the use conversion is consistent with the General Plan. He noted that reasonable minds can differ and stated that the law makes it clear that it is in the elected officials' and their designee's discretion to choose which interpretation of a General Plan to adopt. He opined that use conversion is a decision for the legislative body. Mr. Singarella reiterated stafrs position that if the use conversion approach is used rather than the transfer approach, the development potential of statistical area L1 would be exceeded. He asserted that staffs position is such due to an assumption about the tennis courts; however, in the staff report, staff acknowledges that the tennis courts are part of the development potential intensity for Anomaly 46. He agreed with staff in that categorization but disagreed over the implications of that fact. He stated that the only way a use conversion would exceed the overall development intensity of L1 is by giving zero development value to the tennis courts. He added that one cannot determine the tennis courts are part of the maximum development intensity while at the same time discount their value when it comes to use conversion. Mr. Singarella asserted that the City's use conversion law does not discriminate one non - residential use from another. He reported there is no limit on hotel units on the statistical area and questioned the assignment of zero development value to the tennis courts. Mr. Singarella stated the belief that the use conversion can be done without a General Plan amendment and addressed setting precedence. Regarding the latter, he indicated this is a decision Page 6 of 14 212 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 for the legislative body and therefore, there is no risk of setting precedence. He added that these are the only tennis courts in town with an assigned maximum development intensity which distinguishes them from any other in the City. He restated his request that the Commission find the use conversion approach to be consistent with the General Plan and recommend the same. Commissioner Hawkins commented that if in fact, the hotel units are vested to Host, the Commission has no discretion at this time. He stated if Golf Realty is to obtain hotel units, it could not be through a conversion, but rather through a transfer. Mike Recupero, Attorney representing half of the ownership of the subject property, referenced comments submitted in writing and reported that his clients do not agree with the development agreement and have not had an opportunity to participate in discussions on the subject. Regarding the planned community text, he inquired about the possibility of amending it at a later time at staffs discretion based on a pending legal hearing that will decide the relative rights of the ownership. He requested the Commission remove the sections relating to the golf course in its entirety. Commissioner Hawkins reported speaking with Host and Mr. Recupero regarding the frontage access easement and referenced a termination of access and grant deeds given to both of his clients. However, he stated the grant deeds listed in the attachment to Mr. Recupero's letter to the Commission occurred before the termination which could affect those. Mr. Recupero felt the termination is specific to the documents that it affects. He agreed it could affect them if it is so interpreted, but he stated that is not how it was written. He agreed there is a title issue. But, he pointed out that the state of the record and what is recorded are separate easements that by the plain language of the termination are not affected by it. Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, indicated the comparison plan submitted by Golf Realty does not work for NBCC, applicant for Item No. 3. Mainly, she stated it is due to operational reasons. The NBCC golf club house and parking lot is a coordinated and integrated plan. She reiterated previous comments noting objection to a club house on a property with a long -term lease, the location of the bungalows and the hardscape improvements over the lease hold land. Tim Paone, on behalf of Golf Realty, addressed the Commission noting the desire for the use conversion to work. Regarding previous comments made by Mr. Singarella relative to interpretation of the General Plan, he stated that there is discretion, but it must be exercised consistently and cannot be directly contrary to what the General Plan specifies. He expressed concern with issues relative to the removal of the tennis courts, new hotel units and trips generated. He indicated that there is no record that the Marriott units are vested and felt the most important word in the process is appurtenant (runs with the land), not personal to the person who has it. He stated easement rights went with the property. Vice Chair Toerge closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Brandt responded to Mr. Recupero's suggestion noting that if the Planning Commission were to proceed with the planned community text or zoning regulations for Golf Realty, that a provision be added to the zoning text that would allow an amendment to be implemented by the Community Development Director or staff. She noted the zoning code is legislative and can only be amended by the City Council. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the encroachment of patios over the parcel lines Vice Chair Toerge re- opened the public hearing. Page 7 of 14 2�9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Mr. OHill responded noting his architect chose to create a bubble in spots. He reported the project can be built with or without the patio encroaching into the lease hold interest. In addition, he reported the proposed entry way does not follow the existing entry way and eliminates one of the bungalows. Vice Chair Toerge again closed the public hearing. He commented on the complexity of the issues and expressed disappointment at the applicants' inability to come to mutually acceptable agreements. Commissioner Ameri expressed disappointment at the lack of progress being made. Commissioner Hillgren felt that there was a possibility of a conversion and referenced the General Plan Land Use Element (3 -18 and 3 -19) which lists all of the various anomaly locations, land use designations, development limits and types of developments. Relative to Anomaly 43, it has no designated square footage. Therefore, density cannot be determined. Regarding Anomaly 46, it exceeds 3725 square feet as well as a significant amount with the proposed bungalows, which is being determined to be acceptable because traffic is well below existing. Ms. Brandt reported that with various anomalies within statistical area L1, the General Plan allows transferring to occur within the anomalies areas and conversion of non - residential through other non- residential and specific square footages for hotel rooms when not assigned. Commissioner Hillgren noted it also lists twenty -four (24) tennis courts as specific development types, which have an associated intensity. He felt that if it is deemed a development type then it can be converted to another non - residential commercial use. Ms. Brandt responded stating that there are many types of uses that generate trips that do not have square footages assigned to them. They have value, even without having a primary structure associated with it. She addressed various types of uses and noted they each have a value in and of themselves. Ensuing discussion pertained to listed uses, possible development activities within the spaces, entitlements, and the ability to convert. Vice Chair Toerge stated the Commission has been asked to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prior to reviewing any other entitlements. He directed Members to focus on the MIND. Commissioner Hawkins referenced the staffs response to Planning Commission comments. The conclusion is that there are no land use impacts yet, within the discussion of the parking lot design, compatibility of the architectural style, the size and locations of the golf club house, those impacts still remain. He wondered if the response is appropriate. Relative to the elimination of the tennis courts, he noted that the staff's response that they are not community resources but rather membership resources and the seven (7) tennis courts that remain will serve for the tennis club members. He disagreed with the approach and stated he regards the twenty -four (24) courts as a recreational resource for the community. He recommended the Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to be revised, and that there be a mitigation measure proposed which would replace or reconstruct seventeen (17) tennis courts on City -owned property and that same is inserted into the development agreement. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Ameri, to deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 8 of 14 220 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Substitute Motion made by Vice Chair Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, and carried (3 — 2) with one recusal (Myers) finding the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be adequate and recommend it for its approval. AYES: Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: Ameri and Hawkins ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers ABSTAIN: None. Motion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Amed to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2005- 002, as proposed by staff, for the entire 145 -acre project site; without the Transfer of Development Rights No. TD2010 -003 as proposed by the applicant; but, a Use Conversion of Tennis Courts to Hotel Rooms with the General Plan policies of encouraging hotel units; approval of Site Development Permit No. SD2011 -002 and Limited Term Permit No. XP2011 -004, for the 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; approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. NT2005 -003 as proposed by the applicant; and approval of Development Agreement No. DA2008 -001. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry regarding the patio encroachment and how that would be resolved, Ms. Brandt stated that it is a minor issue and that it could be resolved through the plan check process. Ms. Brandt suggested a recess to allow staff some time to modify the findings within the draft resolution to reflect the proposed motion. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:15 p.m. The assembly recessed and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Commissioner Hawkins corrected his earlier comments regarding the response to comments on the land use impacts, loss of tennis courts, etc. stating that he was referencing the present staff report of November 17, 2011, rather than the October 20, 2011 staff report. Ms. Brandt proposed modifications for the Commission to consider in regards to the motion. She referenced handwritten page 10 of the Staff Report subparagraph D and proposed it would read as follows, "In order to accommodate the development of the proposed 27 -hotel unit development 'bungalows,' the seventeen (17) tennis courts shall be converted to 27 hotel units. The General Plan provides for additional retail opportunities at Fashion Island and hotel rooms and housing units in Newport Center. The proposed conversion does not require a General Plan amendment." On handwritten page 11, Ms. Brandt proposed the deletion of paragraph 2 (Transfer of Development Intensity), finding (A) and facts in support of finding (A -1). In addition, the deletion of handwritten page 12, finding (B) and facts in support of finding (B -1 and B -2). She noted no additional changes to the Resolution. Commissioner Hawkins suggested changes including handwritten page 10, adding "the proposed conversion revitalizes an area wherein the General Plan encourages to have hotel rooms." Relative to page 12, finding (B), Commissioner Hawkins wanted to add "the conversion will not result in any adverse traffic impacts." He referenced Exhibit 4 of the staff report relative to traffic impacts of hotel units as opposed to tennis courts and suggested the addition of B -1 classifying the conversion as traffic neutral. He felt B -2 could remain. Page 9 of 14 221 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/17/2011 Discussion followed regarding maintaining B -1 and B -2 as they presently read. The maker of the motion, Commissioner Hawkins, and Commissioner Ameri agreed to the amendments and the motion carried (5 - 0) with one recusal (Myers). AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Kramer, and Toerge NOES: None. ABSENT(RECUSED): Myers ABSTAIN: None. NO.3 Newport Beach Country Club (PA2008 -152) 1600 East Coast Highway Principa lanner Campbell presented details of the proposed project addressing th project site, including larger club house associated with a General Plan amendment X increase the development Ilocation from 35,000 square feet to 56,000 square feet in Anog6ly 74, a planned community dev opment plan amendment, a prepared Mitigated Negative Decl tion that principally addressed land u ,traffic and aesthetics and he stated staff recommend ons for approval. He referenced an altern ive site plan providing for m/including access easeme area across the front of the property which mai ains exit -only driveway accroposed 15 fe of driveway with 18 feet of landscaping along Coas Highway that would hi proposed f ce, and parking lot. Staff expressed concern about width of the drivewcated then preference for it to be 20 feet wide. He noted this is the app' ant's preferred plan g it avoi circulation issues and it provides additional flexibility for special a nts. Mr. Campbeesse onditions of approval relative to the frontage road. He specified Co ition No. 7 reg t design of the parking lot providing flexibility to address the issue at a ter time. Tl Ilow the flexibility to address the issue administratively before the issuance o a building it. He highlighted the terms of the draft development agreement and stated sta ecommons including approval of a General Plan amendment. Vice Chair Toerge confirmed that approval die MND is included in the resolution which is presented. Commissioner Hawkins expressed co erns about th \canb access road and the negative declaration. Commissioner Ameri reported t legally, the easemenre but it ha s been eliminated in the design. David Wooten, NewpoX Beach Country Club, Incorporated, dicated support of staff recommendations and ferenced refinements to the plan based on conVents from staff and the Planning Commissio . He deferred to CAA Planning staff Shawna Schaffne or a presentation. Shawna Schaff r of CAA Planning, reviewed some of the changes made inclu ' g widening of the entry drivewa , the re- orientation of the porte- cochere, the perimeter fencing re des and reduction in height, t reduction of the signage, the lowering of the pad elevations and th reduction of grading, a increase in setback to the parking lot landscape. She reported that the I e Terrace entry d e was widened and that significant landscaping was added. She noted that the ount of heav truck traffic was reduced from twenty -seven (27) days to twenty -one (21) days for the ading op ration. She stated that the frontage road and placement of the perimeter face were both i ues Warranting a closer look following the straw vote at the October 20, 2011, Planning CommissNn meeting. Ms. Schaffner noted that they have submitted two (2) plans, one with the frontage roa Page 10 of 14 222 City Council Attachment 12 Newport Beach Country Club PCDP & SDR (Applicant's Proposal) 223 224 ,EOEIVED 9Y OOMMUNITY oc7 U 6 2011 O� DEVELOPMENT Pvs Y OF NEWPORT 0 Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Plan Revised October 5, 2011 22,5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose .............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.2 Location ............................................................................. ............................... 1 1.3 Relationship to Existing Uses ............................................ ............................... 1 1.4 Relationship to Newport Beach Municipal Code, General Plan, Zoning Code and CoastalLand Use Plan ....................................................... ............................... 2 a) Zoning Code and General Plan .................................... ............................... 2 b) Relationship to Coastal Land Use Plan ........................ ............................... 2 2.0 Permitted Uses ............................................................................... ............................... 2 2.1 The Tennis Club ................................................................ ............................... 2 2.2 The Villas ........................................................................... ............................... 3 2.3 The Bungalows .................................................................. ............................... 3 2.4 The Golf Club .................................................................... ............................... 3 3.0 Development Standards ................................................................. ............................... 4 3.1 Tennis Clubhouse .............................................................. ............................... 4 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 4 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 4 c) Parking Requirements ....................................................... I......................... 4 d) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 4 3.2 The Villas ........................................................................... ............................... 5 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 5 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 6 c) Exterior Walls .............................................................. ............................... 6 d) Architectural Features .................................................. ............................... 6 e) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 6 f) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 6 3.3 The Bungalows .................................................................. ............................... 6 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 6 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 7 c) Setback Requirements .................................................. ............................... 7 d) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 7 e) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 7 3.4 Golf Clubhouse .................................................................. ............................... 7 a) Building Square Footage .............................................. ............................... 7 b) Building Height ............................................................ ............................... 8 c) Parking Requirements .................................................. ............................... 8 d) Screening ..................................................................... ............................... 8 3.5 Architectural Style ............................................................. ............................... 8 3.6 Building Materials ............................................................. ............................... 8 a) Roof ............................................................................. ............................... 8 220 b) Windows and Main Entry Doors ................................. ............................... 8 227 c) Plaster .......................................................................... ............................... 9 d) Stone Veneer Walls ..................................................... ............................... 9 3.7 Landscaping ....................................................................... ............................... 9 3.8 Overall Parking and Circulation ........................................ ............................... 9 3.9 Electrical Lighting Fixtures ............................................... ............................... 10 3.10 Sign Regulations ............................................................... ............................... 10 a) Permitted Signs ............................................................ ............................... 10 b) Sign Restrictions .......................................................... ............................... 11 c) Sign Maintenance ........................................................ ............................... 11 3.11 Curb and Gutter — Fire Hydrants ....................................... ............................... 11 3.12 Parking Lot Striping ........................................................... ............................... 11 3.13 Drainage & Water Quality ................................................. ............................... 12 3.14 Grading .............................................................................. ............................... 12 4.0 General Conditions and Regulations ............................................. ............................... 12 4.1 Interpretation and Conflict with Code ............................... ............................... 12 4.2 Mechanical Equipment Enclosures — Noise Attenuation .. ............................... 12 4.3 Maintenance of Private /Common Areas ............................ ............................... 12 227 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Name Exhibit Number MasterPlan .......................................................................................... ............................... 1 Tennis Clubhouse & Bungalow Spa — Elevations & Floor Plans (4 pages) ....................... 2 LandscapePlan .................................................................................... ............................... 3 Golf Clubhouse — Elevations & Floor Plans (4 pages) ........................ ............................... 4 The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan (6 pages) ...................... 5 The Bungalows — Elevations & Floor Plans (1 1 pages) ...................... ............................... 6 ExistingUses Aerial Map .................................................................... ............................... 7 Parking & Circulation Plan .................................................................. ............................... 8 Electrical — Master Plan Lighting and Fixture Types & Section (2 pages) ......................... 9 SignPlan .............................................................................................. ............................... 10 Golf Clubhouse Goss Sections ........................................................... ............................... 1 I LIST OF TABLES Table Name Table1 — Land Uses Acreage ............................................... ............................... "Cable 2 — The Villas Development Standards ...................... ............................... Table3 — Overall Parking ..................................................... ............................... �G��VED By Cj PGOMMDNI.t,I �p11 r DgVE4OPM�N��� C�yOF NeftPO�� Page 2 5 ........1 10 222 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the Newport Beach Country Club Site Development Plan (SDP) is to provide a greater level of detail to ensure the coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning required in Section 20.35.010 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Districts (PCD). 1.2 Location The SDP is located within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District (NBCC PCD) in the City of Newport Beach in the County of Orange, in the State of California. The SDP is 145± acres generally bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Jamboree Road to the west, Santa Barbara Avenue and Newport Center to the north, and Granville Drive and Corporate Plaza Drive to the east as detailed on the map below. q �� a° o �N ' 1 � —SAN 4[MENI[I d 4� EYi j( w.�0 Q 9 /j1 /JVV 4 � �� Obi viii. p , n � (9 l 4Op A _ l fl t sor ^ ?11 COAST Pty L \ \\ i[ BON11 E 6 > E �� �'E III pi �'I ////0`/ _ �� oue1Be BAYSIOF pB pH•�l `'�` P4 V44 SRO .� R L J$ iii AT FRONT /per ' <•� / � � 9O' ti'bVo�� `r e SDP Boundary 1.3 Relationship to Existing Uses The SDP has approximately 700 linear feet of frontage along Pacific Coast Highway and is in proximity to several residential communities including Irvine Terrace and Granville. See Exhibit 7 "Existing Uses Aerial Map." -1- 2�9 1.4 Relationship to Newport Beach Municipal Code, General Plan, Zoning Code and Coastal Land Use Plan a) Zoning Code and General Plan The NBCC PCD zoning designation was adopted in 1992 by Ordinance Number 91 -47. The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the Tennis Club, Villas and Bungalows Sub -Areas as Mixed Use — Horizontal 3/PR which, among other uses, allows for condominium and single- family residential uses, hotel with auxiliary commercial uses, and private recreation uses (tennis club). The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Golf Club Sub - Area as Park and Recreation which allows for the golf course and accessory uses. This SDP is consistent with the NBCC PCD and City's General Plan land use designations. General Plan Anomaly 46 comprises the private tennis club, 27 hotel bungalows with auxiliary uses and 5 semi - custom residences, and Anomaly 74 of the General Plan comprises the private golf club. b) Relationship to Coastal Land Use Plan The SDP is located within the Coastal Zone and development shall be in compliance with a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. 2.0 PERMITTED USES SDP is comprised of the private tennis club (The Tennis Club Sub - Area), 27 short -term stay hotel bungalows with auxiliary uses (The Bungalows Sub - Area), 5 semi- custom single - family residences (The Villas Sub - Area), and the private golf club (The Golf Club Sub - Area). The Sub -Areas are shown on Exhibit I "Master Plan." The following Table gives acreages for each of the SDP Sub - Areas. Table 1— Land Uses Acreaee SDP Sub -Areas Approximate Acres The Tennis Club Sub -Area 4.62 The Villas Sub -Area 1.25 The Bungalows Sub -Area 3.44 The Golf Club Sub Area 133.01 2.1 The Tennis Club The Tennis Club Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans ": a) 7 lighted championship tennis courts including a lighted Stadium Court b) Tennis Clubhouse -2- 230 2.2 The Villas The Villas Sub -Area shall have the following permitted use substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan ": a) 5 Single - Family Detached Homes 2.3 The Bungalows The Bungalows Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan," Exhibit 2 `Bungalow Spa" and Exhibit 6 "The Bungalows ": a) 27 Short -Term Stay Hotel Units b) Concierge Office and Guest Center C) Swimming Pool and Jacuzzi d) Spa (serving health drinks, health snacks, light breakfast and lunch items) and Fitness Center 2.4 The Golf Club The Golf Club Sub -Area shall have the following permitted uses substantially consistent with Exhibit 1 "Master Plan" and Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse ": a) Golf Course and Practice Facilities b) Golf Clubhouse C) Restaurants (Dining Room and Grill) d) Bar (19th Hole) e) Private Banquet Room and Meeting Rooms f) Pro Shop g) Locker Facilities h) Golf Cart Storage (Below Grade) i) Golf Snack Stand j) Private Hand Car Wash (Designated Area) k) Golf Course Maintenance Facility (Greenskeeper) 1) 2 On- Course Restroom Facilities -3- 231 3.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The SDP Development Standards ensure the harmony and continuity of design parameters that are respectful to the property's California coastal heritage and the property's prominent location within the Newport Center Planning Area. The below development standards have been established to achieve overall SDP continuity and quality for land planning, building mass, scale, architectural design and details, building materials, landscaping, handscaping, and lighting. Additional purposes of the design standards are as follows: a) To provide the City with the necessary assurance that the SDP shall be developed in accordance with the design continuity, quality and character in the SDP. b) To provide guidance to tenants, design professionals and builders in order to maintain the desired design character and appearance. c) To provide guidance to City staff, Planning Commission and City Council in the review of future development plans in the SDP. 3.1 Tennis Clubhouse The following development standards shall apply to the Tennis Clubhouse: a) Building Square Footage The maximum size of the Tennis Clubhouse is 3,725 square feet.' See Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans." b) Building Height The maximum building height for the Tennis Clubhouse is 31 feet (See Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans ") and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. C) Parking Requirements A minimum of 4 parking spaces per tennis court. d) Screening i) Roof Equipment — All mechanical roof equipment (except roof vents) shall be designed and screened with compatible building materials. I All square footage stated under "Development Standards" is gross square footage. M 2S2 ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building. The trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. iii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum five -foot block wall, plastered to match the building. iv) Tennis Courts — The Villas shall be screened from the tennis courts by a minimum five -foot block wall, plastered to match the adjacent Villa or by a ten - foot chain link fence covered by a windscreen. The exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive and facing The Tennis Club parking lot shall be screened by a ten -foot high tennis court chain link fence covered by a windscreen. 3.2 The Villas The following development standards shall apply to The Villas Areas: Table 2 - The Villas Development Standards Villa Designation Villa A TTM Lot #1 Villa B TTM Lot #2 Villa C TTM Lot #3 Villa D TTM Lot #4 Villa E 1 TTM Lot #5 Lot Depth (Min) See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Dimensioned Site Plan" Lot Size 5,295 sf 5,857 sf 9,283 sf 17,151 sf 8,686 sf Side Setback to Nearest Villa See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Dimensioned Site Plan" Roof Area (eaves but not trellis) Lot Coverage (including eaves) (Max) 67% 63% 54% 35% 54% Building Height (Maximum above Existing Grade) 24' 32' 36' 40' 26' Parking Spaces (Enclosed Required) 2 2 3 3 2 Electric Cart Parking (Enclosed) 0 1 1 1 0 Uncovered Off - Street Parking (Minimum Required) 1 1 2 2 2 a) Building Square Footage The maximum square footage of each of the single - family homes including any guesthouses shall not exceed by more than 1% the square footage for each of The Villas shown on Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan." -5- 233 b) Building Height The maximum building heights for The Villas are shown on "Table 2 — The Villas Development Standards" in Section 3.2 and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of roof. Chimneys, as depicted on Exhibit 5, pages f through 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan," may extend beyond the maximum peak roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Exterior Walls i) Walls surrounding courtyards within The Villas (shown on Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan ") are allowed up to a maximum of 6 feet high in any setback except in areas directly facing the golf course. ii) Terrace walls directly facing/adjacent to the golf course are allowed up to a maximum of 3 feet high from finished floor grade of the front of each Villas facing the golf course. d) Architectural Features Architectural features such as, but not limited to, roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, and wingwalls may extend a maximum of 3 feet into any street, side or tract boundary setback, but may not extend past any property line. e) Parking Requirements Parking requirements for The Villas shall be consistent with "Parking Spaces (Enclosed Required)' and "Uncovered Off - Street Parking (Minimum Required)" shown on "Table 2 — The Villas Development Standards" f) Screening i) Roof Equipment 7ipment — There shall be no mechanical roof equipment allowed, except for roof vents which shall be copper material. ii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum four -foot high block wall, plastered to match the building. 3.3 The Bungalows a) Building Square Footage The Bungalows is comprised of 27 bungalow hotel units totaling a maximum of 28,300 square feet and maximum 2,200 square foot Concierge & Guest Center, all shown by the Floor Plans M 234 on Exhibit 6, pages 1 through 11. The Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of The Bungalows, a maximum of 7,500 square feet, as shown on Exhibit 2. Therefore, the total Bungalows Sub -Area building square footage is a maximum of 38,000 square feet. b) Building Height The maximum building height of The Bungalows shall be 32 feet and shall be measured from the existing grade to the peak of roof. Chimneys, as depicted on Exhibit 6, page 11 of I 1 "The Bungalows — Elevations and Floor Plans," may extend beyond the maximum peak roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Setback Requirements The setback requirement shall be a minimum of 5 feet from property line. See Exhibit 5 "The Villas — Elevations & Floor Plans & Dimensioned Site Plan." d) Parking Requirements The parking requirement shall be a minimum of 50 parking spaces as shown in Section 3.8 "Overall Parking" and Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." e) Screening i) Mechanical Enclosures — There shall be no mechanical roof equipment allowed, except for roof vents which shall be copper material. ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building, and the trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. iii) Pool / Spa Equipment — All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum four -foot block wall, plastered to match the building. 3.4 Golf Clubhouse The following development standards shall apply to the Golf Clubhouse: a) Building Square Footage The maximum size of the Golf Clubhouse shall be 35,000 square feet as shown on Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans." The below -grade cart parking shown on Exhibit 4 page 2 of 4, auxiliary buildings such as the Greenskeeper Building and Starter Shack, both shown on Exhibit 1 "Master Plan," and the two bathroom facilities existing on the golf -7- 235 course shall not be included in the overall development limit of 35,000 square feet as allowed in Anomaly 74 of the City's General Plan Land Use Element. b) Building Height The maximum building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50 feet as depicted on Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans" and shall be treasured from the existing grade to the midpoint of the sloped roof. Chimneys, as depicted on Exhibit 41 pages 3 and 4 "Golf Clubhouse — Elevations and Floor Plans," may extend beyond the 42 -foot ridge roof height by a maximum of 18 inches plus an additional 18 inches for two Gladding McBean Windsor clay chimney pots used for architectural screening. C) Parking Requirements Parking for the Golf Club and Golf Clubhouse shall be a minimum of 244 parking spaces, however Exhibit 1 Master Plan shows 334 parking spaces. d) Screening i) Roof Eaui menC — All mechanical roof equipment (except roof vents) shall be screened from horizontal view in a manner compatible with the building materials. ii) Trash Enclosures — All trash enclosures shall be screened by a minimum five - foot block wall, plastered to match the building, and the trash containers shall be covered to protect them from being overturned or accessed by wildlife. 3.5 Architectural Style The architectural style within the SDP shall be classical California Mediterranean, as shown on Exhibit 2 pages 2 of 3 and 3 of 3, Exhibit 4 page 3 of 4, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. 3.6 Building Materials a) Roof Except for skylighted areas, all pitched roofs shall be covered with Gladding McBean clay tile Number 8 Blend with Italian or Berkeley pans and Cordova covers, set with natural gray mortar (the Roof Material). If the Roof Material is not available, a compatible alternative as determined by the City Planning Director shall be substituted. b) Windows and Main Entry Doors The Tennis and Golf Clubhouses shall use Torrance Steel Window Systems or equivalent as shown on the elevations for the Exhibit 2 "Tennis Clubhouse," Exhibit 4 "Golf Clubhouse," Exhibit 5 "The Villas," and Exhibit 6 "The Bungalows." The main entry doors may be unique Ia 23 O as to design including material and color. All steel windows and doors throughout the SDP shall be finished medium bronze color to match the steel windows and doors within the SDP. At The Villas and The Bungalows in locations where there are small secondary operable windows, wood windows may be substituted. C) Plaster All exterior plaster shall be steel troweled with a refined Santa Barbara Smooth Finish and Omega Base 10 final color coat with no integral color and unpainted. For the Tennis Clubhouse and Golf Clubhouse, the exterior plaster shall be applied over masonry block to mitigate against cracking over large surfaces and to eliminate the long screed lines 4 inches above finished grade for a higher quality appearance and durable finish. d) Stone Veneer Walls La Playa Beach Stones, 3" to 5" size mix, installed on edge with raked joints matching the installation shown below. La Playa Beach Stone 3.7 Landscaping Landscaping shall be in all areas not devoted to structures, parking and driveways. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. A detailed landscaping and irrigation program by a landscape architect or licensed landscaping contractor consistent with Exhibit 3 "Landscape Plan" shall be approved by the City Planning and General Services Departments prior to issuance of building permits, and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 3.8 Overall Parking and Circulation a) Overall Parking — Consistent with the development standards contained in this Section 3.0 and Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan," the following is a summary of the parking provided within the SDP: -9- 237 Table 3 - Overall Parking Land Use Parking Required Additional Parking All Time + Night + Weekend The Tennis Club Sub -Area 28 10 + 188 + 366 The Bungalows Sub -Area 34 16 + 188 + 366 The Villas Sub -Area— Villa A 3 The Villas Sub -Area — Villa B 3 +1 Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area — Villa C 4 1 +1 Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area — Villa D 4 1 +1 Cart Garage The Villas Sub -Area — Villa E 4 The Golf Club Sub -Area 244 56 366 Additional Weekend and Holiday Parking: Approximately 554 parking stalls within adjacent Corporate Plaza West are available on weekends and holidays through a recorded parking easement, with 188 adjacent parking stalls available after office business hours. b) Vehicular Circulation — Vehicular Circulation is shown on Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." C) Pedestrian Circulation — Pedestrian Circulation is shown on Exhibit 8 "Parking & Circulation Plan." 3.9 Electrical Lighting Fixtures All parking lot and private street lighting fixtures shall be fixture type "A" and "Al" as shown on Exhibit 9 "Electrical Fixture Types & Section" and installed in the locations shown on Exhibit 9 "Electrical Master Plan Lighting." a) Ground Mounted Air Conditioner Compressor Units — All ground mounted air conditioner compressor units shall be screened by landscaping. 3.10 Sign Regulations The put-pose of this section is to define and provide development standards for all applicable signage located within the SDP. a) Permitted Signs i) Newport Beach Country Club Monument Identification Signs A Monument Sign, identifying the Newport Beach Country Club and including the Sea Horse logo, shall be located on the wall at the terminus of the main entry drive to Newport Beach Country Club off Pacific Coast Highway as shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page I of 6 and depicted on page 6 of 6. -10- 232 ii) Monument Directional Signs Monument Directional Signs identifying The Bungalows, The Tennis Club and Bag Drop shall be located at the secondary entrances as shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 1 of 6 and as schematically depicted on pages 3 of 6 and 6 of 6. iii) Addressing The numbers in all addresses shall be spelled out and placed in the location shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan." The address numbers for The Villas shall be spelled out and placed on the mailbox pilaster behind the curb for each of the five single - family Villas. iv) Stop Signs and Fire Lane Signs Stop Signs and Fire Lane Signs shall be as depicted on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 6 of 6. V) Brass plaques embedded into the ground surface are permitted. b) Sign Restrictions i) The letter dimensions, sign height, design and materials of all signs shall comply with Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan." ii) Any permanently installed monument or pole sign clearly visible from the SDP private streets not shown on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" is prohibited except for necessary signs approved by the City Planning Director and matching the design, materials and size for the Bag Drop Monument Directional Sign or Fire Lane pole sign, both as depicted on Exhibit 10 "Sign Plan" page 6 of 6. c) Sign Maintenance Signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys and anchors, shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance, structure and lighting features. 3.11 Curb and Gutter — Fire Hydrants New curb and gutter shall be Davis Color "Sandstone" integral color concrete with a light wash and sealed with Seal & Enhance sealer. Curb required to be red shall be Davis Custom Color "Fire Engine Red" integral color concrete with a smooth trowelled finish with NO PARKING FIRE LANE embossed on the top of the curb and sealed with Seal & Enhance sealer. Fire hydrants shall be polished brass. 3.12 Parking Lot Striping All parking lot striping shall be green except for handicap parking lot striping which shall be blue. -11- 239 3.13 Drainage & Water Quality The landscape medians and the landscape buffer along Pacific Coast Highway in the large golf club parking lot within the Golf Club Sub -Area shall have curb slots to allow storm water into the landscape area reducing storm water in the storm drains. 3.14 Grading The grading plans for Tennis Club, The Bungalows and The Villas Sub -Areas together shall have balanced grading without the need to import or export dirt. Likewise, the grading plan for the Golf Club Sub -Area shall also have balance of grading without the need to import or export dirt. The depth of cut and fill for the SDP is shown on Exhibit 11 "Depth of Cut & Fill & Golf Clubhouse Sections." 4.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS 4.1 Interpretation and Conflict with Code Whenever the regulations contained in this SDP conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in this SDP text shall take precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided within these SDP regulations. All development within the SDP boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and other governing building codes. Final plans shall substantially conform to the SDP and may include minor refinements from the Exhibits. All interpretations of the SDP shall be made by the City Planning Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. 4.2 Mechanical Equipment Enclosures - Noise Attenuation Prior to final building permit clearance, all new mechanical appurtenances (i.e., utility vaults and emergency power generators, etc.) shall be enclosed. Noise associated with generators shall be attenuated at side property lines adjacent to residential uses to 55 dBA. The enclosure design shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the City Plamhing and Building Department. All rooftop equipment (other than vents, wind turbines, etc.) shall be architecturally treated or screened from off -site views in a manner compatible with the building materials prior to final building permit clearance. Rooftop screening and enclosures shall be subject to the requirements of the 32/50 Height Limitation Zone. 4.3 Maintenance of Private /Common Areas The tenant / operator of The Tennis Club shall maintain The Tennis Club Sub -Area; the tenant / operator of The Bungalows shall be responsible for maintaining The Bungalows Sub -Area including the adjacent street, Bungalows parking lots and the lettered common lots for The Villas Sub -Area. -12- 240 FEE TH THE GOLF CLUB ::r• SUB AREA Ifi Pub \ iE[ PATCIICf iP /� >u /,�� GFff THE " o SBUNGALOW�� /I'�� �r'TEN� IS HE CLUB SUB AREA e, SUBAREA A i -; - vv� 7777 Vol t`11 - -l- / - PACT FI C COAST ..- -,, -,- '.•� ��.���_ _�_ -- - ... . . ... ... .. - "- MASTER PLAN •THETENNIS CLUB - 1 new stadium court - Tennis Clubhouse • THE VILLAS 5 single family homes • THE BUNGALOWS 27 guest rental units • THE GOLF CLUB NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 241- TS TENNIS SSYSTS ,- I T�.,.e. 0.. TENNIS CLUBHOUSE & BUNGALOW SPA FLOOR PLAN TENNIS CLUBHOUSE: - •PROSHOP • LOBBY • OFFICE • LOCKER ROOMS • STORAGE SHED (see 4 of 4) 3725 square feet SPA KOR THE BUNGALOWS: • SPA • FITNESS • BELOW GRADE STORAGE 7490 square feet NBCC Planned Community , EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE t2 500,7TA,ay Laguna Bead),U92651 1 OF 4 949 376 7160 W949376 1560 242 Italiannsans and Cordoba covers Identical to plaster in a ro n Fashion Island. shade of off white. A. VIEW FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DRIVE ENTRY Existing Grade (dashed) 0 face of building, lyp. n■ uri ■ TENNIS CLUBHOUSE &BUNGALOW SPA ELEVATION MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system ,KEY PLAN , Y s ! r \ r5 1� ri _ Z k' ( A g. 4./ NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE EXHIBIT 500 Broadrjay Laguna eea(h,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 O F 4 —I—)"4".S Existing Grade (dashed) @ face of building, Lyn. Beady stone. planter w.Hi. VIEW FROM NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE ENTRY n.l.s o s nn TENNIS CLUBHOUSE &BUNGALOW SPA ELEVATION MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system ,KEY PLAN i s� e� r •. l J i ( A NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 3 O F 4 I—TT South Elevation West Elevation Hoot Plan North Elevation aosidf :. wr�a,: Floor Plan East Elevation TENNIS CLUBHOUSE & BUNGALOW SPA STORAGE SHED MATERIALS • painted concrete masonry units • painted metal roll -up doors NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broa&my Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 4 0 F 4 1&A GREEN ISN GREEN r' TEE .J EE f 7q a S% V/# COLE �. CLUB ;4 n\ \ T r .. --a PACIFIC Co' I 1 ry J + 1 Fl r A 11 1+ 1 ' n� SST HIGHWAY NF CF TFR'pp OR �J 0 ]0 w Ee S E V =w PRELIMINARY GREEN I �J ' BOiANKAt NV'E CQ'V1pflH4lf �1... \. ACllM /SK<MIEN iE£FSIES M %Y.W3fUM 1!III •••� �.' E / t PAVEEEON M9165YfH1 1u 191916F1KN { I t�%CLSAGWFIX3A CILSOWU M% :.PUTTING GREEN } lit— � yIei YALUL fYFAWIgNTkFfl lif�BOXM ✓" AA '�'`:i,/" tlTNfi NFGEi H.. (WJ.YYrUSGyI000M IFNONXFNRp GiY 7q a S% V/# COLE �. CLUB ;4 n\ \ T r .. --a PACIFIC Co' I 1 ry J + 1 Fl r A 11 1+ 1 ' n� SST HIGHWAY NF CF TFR'pp OR �J 0 ]0 w Ee S E V =w PRELIMINARY hAH11:51I LANDSCAPE PLAN BOiANKAt NV'E CQ'V1pflH4lf �1... \. ACllM /SK<MIEN iE£FSIES M %Y.W3fUM 1!III _`4� mat M9165YfH1 1u 191916F1KN :.� t�%CLSAGWFIX3A CILSOWU M% ....' !A`M NLEMGN CWFMfIU 51Yl1CPE YALUL fYFAWIgNTkFfl lif�BOXM 1MW YZFI AA '�'`:i,/" tlTNfi NFGEi RIOaNlE15 O1fUf (WJ.YYrUSGyI000M IFNONXFNRp GiY VVSL0.VfY1X1 TO94FYVTF FONLIIf RA1KA LC\`1PAeaYIO'r1A4 MCRCdd1NOREEIQY BO %EWNWEfflfl Cl •..) Pt:U11WFHN PLLiGOP1h LPRTANUCIXr'FE ATA B4EN.YF BOX 1` i ; CLIIBNCVSf PAAWiG IOi iPEE -.,. oIEAEVROPAEA CNEtFatouoAM ' F %15i1NG FI1H5TOBEYAYI VIAWM`1G 'RomTA Y {%ICNi(AY PµM KCEHl iN1T. ' g10ENrX CMU.tiEM6 U4tM1Y 61FhV WiE PNIf P'EP➢RE CMMEGMSVPAY unrwc TUfs TOBFYAIN 1 5 1 1MGE YEV8111 CXSIXEY'NNWIS!III CFMIORNSR4.r CEWOTM/S wraLn BwnnwuioG' BArEwuL IEVTOSKNMIUEVK.AIVH Uf1P11VN LEAIP£E 0.CMYEYA <GJLTE% IMI1LgAiCVP( sTAEI/TZUmCNOw cu+r vPaavAVdu HEOaulvceuazlsc�lon Eamwi srzfl d <ns B<aoA wrEEUtr Im CCIfQYENSPt&C�VN VCMIMMMI. ffCALLIXnL1PE<IFS fSGLLIX3A G:£w1MSFEGES GFEF+tW EKEIE0.CClllIf MBWO1 EVFA6FFfNOA5lrt1ES ErcsuauoE PAraow wsEESAfoE pIWAMLM TNQUOVEfN BEI% pITOSN= NENEOES Efi% %QVl.GE MAdIXfNSMIOKw IrvaUlUwIIiOPN sTUMaAUCBa+>: ssaoF PAVaSE iRUViLOEPEpNVMyStl1iO.DES Vh1T0.P.GU 0.0'iYA4W04 5 C.TRWh CMSi POSEYAiY A<CENT.XO E r ISGLLg1YY.Rit YlE) ' uoESUas ALOE AGSVE ANEPIGNA MF:CCPN K.1uF AWYE ATFEf.UATA AGSSS CYUSIFVOIVIA SI(A1AI14LNAT1 OAMNlO OESfPl i4: I wV .rEW� USPE<tti tttKTOIGCEbNfEHMAm[M '.fTo U t*!T BWEOAiGM55 w'vNauLNAnU uoESGrro%fA 1Ap4ENBE0.GU CA%11A45 I£OIXf0.4N51 YIKGSFEQEI YJCU SYJlt SH41R51i441P`I KWMW1NiEl A4VlMHVSSTWlIQOJO LRYOF Tff tilE t/J1lIIUEYyilEV�DEN4f VNIANA lWp'NN RPEIY :EAET. 1 pry.WypilR'pµgTATA ' K WIEHNY SIACHiS BTIAYIINA 1EM Vlt94 fN6 YNES (14V tQY E W Y'Ml1M 9II1 6U16::MYIFAERU6 IIXKJJrNaEFA dSlICNf &KONAidJA XA9LEi lM#f9ET VNE dsilnus wlEasB wruEaulwErw+E vA+,NENOGSwspugYfra.L racwACUfua NOiE: RSTAIL MFXKAY BFKN <pME �AyA NAOCCENi I:IFYMANIGPAEAS A49MWND SfIFCifo SKGYNTPEEi 1A%AYA NBCC Planned Community MJSDeslgn Group, hAH11:51I temuace ArUaec 3 _`4� mat M9165YfH1 1u 191916F1KN I OF I 240 0 10 20 30 FT wf GOLF CLUBHOUSE Total= 35000 square feet UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Upper Level = 16900 sf KEY PLAN 70m) \c� NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE i 500 Bwaduay Laguna Beach,CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 O F 4 247 CLUB STORAGE 0 10 20 30 Fr W1� GOLF CLUBHOUSE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Lower Level = 18100 sf Below Grade Storage Excluded: 6000 sf KEY PLAN n bj�q/(^ 1 — V' NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadvray Laguna 0each,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2 O F 4 -el-`f �'!(M1fNY WUIIGC tilixt A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA B. VIEW FROM GOLF COURSE n ts. GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system KEY PLAN \ A - 7L. i 0! s `_ NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARC HITECTURE 500 Broadevay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761 %0 3 OF 4 2-" easb�ggrime I�sbet7 � 13�edbu�k�rg C. VIEW FROM 18TH GREEN /i D. VIEW FROM WEDDING LAWN nu GOLF CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Italian pans and Cordova covers • Torrance steel window system KEY PLAN p -_ p �� C(J�Ott i v NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 4 500 eiortlway Laguna Reach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 4 OF 4 250 ROOF PLAN IL01,4[ l'I roe. Fery crel h� �IfR tySIIR B. i6YOP.1 - QOSfI LIpgFA EEFPOGA �R I - 4FPAGf � A .� S 111 1 i Wl OWA ENlfil T � ' I;OOf IlitxEN Dil :f _ ' F W.1 2. FLOOR PLAN Ridge X23' -0 -abave . — LYtlyV+ &n .•N.n <MV•rM PE':I IFO•A AUTO Mg 6Y1NLRree••naYr�wi II.Wk.Sn Bxlv4vf.•. .•CGM.taeiemu•+rq une.n,.a �•ee +•wl>ol.. Eating Grade (dashed) lace of bldg. typ. GWF(Wmft \Evistirg Grad. (dashed) VDE EEEVAM S'E1IMOIAGWi COURSE Ridge R2'.6- above existing grade L- AUTOCW RT AgT0CW2i` ------------------------------------------------------ ..... (URWRSE_. Evlsling Grade (dashed) SOE EIPAW1 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN A 0 1525 FT THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN A 2201 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT rA t e a r n s RCHITECTURE eroadv ay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 O F 6 251 r�I 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN AL>IRR L�AAEF � t ,In6l 00PPOG.1 BaiN.Cdl CLI'M QOSFt W FR c , L" %GFOV.1 'I\ [01RV SIUm WAGE nmAPU _I GoEx PITCHE14 F41 ".5 I'r_6' 6' i' -x' LOWER FLOOR PLAN %IE19 WW Goff CWRV 4W1iapMaPUn _____ m w •n Kime. —. o. WI I-0N- NI' -0' iGTebnr.q 1 =1x \ I} 3193 ± square feet MATERIALS Lr� � IIII ' e�.IN;.aO�I�' WKwI1V•xWreeikf ggrz6x\ 1 ..� • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile �����I ar EI EEC . rr r;, C I UPPER FLOOR PLAN AL>IRR L�AAEF � t ,In6l 00PPOG.1 BaiN.Cdl CLI'M QOSFt W FR c , L" %GFOV.1 'I\ [01RV SIUm WAGE nmAPU _I GoEx PITCHE14 F41 ".5 I'r_6' 6' i' -x' LOWER FLOOR PLAN %IE19 WW Goff CWRV 4W1iapMaPUn _____ m w •n Kime. —. o. WI I-0N- NI' -0' iGTebnr.q 1 =1x nil iM' gow.9 All U 119 — ............... ...... ..... . .... epf COU6SE r b�. n.1Yn.1lw LM EIEYAOpI CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN B 0 5 15 25 FT 9wf ROOF PLAN 6K• a1.[. 6.9 & [emr alulmns THE VILLAS \ I} 3193 ± square feet MATERIALS — —4pP WKwI1V•xWreeikf ggrz6x\ • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN � � ♦a d t���.i .IeAxs4N m'�.♦ rlx *xuu.„ 6rwwM.e.,.e.r�nn++ x >�4 22, .•.>nwa.wa NBCC Planned Community l�n..Lam� . EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broadway ta9una Beach,CA92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 2 0 F 6 e -r )9'E'- Idasn;p�- 1'6WPFOM AUTO COURT 81 e0 1j hP Pzai Hi'A' z W.x u3n�ggak - 91.fep Mie. r.Y.refw wMAn Ball rl. °xm nil iM' gow.9 All U 119 — ............... ...... ..... . .... epf COU6SE r b�. n.1Yn.1lw LM EIEYAOpI CONCEPT ELEVATIONS PLAN B 0 5 15 25 FT 9wf ROOF PLAN 6K• a1.[. 6.9 & [emr alulmns THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN B 3193 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN ♦a d x >�4 22, NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broadway ta9una Beach,CA92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 2 0 F 6 252 ROOF PLAN 1.., -� UP BASEMENT PLAN G'.'rlMMeb,n swyY.u., vn +. B.Ifry 4,,;.M aco'Am.aoa -ao -.k ..................... B0 C V 1 M1� TIP / hu v. PhVI Ep4N 4U10 CWAI .IV a' AY..xb,r19VIS, d0'�ID'AbBS. c. Yra r£a4 N'Mm'fti,l;N 40V COUASF f� wen wa+'4arzWAs e.:rn,We.w.Y..Y NZ �'b, M.EttpN, •v.Ap r eu F'w' +w .._. -: ------------- I ----------------------- "------------------.-.----- tl.N+a �m.arvn �.b,•im.+1 RUIO tail aM1 SIX EFFIMIO', T . , ®�. n "111 COL;5f $'OEIR1 J' CONCEPT ELEVATIONS I 1 _- SIIFH.4 4MiFP 1'2UFH � 1 � lehY p(qV 0 >IN I CIOyLI. // __ ,,, VVV II9FP51 V, 10 /'- VASTER I'LLth `11111 _ OEDROOM - tl'.0 R� T I 1a5Ep �.7 Ii I ((IIOFFIL,I 1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PLAN C 0 5 15 25 FT yi THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN C main house 4283± square feet + guest house 390 ± square feet II MATERIALS IIR II /> DORA" — - • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend N8 with Berkeley pans DN KEY PLAN - ..U'.OR 9 ' T" Il . " LL SLUI_I 1 -- eafn; 0-=-- —i. � l / T, I NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT ; V 1. ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broadway Laguna BeaEh,CA 97651 J �I 3 O F 6 1 f�I 'IR " TIHCFF'I G ,L 1. c '�FCIH l IlC_JII y-0 0 ��- 1 L51 u ELF o^ a, rt -• LOWER FLOOR PLAN -� UP BASEMENT PLAN G'.'rlMMeb,n swyY.u., vn +. B.Ifry 4,,;.M aco'Am.aoa -ao -.k ..................... B0 C V 1 M1� TIP / hu v. PhVI Ep4N 4U10 CWAI .IV a' AY..xb,r19VIS, d0'�ID'AbBS. c. Yra r£a4 N'Mm'fti,l;N 40V COUASF f� wen wa+'4arzWAs e.:rn,We.w.Y..Y NZ �'b, M.EttpN, •v.Ap r eu F'w' +w .._. -: ------------- I ----------------------- "------------------.-.----- tl.N+a �m.arvn �.b,•im.+1 RUIO tail aM1 SIX EFFIMIO', T . , ®�. n "111 COL;5f $'OEIR1 J' CONCEPT ELEVATIONS I 1 _- SIIFH.4 4MiFP 1'2UFH � 1 � lehY p(qV 0 >IN I CIOyLI. // __ ,,, VVV II9FP51 V, 10 /'- VASTER I'LLth `11111 _ OEDROOM - tl'.0 R� T I 1a5Ep �.7 Ii I ((IIOFFIL,I 1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PLAN C 0 5 15 25 FT yi THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN C main house 4283± square feet + guest house 390 ± square feet + basement 223 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend N8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN 9 ' r � l / NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broadway Laguna BeaEh,CA 97651 J 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 3 O F 6 253 1 E SIEv E: rfai 1 ■ ■ I ■ ■ E I Ip 17 l�lfi nesE .� f aG• I - E:Taxu u e[a•4c'a _ V UPPER FLOOR PLAN y TA. —� LOWER FLOOR PLAN i BASEMENT PLAN 0 4 `1 C SAN CLOW GOESTUMM- 1 z PLAN D 0 5 15 25 FT CONCEPT ELEVATIONS LJ - 1 ROOF PLAN I ] a. THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN D main house 4696 ±square feet + guest house 601 ± square feet + basement 1087 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN I 1 � [5 1Z 1 } NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broad.vay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 4 O F 6 `1 C SAN CLOW GOESTUMM- 1 z PLAN D 0 5 15 25 FT CONCEPT ELEVATIONS LJ - 1 ROOF PLAN I ] a. THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN D main house 4696 ±square feet + guest house 601 ± square feet + basement 1087 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel - troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McKean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN 2 [5 1Z 1 } NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE G 500 Broad.vay Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 J 4 O F 6 254 FW0 EIIIAIM ----------- ..... — SIDE WWI) I 1.1!, ; 1, Lill 1., 1,11 -------------- E•, 111,z d,", CONCEPT ELEVATIONS SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 5 15 25 FT MMMMMMPMO� ROOF PLAN THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN E 2,835 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s it e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 5 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 fAX 949 376 1560 5 0 F6 I I F 1 11 1 ) l R ENIPY 'A Ct T C r. (I'll P21T, c 0 (CUMI'D 71 LE FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 5 15 25 FT MMMMMMPMO� ROOF PLAN THE VILLAS FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLAN E 2,835 ± square feet MATERIALS • smooth steel-troweled exterior plaster • La Playa Beach stone • Gladding, McBean clay roof tile blend #8 with Berkeley pans and Cordova covers KEY PLAN NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s it e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 5 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 fAX 949 376 1560 5 0 F6 0 25 50 10OFT NoOrth THE VILLAS DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN - BLOW UP NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 6 OF 6 CONCIERGE & GUEST CENTER 0 5 10 15 FT mmmmmmmmm� E BU NG ALOW S THE F LOOR PLANS CONCIERGE & GUEST M EETING CENTER 21 70 gross s quare feet KEY PLAN f \t — NBCC Planned Community t e a r n s EXHIBIT A R C H I T E C T U R E SOO Broadway Laguna Beacb,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 of 11 257 PALMERO 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS PALMERO 775 gross square feet Site Plan Code: P Quantity:2 KEY PLAN 3A7f �'° 3i ` Jr lY >: NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE Vh 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 9493767160 FAX 9493761560 2 of 11 2152 hi win hi win UPPER LEVEL win win 0 5 10 15 FT LOWER LEVEL THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS LA JOLLA 2485 gross square feet Site Plan Code: LJ Quantity: i KEY PLAN zz / y*d � , NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE Vh 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 3 of 11 2�9 OJAI 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS OJAI 855 gross square feet Site Plan Code: 0 Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN A2 i/ NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beath,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 4 of 11 hi win hi win hi W"-�) C T_ W i,-, kitchen dressing bath bedroom 5'x18' porch din living 0 UPPER LEVEL UNIT MONARCH hi win hi win hi win hi win Fj bath dressing bath x bedroom dressing closet 10 4 - bedroom nI .......... LOWER LEVEL UNITS LA QUINTA (2 units shown) 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS MONARCH 1070 gross square feet Site Plan Code: M Quantity: 2 LA GUINTA 570 gross square feet Site Plan Code: LQ Quantity: 6 KEY P NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 6 50 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 5 of 11 201 WIRTIV, 0 5 10 15 FT high windows THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS BALBOA 2109 gross square feet Sie Plan Code: B Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN ) 3 7� � r c NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE hV 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 6 of 11 202 LOWER LEVEL UNIT PALMA LOWER LEVEL UNIT ALISAL 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS PALMA 805 gross square feet Site Plan Code: PA Quantity: 1 ALISAL 830 gross square feet Site Plan Code: A Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN 4� Yom' J it ... ..........�s NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE 6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,(A 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 7 of 11 20S balcony UPPER LEVEL UNIT SOL Y MAR 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS SOL Y MAR 1080 gross square feet Sie Plan Code: SM Quantity: 1 KEY PLAN P 11 r i NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 8 of 11 204 DEL MAR 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS DEL MAR 1035 gros square feet Site Plan Code: DM Quantity: 2 KEY PLAN ; a2 / 1 f z ^< NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT s t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE Vh 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 9 of 11 205 dining RANCHO VALENCIA bedroom 1 14'x17' iacu22i hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win hi win RANCHO VALENCIA 2 0 5 10 15 FT THE BUNGALOWS FLOOR PLANS RANCHO VALENCIA 1 1035 gross square feet Site Plan Code: RVi Quantity: 6 RANCHO VALENCIA 2 1545 gross square feet Site Plan Code: RV2 Quantity: 3 KEY PLAN ; �� E' ,, 6 �< r i rr r: rj � ririr , 4,j r NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s A ARCHITECTURE /6 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 10 of 11 200 GREENSNEEPER -----RETAI L NURSERY CARTBARN n m 0 R 0 <t E CONDOMINIUM P,EX',3 GFFRI Y� v S!A!e sa•.G fif Ef N TENNIS CLUB G =3,125 SF t -' E ' rEE vRaaicE aN L,9EEN UEIN LFEFN GOLF CLUBHOUSE& ACCESSORY BUILDINGS = 32,470 Sf i BANN OFFICES C9AN`,``F %019gr04tel p�9i \� BANK & OFFICES 7 7 lce,y'r OFFICES / OFFICES" n C 2 O H OFFICES m 0 a m Z m A „ m pACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EXISTING USES AERIAL MAP NBCC Planned Community S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 7 500 Broadsay Laguna Beach ,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 20 PARKING & CIRCULATION PLAN � \ Tennis Club Sub -Area parking ❑ - 38 stalls Bungalows Sub -Area parking �� �I ��� // ��� ❑ 50 stalls Parking easement area ❑ - 188 stalls +/ ❑ - 366 stalls +/ 5. � \ Golf Club Sub -Area parking CH �,I.. _ _ `" o,, ❑ - 334 stalls � THE VILLAS ' 3 _ - sueaBEA �v I '._ I • ,!� ti �;: 'ii /// AAA, 2. THE GOLF CLUB SUB AREA � - -� _ m 0 7 _ I i_ r 1 THE BUNGALO A / i \ \ WS it SUB AREA I L ' , '`' -, '� •% �f / - \, C aftEE•! Y E �;- c A .' a s' / / / / �� i '.mss �.-. a I' f "/) C( a,• s �p J �� i , )� THE _; �� i � . /�f/��,�/�(J> .� � •�' �I f � 'i ;�; `TEN tS�GL B SUBAREA E. a1�lj'Q 7� !RY [lU8 0 U CeEFrsKEEP� - c NOTE: Parking in common between u� 7 [1 F t ! J/i - - rj - & - ❑Clt1- - The Villas Sub Areas The Tennis Club, The Bungalows I 11 , ' •�� __ - PACIFIC COAST MIGM\ AY __ - - - - — _ Planned 1 NBCC 1 11 -- anne Community ' ity 1 -% S t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE _- -_ 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 _ 9493767160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 OF 1 NURSERY V, i�. 5v . all 3 /1"' CORPORATE PLAZAV,,Esl PRELIMINARY SITE LIGHTING STUDY 0 25 50 10D H Nanh W=F= ELECTRICAL MASTER PLAN LIGHTING NBCC Planned Community s t e a r III s ARCHITECTURE 500 Bfoadvvaytaguna Beach,CA92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 EXHIBF 1 OF! -T I A P-6 LLL-� L; 3,� /1"' CORPORATE PLAZAV,,Esl PRELIMINARY SITE LIGHTING STUDY 0 25 50 10D H Nanh W=F= ELECTRICAL MASTER PLAN LIGHTING NBCC Planned Community s t e a r III s ARCHITECTURE 500 Bfoadvvaytaguna Beach,CA92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 EXHIBF 1 OF! mca %wea. raa sam.- Bwvr••. � -�u ..�.�.. �- M1v.iO tA. w 'h .py'J d'n. r�MO[mRT mm+,wi)• nr.. r..•...vw•. a�B..i'i. c. r..a,•arv� I 4KLWf(f I° FIXTURE TYPE 'C' me Posl 1000% \ i II i NBa'M'c3{in Uit %Ep GARAGE i 4 VILLA E N M 0 *CliiGl11 [allIIr,1y P�Mun a Ip CENTER COURT (COURT NI) FIXTURE TYPE ' B' a..BB.. I I� 7I1'i E- A n II� FIXTURE TYPE r "I u -n FIXTU RE TYPE "A" AND'A1' 0 I-] FI V URE TYPE ' D' ELECTRICAL FIXTURE TYPES & SECTION NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach ' CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 2 O F 2 270 amsmfta, im FIANFNAFAE a..BB.. I I� 7I1'i E- A n II� FIXTURE TYPE r "I u -n FIXTU RE TYPE "A" AND'A1' 0 I-] FI V URE TYPE ' D' ELECTRICAL FIXTURE TYPES & SECTION NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s EXHIBIT ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach ' CA 97651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 3761560 2 O F 2 270 >a dr.mgw�ge .. GOLKLUBHOUSE weUn SXAIX $iAM1 % NG G EN Y. A YI / s' ,r I I X Lt GOLF) BUNGALOWS �A - - HIGHeIAr -. -•' ' / -_r }( _____��. - -_ - PACIFIC COASt 0 Q� 4 NF.lyp oHr �FN TFH off SIGN PLAN LEGEND 0 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB ID Q BUILDING WALL ADDRESS Q ID & DIRECTIONAL O BAG DROP © HANGING SIGN O STOP SIGN (LOCATION NOT SHOWN) Q FIRE LANE SIGN (LOCATION NOT SHOWN) NBCC Planned Community District SOlOiIONSs EXHIBIT ©G9APN1( lisir YAE11 i"L DMAIIIP liSl Y /iff•EII 4Y [(!'].G 971U IH SO, 1)i US OA III IS 1118 w O 'I FILE: NewpBeacCommSigni'lan3.ai 526.11 OF6 t 5" CAP "T `s a 4 Al YIGI.1ENSWUNGE L T-5-- l © HANGING SIGN SCALE: 311V'= V-1)" ENTRY A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA 'I eYiSUrg grate lshonn dashcd131a<e of prctascd Gu!•ing, OP I-ECOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1"=1'-O" w _i SIGN PLAN GOLF CLUBHOUSE MATERIALS • B1 - ADDRESS: 00 01 DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. • E - HANGING SIGN: FABRICATED BRONZE WITH DARK OXIDIZED FINISH. �w LETTER FACES POLISHED FINISH. KEY PLAN _ REGATTA ROOM OFFICES S' sl'� ` t f VGA k� �yi //1/.." %/'%�' s... \_ \o��. ���bd"• : \\ �/�'�' .. L A 4 Al YIGI.1ENSWUNGE L T-5-- l © HANGING SIGN SCALE: 311V'= V-1)" ENTRY A. VIEW FROM PARKING AREA 'I eYiSUrg grate lshonn dashcd131a<e of prctascd Gu!•ing, OP I-ECOUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1"=1'-O" w _i SIGN PLAN GOLF CLUBHOUSE MATERIALS • B1 - ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. • E - HANGING SIGN: FABRICATED BRONZE WITH DARK OXIDIZED FINISH. LETTER FACES POLISHED FINISH. KEY PLAN _ VGA NBCC Planned Community District HIC Jo[U110RS: EXHIBIT ©GRAPI ENVIAONNINTA( GRAPNI( DESIGN list PAY iGEEI • fIN f [CD, G 91111 RE (6101 M-Els fix (llil )IS {011 0 FILE: NulpfleaCCOmmSlgnPlan3.81 2 OF 6 5.2611 eGj'eL �r,>pel�l' a6tne "dqe .191 kyR exisi �•i: p5iapi9 .73' ' atu,r,..11 e I 1 s IRA r 30' abme oxis6n.7 g',140 L __— % - ------ --------------- SPA ENTRY FITNESS CENTER -.Hopa9 or a)ulnlem Neel windows and French doors I. rna.lmum height planter wall. -- — All Roof the will be Gladding MNEean N$ blood with 'All wall wAo<es will be smooth , AnI steel trowelled ItellaRgns and Cordoba wren Idenlird w �- plaster In a relined Sant Sahara Mlah painted e Fashlon Island. 'ludo of off white. VIEW FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DRIVE ENTRY fl,Ilinp G•a;e (d30M1 Q late c.I t.,'4 19, tpp ' o ■ ■ 1 THE SPA TEN COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE M BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 112" = 1' O" S I G N PLAN THE SPA MATERIALS •B2- ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. KEY PLAN . cL NBCC Planned Community District SOl"ll"I EXHIBIT ©GRAPNI( a fNIM NN il- 6AAPNIt 911T, I 1937 NUN SItFEI•At OIFW,G 911q lit (1191119 MS FAX (II% IIS -RI/ /� O I FILE: NewpBeacCommSiOnPlan3.ai 5.26.19 4 OF 6 273 M COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BUILDING WALL ADDRESS SCALE: 1" = P -0" SIGN PLAN THE SPA MATERIALS •B3- ADDRESS: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. KEY PLAN t ti, c i /JjY J C7 e' z r �7 NBCC Planned Community District J0JUJIONS,, EXHIBIT ©GAAPHIL F5?Kklg rRIV- GAAPNIG DESIGN 19fifAONMENTAI DIAGO,fa DIN fit (611) D1.1115 W (111) 1 &IAIA /(1 0 I FILE: NewP6eacCommSignPlan1ai 5.26.11 5 OF 6 274 PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION - TOP VIEW 20'-9' NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB :I- Q NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SCALE: 1/4" = I' -0" 15' -4' TnREE THE e, NINE BUNGALOWS ® DIRECTIONAL MONUMENT SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" 13'-10' THE TENNIS CLUB ® THE TENNIS CLUB MONUMENT SCALE: 1/4" = V -0" Q STOP SIGN SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" SIGN PLAN Q BAG DROP SCALE: 1/4" = 1'4' © FIRE LANE SIGN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" NUMBERS, LETTERS AND ARROW: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. STOP SIGN FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. • DIMENSIONAL LETTERS: BRONZE WITH POLISHED FACE • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH GREY BRONZE. FIRE LANE • FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED. •LETTERS: FACE ADHERED OPAQUE VINYL. • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. NBCC Planned Community District ©G6APN1f IOIUiKSIGN EXHIBIT 151 MI XFX[A[ MGM. [g1114X O I 7iS7 M1'Y SI?fEl - 1>r DI[[A. G 9[IN lit QI[) 119 1US IAX (111) 111 W18 FILE: NevipBeadammSignPtan1ai 60F6 5.26.11 MATERIALS WALL • MASONRY WALL TO MATCH BUILDING TEXTURE AND COLOR. •BASE TRIM: 2' 9' � INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE TO 1J, MATCH MONUMENT COLOR WITH A SMOOTH FINISH. • ROUND LOGO: [EAG OP CAST BRONZE PLAQUE - GRAPHICS AND BORDER RAISED AND POLISHED. BACKGROUND DARK OXIDIZED BRONZE. Q BAG DROP SCALE: 1/4" = 1'4' © FIRE LANE SIGN SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" NUMBERS, LETTERS AND ARROW: DARK OXIDIZED CAST BRONZE BACKPINNED FLUSH TO MASONRY SURFACE. STOP SIGN FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. • DIMENSIONAL LETTERS: BRONZE WITH POLISHED FACE • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH GREY BRONZE. FIRE LANE • FACE: ALUMINUM PANEL PAINT FINISHED. •LETTERS: FACE ADHERED OPAQUE VINYL. • POST: SQUARE ALUMINUM PAINT FINISH TO MATCH GREY BRONZE FIXTURES ON SITE. NBCC Planned Community District ©G6APN1f IOIUiKSIGN EXHIBIT 151 MI XFX[A[ MGM. [g1114X O I 7iS7 M1'Y SI?fEl - 1>r DI[[A. G 9[IN lit QI[) 119 1US IAX (111) 111 W18 FILE: NevipBeadammSignPtan1ai 60F6 5.26.11 (S.B.) (N.B.) PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY 047 EXISTING GRADE SITE SECTION 43' PROPOSED MAX RIDGE HEIGHT ABOVE EXIST. GRADE (THIS SPECIFIC RIDGE, 113.5' PROPOSED GRADE LOWEST EXISTING GRADE BELOW NAV 29 DATUM NOTED RIDGE = 107.5 PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE GOLF CLUBHOUSE SITE SECTION 'v 13Y ow orry or- -KEY PLAN 71 L i NBCC Planned Community EXHIBIT S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 270 City Council Attachment 13 Newport Beach Country Club PCDP (Alternative Proposal) 277 272 'Ah", Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community Development Plan November 17, Ordinance No. Adopted OF 27� TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................ ............................... 4 2.0 General Conditions and Regulations ............................... ............................... 5 3.0 Land Use and Development Regulations ........................ ............................... 10 3.1 Golf Club ............................................................... ............................... 10 A. Golf Course ..................................................... ............................... 10 B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses ................. ............................... 10 1. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 10 2. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 10 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 10 4. Parking ....................................................... ............................... 11 5. Fencing ...................................................... ............................... 11 3.2 Tennis Club ........................................................... ............................... 11 A. Tennis Courts .................................................. ............................... 11 1. Number of Courts ....................................... ............................... 11 B. Tennis Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses ............. ............................... 12 1. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 12 2. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 12 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 12 4. Parking ....................................................... ............................... 12 3.3 The Villas .............................................................. ............................... 12 1. Number of Units ......................................... ............................... 12 2. Development Standards ............................. ............................... 12 3.4 The Bungalows ..................................................... ............................... 13 1. Number of Units ......................................... ............................... 13 2. Permitted Ancillary Uses ............................ ............................... 13 3. Building Area .............................................. ............................... 14 4. Building Height ........................................... ............................... 14 5. Building Setbacks ....................................... ............................... 14 6. Parking.. .................................................................................... 14 3.5 igns ..................................................................... ............................... 14 A. Sign Allowance ................................................ ............................... 14 B. Sign Standards ................................................ ............................... 15 4.0 Site Development Review ............................................... ............................... 16 4.1 Purpose ................................................................ ............................... 16 4.2 Application ............................................................ ............................... 16 4.3 Findings ................................................................ ............................... 16 4.4 Contents ............................................................... ............................... 17 4.5 Public Hearing - Required Notice ......................... ............................... 17 4.6 Expiration and Revocation Site Plan Review Approvals ...................... 18 4.7 Fees ...................................................................... ............................... 18 2 220 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Name Exhibit Number VicinityAerial Map ................................................................ ............................... A Conceptual Master Site Plan ................................................ ............................... B LIST OF TABLES 3 Page .......... 13 221 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 140 acres. The PCD has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan and is consistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The purpose of this PCD is to provide for the classification and development of coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive planning project with limited mixed uses, including the private Golf Club, Tennis Club, 27 short-term rental units called the Bungalows with a spa /fitness area, and 5 semi - custom single -unit residential dwellings called the Villas. Whenever the regulations contained in the PCD Regulations conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained`in the PCD Regulations shall take precedence. The Newport Beach Municipal Code shall regulate all development within the PCD when such regulations are not provided within the PCD Regulations. F1 222 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 requ. d 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 the PCD shall be confined within the interior of a building unless a Special Events Permit is obtained. _Fj 3. Archaeological /Paleontological Resources Development of the site is subject to the provisions of City Council Policies K -5 and K -6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. 4. Architectural Design All development shall be designed with high quality architectural standards and shall be compatible with the surrounding uses. The development should be well- designed with coordinated, cohesive architecture and exhibiting the highest level of architectural and landscape quality in keeping with the PCD's prominent location in the Newport Center Planning Area. Massing offsets, variation of roof lines, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design accents on all building elevations shall be provided to enhance the architectural style. Architectural treatments for all ancillary facilities (i.e. storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures) shall be provided. 5. Building Codes Construction shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and the various other mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes related thereto as adopted by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Exterior Storage Areas There shall be no exterior storage areas permitted with the exception of the greenskeeper /maintenance area which shall be enclosed by a minimum six foot plastered block wall. 5 243 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 and shall be subject to permits issued by the Community Development Department. 9. Gross Floor Area Gross floor area shall be defined as the total area of a building including the surrounding exterior walls. 10. Height and Grade The height of any structure within the PCD shall not exceed fifty (50) feet, unless otherwise specified. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall be extend more than five (5) feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone, and any amendments shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director 11. Landscaping /Irrigation Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all areas not devoted to structures, parking lots, driveways, walkways, and tennis courts to enhance the appearance of the development, reduce heat and glare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen adjacent land uses, and preserve the integrity of PCD. Landscaping and irrigation shall consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. Landscaping shall be prepared in accordance with the Landscaping Standards and Water- Efficient Landscaping Sections of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 12. Lighting — Outdoor All new outdoor lighting shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to shield adjacent uses /properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent uses /properties. Lighting plans shall be prepared in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be prepared by a licensed electrical 0 r 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 Municipal Code and shall be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer. If the applicant wishes to deviate from this lighting standard, a lighting plan may be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 14. Loading Areas for Non - Residential Uses All loading and unloading of goods delivery shall be performed onsite. Loading platforms and areas shall be screened from public view. 15. Parking Areas Parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turnaround areas, and landscaping areas of the parking lots shall be kept free of dust, graffiti, and litter. All components of the parking areas including striping, paving, wheel stops, walls, and light standards of the parking lots shall be permanently maintained in good working condition. Access, location, parking space and lot dimensions, and parking lot improvements shall be in compliance with the Development Standards for Parking Areas Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 16. Property Owner Approval Written property owner approval shall be required for the submittal of any site development review application and /or prior to grading and /or building permit issuance. 17. Outdoor Paging Outdoor paging shall be permitted at the Golf Club to call individuals to the tees and at the Tennis Club to call points during tennis tournaments. 7 225 18. Sewage Disposal Sewage disposal service facilities for the PCD will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 and shall be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the Sanitation District. 19. Screening of Mechanical Equipments All new mechanical appurtenances (e.g., air conditioning, heating, ventilation ducts and exhaust vents, swimming pool and spa pumps and filters, transformers, utility vaults and emergency power generators) shall be screened from public view and adjacent land uses. The enclosure design shall be approved by the Community Development Department. All rooftop equipment (other than vents, wind turbines, etc.) shall be architecturally treated or screened from off -site views in a manner compatible with the building materials prior to final building permit clearance for each new or remodeled building. The mechanical appurtenances shall be subject to sound rating in accordance with the Exterior Noise Standards Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Rooftop screening and enclosures shall be subject to the applicable height limit. 20. Screening of the Villas from Tennis Courts Adequate buffering between the Villas and tennis courts shall be provided and subject to the Site Development Review process. The exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive, and the Tennis Clubhouse parking lot shall be screened by a minimum ten -foot high chain link fence covered by a wind screen. Wind screen shall be maintained in good condition at all time. 21. Screening of the Villas' Pool /Spa Equipment All pool and /or spa equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum five -foot high block wall plastered or otherwise textured to match the building. 22. Special Events Temporary special community events, such as such as PGA Senior Classic golf tournaments, Team Tennis, Davis Cup Matches, and other similar events, are permitted in the PCD, and are subject to the Special Events Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Temporary exterior storage associated with approved special events may be permitted provided it is appropriately screened and regulated with an approved Special Event Permit. 0 23. Temporary Structures and Uses Temporary structures and uses, including modular buildings for construction - related activities are permitted. 24. Trash Container Storage for Residential Dwellings- Trash container storage shall be out of view from public places, and may not be located in the required parking areas. If trash container storage areas cannot be located out of public view, they shall be screened from public view. Screening shall consist of fences, walls, and landscaping to a height at least 6 inches above the tops of the containers. 25. Trash Enclosures for Non - Residential Uses All trash enclosures for non - residential uses shall be provided and in accordance with the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 26. Tennis Club Site Phasing Plan- The phasing plan for the tennis club site which consists of the tennis club, villas and bungalows shall be subject to a site development review process. 27. Water Service Water service to the PCD will be provided by the City of Newport Beach and will be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the City. 0 227 3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3.1 Golf Club Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the golf course and clubhouse. A. Golf Course An 18 -hole championship golf course and related facilities (i.e. putting green, driving range, snack bar, starter shack, restroom facilities, etc.). B. Golf Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses 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. 2. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for the Golf Clubhouse shall be 50 feet and shall be measured in accordance with the Height and Grade definition of Section 2.0 General Conditions and Regulation of the PCD. 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses The following ancillary uses are allowed: • Golf shop • Administrative 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 10 222 • Separate Starter Shack • Separate Golf Course Restrooms • Hand Carwash Area • Greenskeeper Maintenance Facility • Temporary Construction Facilities • Guard House • Others (subject to an approval Director) 4. Parkin of the Community Development Parking for the Golf Course and Golf Clubhouse shall be in accordance with following parking ratios (source: from Table 2 of the Circulation and Parking Evaluation by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., September 2009 for Newport Beach Country Club — Clubhouse Improvement Project): Golf Course: 8 spaces per hold Golf Clubhouse: Dining, assembly & meeting rooms: 1 per 3 seats or 1 per 35 square feet Administrative Office: 4 per 1,000 square feet Pro Shop: 4 per 1,000 square feet Maintenance Facility: 2 per 1,000 square feet Health and Fitness Facility: 4 per 1,000 square feet The design of the parking lot and orientation of vehicular aisles and parking spaces shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Community Development Director. 5. Fencing Golf Course perimeter fencing shall be wrought -iron with a maximum permitted height of six (6) feet. 3.2 Tennis Club Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the tennis courts and clubhouse. A. The Tennis Courts 1. Number of courts The maximum allowable tennis courts shall be seven lighted tennis courts (six lighted championship courts and one lighted stadium - center court). 11 B. Tennis Clubhouse and Ancillary Uses 1. Building Area The maximum allowable gross floor area for the Tennis Clubhouse shall be 3,725 square feet. 2. Building Height The maximum allowable building height for the Tennis Clubhouse shall be 30 feet, and shall be measured in accordance with the Height and Grade definition of Section 2.0 General Conditions and Regulations of the PCD. 3. Permitted Ancillary Uses A4014*1 The following ancillary uses are allowed • Tennis Shop • Administrative Offices • Concessions • Restroom and Locker facilities • Storage areas qia,�N • Spectator seating • Others (subject to an approval of the Community Development Director) 4. Parking ley Parking for the Tennis Clubhouse and Courts shall be a minimum of 28 parking spaces. 3.3. The Villas Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the villas. Number of Units The maximum allowable number of single - family residential units shall be five (5). 2. Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to the Villas: 12 :9D The Villas Develooment Standards Table Villa Villa A Villa B Villa C Villa D Villa E Designation T#5M Lot TTM Lot #1 TTM Lot #2 TTM Lot #3 TTM Lot#4 Lot Size 5,000 square feet minimum Lot Coverage 65% 55% 40% 55% (Maximum) 70% Building Height 39 feet, measured in accordance with the Height and Grade definition of Section 2.0 General Conditions and Regulations Building Side Yard 3 feet minimum Setbacks LL Building Front and Rear Yard 5 feet minimum Setbacks Enclosed Parking Space for Each 2 2 2 Unit Open Guest Parking Space for One space - could be located on the private driveway — No Each Unit overhang to the private street /cul -de -sac is allowed 3.4. The Bungalows Refer to Exhibit B - Conceptual Master Site Plan for the general location and placement of the bungalows, concierge and guest center, and spa facility. Number of Units The maximum allowable number of the Bungalows shall be 27 short -term guest rental units to be built in a clustered setting of single and two -story buildings. 2. Permitted Ancillary Uses The following ancillary 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 13 291 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 bungalows shall be 31 feet, measured in accordance with the Height and Grade ffton of Section 2.0 General Conditions and Regulations of the PCD. 5. Building Setbacks The setback requirement shall be a minim of "Feet from a perty line. 6. Parking Parking for the bungalows shall be a minimum of 34 parking spaces located in proximity to the use. 3.5 Signs A. Sign Allowance One (1) single or double- faced, ground- mounted entrance identification sign shall be allowed at Newport Beach Tennis Club's main entrance (Country Club Drive and Irvine Terrace). Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 2. One (1) single or double- faced, ground- mounted entrance identification sign shall be allowed at or near the vicinity of the Newport Beach Country Club's secondary entrance (Granville). Total maximum signage area shall not exceed seventy -five (75) square feet and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 3. Irding 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 14 292 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. B. Sign Standards The design and materials of all permanent signs in the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District shall be in accordance with Sign Section 3.5, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 2. All permanent signs shall be subject to a sign permil;ued by the Community Development Department. 3. All signs shall be subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance in accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Sign illumination is permitted for all sign types. No sign shall be constructed or installed to rotate, gyrate, blink or move, or create the illusion of motion, in any fashion. 5. All permanent signs together with the entirety of their supports, braces, guys, anchors, attachments and decor shall be properly maintained, legible, functional and safe with regards to appearance, structural integrity and electrical service. 6. Temporary signs that are visible from any public right -of -way shall be allowed up to a maximum of sixty (60) days and subject to a temporary sign permit issued by the Community Development Department. 7. If the applicant wishes to deviate from the sign standards identified herein, a comprehensive sign program may be prepared or a modification permit application may be submitted for review and consideration by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15 293 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 aLvelopment Plan, the Development Agreement and the findings set forth bel ub- 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 improvements to any existing buildings, kiosks, and temporary structures are exempt from the site development review process and subject to the applicable City's permits. The decision of Planning Commission is the final, unle ppealed in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4.3. Findings In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub - section 4.1 and in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the Site Development Review procedures established by this Section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following findings: The development shall be in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community District Plan; 2. The development shall be compatible with the character of the neighboring uses and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 3. The development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and properffes, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on Coast Highway; and 16 294 4. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, landscaping and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. 4.4. Contents The Site Development Review application shall include all of the information and materials specified by the Community Development Director and any additional information review by the Planning Commission in order to conduct a thorough review of the project in question. The following plans /exhibits may include, but not limited to the following: 1. An aerial map showing the subject property, adjacent properties and identifying their uses. ♦� 4 2. Comprehensive elevations and floor plans for new structures with coordinated and complimentary architecture, design, materials and colors. 3. A parking and circulation plan showing golf cart and pedestrian paths in addition to streets and fire lanes. 4. A comprehensive, cohesive and coordinated preliminary landscape plan. 5. A comprehensive, cohesive and coordinated lighting plan showing type, location and color of all exterior lighting fixtures. 6. Comprehensive text and graphics describing the design philosophy for the architecture, landscape architecture, material and textures, color palette, lighting, and signage. MW 7. Text describing drainage and water quality mitigation measures. 8. A statement that the proposed new structure is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan. 4.5 Public Hearing — Required Notice A public hearing shall be held on all site development review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in 17 295 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 development review approved in accordance with the terms of this planned community development plan may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such site development review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 3. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council shall act thereon within sixty (60) days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 4.7. Fees The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the Newport Beach City Council to the City with each application for Site Development Review under this planned community development plan. IN :90 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.Kan extension is otherwise ranted. 9 A� . 2. Violation of Terms. Any site development review approved in accordance with the terms of this planned community developm "ent plan may be revoked if any of the conditions or�terms of such site development review are violated or if any law or ordihance4is violated in connecti6ri herewith. 3. Public Hearing. The Planning Commi's any proposed revocation after giving least ten (10) days Vrxor._to the recommendations to the City Council. within sixty (60) days afteQeceiptidfrt_l Commission. 4.7. . Fees The applicant sfiall�.paya ,,free as City Council to the Citywitki:eac muriifygdevelopmenf plan. 1. 's' "`T.he followina`,Yninor chanaes to §Z shall hold a public hearing on written notice to the permittee at hearing: and shall submit its The CityGouncil shall act thereon e recommendation of the Planning by Resolution of the Newport Beach for Site Development Review under from the parking area of 1500 East Coast Highway to the signalized intersection of Irvine Terrace and East Coast Highway, provided a minimum landscaped setback of 18 feet is provided.. c) Reduction in the square footage of any structure and a commensurate reduction in required parking, if applicable. d) Reconfiguration of the golf clubhouse parking lot, including drive aisles and /or parking spaces subiect to review and approval of the iU City Traffic Engineer. e) Reconfiguration of parking lot landscaping. f) Modification of the approved architectural style. g) Any other minor change to the site plan provided it does not increase any structure area, height, number of units, number of hotel rooms, and /or change of use. 2. AnV proposed changes that are not deemed minor shall be subject to 19 City Council Attachment 14 Latham & Watkins (Host) November 7, 2011 Letter and Attachments 297 �9 g LATHAM &WATKINSLLP November 7, 2011 Newport Beach Planning Commissioners Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626 -1925 Tel +1.714.540.1235 Fax -1.714.755.8290 www.lw.com FIRM /AFFILIATE OFFICES Abu Dhabi Moscow Barcelona Munich Beijing New Jersey Boston New York Brussels Orange County Chicago Paris Doha Riyadh Dubai Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley London Singapore Los Angeles Tokyo Matlntl Washington, D.C. Milan 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. ti 11 Newport Beach Planning Commissioners November 7, 2011 Page 2 LATHAM &WATKINS«I 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. Paul N. Singarella of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP cc: Ms. Kim Brandt Ms. Leone Mulvihill, Esq. Ms. Carol McDermott SD1810615.1 Soo 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 -140 301 TAB A 302 Conversion of Use Alternative Report and Findin;s Proiect 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. Proiect 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 303 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 SO4 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 Pro osed 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 3015 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 1,0451 square feet has been assigned to the hotel units. The Tennis Club Site (Tennis Clubhouse & Courts, Bungalows & Villas) Y :: -.-� m rr 31 :tr,x s�- •`."Fy 1 A 'F°` J',��t'i` -" ysT, i .i£"'°"_ .,- 3 -- '4 T,.L__ }'{ Bungalows i Bungalow •. •� Concierge i Guest LWeting Facility 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. ll Soo 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 5 S07 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. 302 310 • Brief history of Newport Beach Marriott site • This document briefly describes the entitlement history of the Newport Beach Marriott ( "Marriott ") site, which is owned by HHR Newport Beach LLC ( "Host "). The City of Newport Beach's ( "City ") General Plan designates 611 hotel units for Anomaly 43, which is the Marriott site. The site is currently developed with 532 hotel units, leaving a balance of 79 units. The City previously has affirmed that 611 rooms can be built at the hotel site. The City originally amended its General Plan to allow 611 hotel units at the Marriott site in 1983. Since that time it has affirmed that 611 units can be built at the site, and also that, if not used on site, the hotel may transfer them with the City's consent. Relevant history includes: • • Santa Barbara Condominiums roject. On January, 10, 2006, the City Council approved the Santa Barbara Condominiums project. The project included subdividing the Marriott site into two parcels and amending the General Plan to allow 79 residential units on the smaller, 4.25 -acre parcel, adjacent to the preexisting hotel. • o The staff report specifically states that the hotel may construct the 79 units on site or transfer them to another site with the City's consent. "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 are a." (Emphasis added.) (Exhibit 1.) o The project's CEOA review similarly allows Host to develop the 79 units on site • or transfer them. The mitigated negative declaration prepared for the Santa Barbara Condominiums project similarly indicates that Host may develop or transfer the 79 unbuilt hotel 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 in the future on the adjacent hotel • site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the remaining 79 rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area." (Exhibit 2.) o The Planning Commission minutes also reflect that the 79 units would remain on the hotel site. "Chairperson Toerge asked if the new condominiums would absorb any of the 79 unused hotel room allocation. He was answered no." (Exhibit 3.) • o Resolution 2006 -2 approving the project specifically finds that the entitlement for the 79 undeveloped hotel units was not reduced. "Although the change in land use designation will reduce the land available for visitor serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres; the opportunity to construct remaining hotel room entitlement of 79 • rooms would not be lost and they could be constructed nearby within the portion of the Newport Center that is located within the Coastal Zone." (Exhibit 4.) • srn810623.2 • o $10,000,000 in mitigation to be paid for the 79 new units. As part of the creation of 79 new residential units, the property owner is required to pay $10 MM in mitigation - -$5 MM as a condition of the Coastal Commission approval and $5 • MM as a condition of the City's approval. (Exhibit 5 [California Coastal Commission Resolution on City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 1 -061 at p. 6; Exhibit 6 [July 24, 2007 City Council staff report].) 2006 General Plan adoption. The City adopted the new General Plan in 2006. This was • ratified by a November 7, 2007 vote of the people. o The General Plan specifically designates the Marriott for 611 hotel units. The Newport Beach Marriott is located in Anomaly 43 of the L I statistical area of the City's General Plan. Table LU -2 of the General Plan Land Use Element • designates a development intensity of 611 hotel rooms for Anomaly 43. (Exhibit 7.) o Figure LU -13 further suggests that Anomaly 43 corresponds to Host's real property (the Marriott site). (Exhibit 8.) • • In the May 11. 2004 substantial conformance review, the City reiterated that the site is authorized to build 611 hotel rooms. In 2004, the Marriott Hotel operated 586 hotel rooms. It sought City approval to consolidate some of the rooms into larger suites and into other amenities and facilities, bringing the total number of rooms down to 532. • o The Citv Planning Director found that the hotel has a right to build 611 total rooms. In the staff report for the substantial conformance review, the Planning Director specifically found that the hotel is authorized to build 611 hotel rooms: "The hotel is currently authorized 611 hotel rooms and currently operates 586." (Exhibit 9.) • The Devious General Plan clearly indicated that a total of 611 hotel rooms can be built at the site. Previous versions of the General Plan also clearly stated that a total of 611 hotel rooms can be built at the site. For example, in 1995, the Land Use Element stated that Block 900 — Hotel Plaza was "designated for Administrative, professional, and Financial • Commercial and Multi - Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with ancillary hotel support facilities and 16,630 sq.ft. of office development. The residential site is allocated 67 dwelling units." (Exhibit 10.) YPsI e ",, 312 7 • • • The Coastal Commission relied on the understanding that 611 hotel units can be built at the Marriott site. • The Santa Barbara Condominiums project required an amendment to the City's Land Use Plan, to change the designation of 4.25 acres from Visitor- Serving Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The Coastal Commission was concerned that changing the designation of the 4.25 acres (the smaller portion of the subdivided Marriott site) would reduce the availability of visitor- serving coastal uses. It relied on the City's approvals to conclude that the project would not result in the Marriott site losing any of the remaining 79 units. • "In order for the proposed land use conversion from Visitor - Service 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 development permit (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 pronertv 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.)" (Emphasis added.) (Exhibit I 1 [California Coastal Commission Resolution on City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment 1 -06].) The Marriott has fully mitigated traffic impacts for the hotel rooms. • The City prepared a full environmental impact report when it amended the General Plan in 1983 to approve the site for 611 hotel units. As part of the environmental review and project approval, the Marriott was required to implement extensive mitigation. This environmental impact report required Marriott to mitigate for the traffic impacts of the entire 611 hotel rooms. • C • C7 3 • srn810623.2 • The EIR analyzes and imposes mitigation on trips for buildout of the entire 611 hotel rooms. • TABLE E 64 TRAFFIC GENERATION LM Trip Generation Estimated Trip Period Rate Ends Daily 12.0 2,800 P.M. peak hour Incoming 0.5 120 Outgoing 0.3 70 2.5 peak -hour period Incoming 1.0 240 Outgoing 0.6 140 Source: Weston Pringle & Associates, July 1982. is 1Trip ends per room. 28ased upon 234 u,Eg estrooms._ Full expansion was taken into account in analysis and therefore mitigated tor. (Excerpt from EIR; see Exhibit 13 for full EIR traffic study.) The 234 units represents the increase in units from 377 to 611 units that was entitled in 1983. • The Plannine Director's suoDlemental staff report indicates the hotel was reauired to Dav $603,800 for traffic and noise mitigation. "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." (Exhibit 12.) 4 SD%i0623 2 31'4' C • U Li 0 0 • • • L 0 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: Pal Patricia L. emple Planning Director 310 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: Patricia L. Temple Planning Director 317 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CHUM AGENDA Agenda Item No. I_'} 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). Sig Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 2 '1•JETiTiT elvirlulI all l lliVl•IcYLa 461611 IIA Ila rdF IIs[a:I GO Ws) (W MTiTi ILYFR Pla7[U11Itl 11 lllull 111tilN i =ltlON D 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 Study —Traffic analysis pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (fPO). • 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. S1q 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 (80% of 6) GP2004 -001 of 1,550 Proposed 79 39 35 Amendment Total 3,640 s.f. 1 79 147 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 potentWly 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 -B) 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. 320 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) Building Side Setback 7 feet minimum (varies) Rear Setback 13 feet minimum varies Parking 2 spaces per unit for resident and 0.5 space for guest 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. Traffic 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 1;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 321 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: Ro alinh M. Ung Patricia L. Temple f Ass1 ociate Planner Planning Director Attachments: A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Draft City Council Ordinance C. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 1681 (Without exhibits) 322 Santa Barbara Condominiums November 22, 2005 Page 6CL D. Excerpt of the draft minutes from the November 3rd, 2005, Planning Commission meeting E. Planning Commission Staff Report from the November 3`d, 2005 (Without attachments) F. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study (Errata, Response to Public Comments & Mitigation & Monitoring Program attached)' G. Project Plans' ' Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City Clerk's Office. s23 EXHIBIT 2 X24 • CUUXCiL AGENDA • , y �v�'� Po, , 4ir IM �t J 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 Associates, Inc. • 9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123 Dustin Fuller, Project Manager (858) 614 -4360 • Draft: July 15, 2005 • X25 Environmenta /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 Draft LCP, and Site Survey) A Would the Project physically divide an established community? U No Impact The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 4.25 acres located along Santa 8 Barbara Drive currently developed as tennis courts. The proposed Project involves development of a mufti- 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) !1 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 Significant 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 Plan 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 Santa Barbara Condominiums Page 3 -36 Initial Study and MND • 0 • 0 • 0 • • • • Environmental Analysis (continued) Ax \�\ iT 41d - L�C� i COD -&q� SWM CITY Of NOWDOIS9 h Project Site Block 900 1 �h Santa Barbara Condominiums Project Newport Center Statistical Area Map Figure 3-2 E] Santa Barbara Condarriniurns Initial Study and MND Page 3-37 Environmental Analysis (continued) Swn.e'CiN of NB OOBe cri Santa Barbara Condominiums Project Land Use Policy Map Santa Barbara Condo Initial Study and MAID Figure 3 -3 Page 3 -38 322 •I 1 • •, 1 •t 1 1 • Environmental Analysis (continued) Additionally, the proposed Project would be compatible with other nearby residential land uses. A less than significant impact to the Newport Beach General Plan is anticipated with development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would also require a zone change from APF to MFR in order to be consistent with the proposed General Plan designation. However, as discussed above, the proposed Project would help promote Policy A of the City's General Plan and would be compatible with the residential zones to the south and northeast of the site. A less than significant impact to the zoning code is anticipated with development of the proposed Project. The proposed Project site is within the designated coastal zone, which requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). As previously discussed, within the existing LCP /LUP, the subject property has a zoning designation of APF and the proposed LCP would designate the site as CommercialNisitor Serving (CV). The proposed Project would require an amendment to the existing LCP /LUP to change the current land use designation from APF to MFR and an amendment to the proposed LCP to change the proposed land use designation from CV to MFR. This change in land use designation would lead to the loss of 4.25 -acres of land available for office or visitor serving commercial uses With regard to CV and uses, the Block 900 - Hotel Plaza in the General Plan Land Use Element is allocated the development of 611 hotel rooms. 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 in the future on the adjacent hotel site, or potentially transfer the entitlement of the remaining 79 rooms (with City approval) within the Newport Center area. Thus, the loss of CV acreage would not eliminate the ability to develop additional visitor serving commercial uses. Similarly, the 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. Within Statistical Area L -1 (Newport Center), there is approximately 200 acres designated APF and the 2% reduction proposed by the Project is not a significant reduction, and therefore, a less than significant impact would result. As the proposed Project would not affect environmentally sensitive habitat areas, shore -line access given the location of the site, water or marine resources, or coastal visitor - serving facilities, it is not anticipated that the requested zone change to the existing LCPILUP or the proposed LCP would create significant impacts to this land use plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would be compatible with the residential zones to the south and northeast of the site. Setback requirements for the proposed Project area are governed by the City's Municipal Code. The requirements for the site are outlined in Table 3 -7, Project Setback Requirements, below. TABLE 3 -7 PROJECT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Newport Beach Municipal Front Setback (ft.) Side Setback (ft.) Rear Setback (k.) Code Multt-Family Residential 20 4 10 Santa Barbara Condos Residential Development 15 5 10 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Santa Barbara Condominiums Site Plan Based on these requirements, the proposed Project would not meet the required setback for front yards. The proposed Project would require a Modification Permit to deviate from this setback requirement. The majority of the proposed Project would exceed the front setback requirement; Santa Barbara Condomniums Page 3 -39 Initial Study and MND Environmental Anaysis (corMinued) , however, several portions of the buildings are approximately 17 feet from property lines. Those portions encroaching within the 20 -foot setback requirements include either architectural features or balconies /patios that are not habitablelliving spaces. The reduced front setbacks, therefore, would not result in significant environmental impacts. Is As previously stated, the Block 900 — Hotel Plaza area is permitted to have 67 residential units. t The proposed Project would add an additional 79 units to this area. The proposed MFR designation allows up to 36 dwelling units per acre. Based on the acreage of the proposed Project site (4.25 acres) the maximum allowed number of dwelling units would be 153. However, the Project is proposing a total of 79 dwelling units or 15.3 dwelling units per acre, well below the Ir maximum allowable density under the MFR land use designation. Therefore no significant impact would result from the proposed Project. As the proposed Project site is located in Statistical Area L 1, the number of residential units would be increased from 67 to 146 (67 + 79). • (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, Project Plans, and Newport Beach City Zoning Code) ' C. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources above, the County of Orange has prepared the Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP. However, the proposed Project site is not included within the boundaries of this plan and would, therefore, not conflict with this plan. No ' impacts to a habitat conservation plan of natural community conservation plan would occur. (Sources: Site Survey, and Newport Beach General Plan, Central - Coastal Orange County NCCP) 10 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES According to the Conservation of Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport General Plan, ' oil deposits represent the only significant extractable mineral resources in the Newport Beach planning area. Oil companies are currently operating oil extraction wells in the unincorporated �• "County Island ", located in the West Newport area. Since the State Shell- Cunningham Act of 1955 prohibits oil extraction on all State tide and submerged lands from the northerly City limits of Newport Beach to the Mexican Border, the County Island is the only location in the area where oil ' extraction activities are allowed. There are no mining activities within the City or on the proposed Project site. No oil fields or oil wells are present in or near the proposed Project area and the proposed Project site and adjacent areas are not subject to oil, gas, or mining operations. _• (Sources: Newport Beach General Plan, USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle and Site Survey) A. Would the Project result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? • No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located in an area where known mineral resources are present. Future development on the site would not affect regionally significant mineral resources since there are no known resources on the site. The proposed Project site is also not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a mineral resource area. (Sources: Newport Beach Genera! Plan and USGS Laguna Beach Quadrangle) • Santa Barbara Condominiums - — Faye 3.40 ' Initial Study and MNO • 330 EXHIBIT 3 331 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes • November 3, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Ir L r L Pagel of 35 file: //14:1P1ancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 332 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 Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary Larry Lawrence, contract planning consultant David Lepo, contract planning consultant UBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS 1he one OSTiNG OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA Planning Commission Agenda was posted on October 28, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: 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 Noss- None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: 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 or 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, gatel file: //14:1P1ancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 332 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 2 of 35 ential community. The tentative tract map proposes to establish 17 individu ential lots for custom home construction, 1 common recreational lot with possibly and shade structure, 2 landscape/open space lots. Private streets are proposed. est to re -zone the site from MFR (Multi - Family Residential) to PC (Planne munity) is sought, which is accompanied with Planned Community Developme text that will establish development and use standards for the proposed project. Coastal Residential Development Permit is required to ensure compliance with I memment 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 )ject site. vid 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 issf ncerned the subdivision of water surface in the bay. The City Attomey 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, E 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 redu( the point that the Development Overlay that had been proposed for this partim )perty reduced the lot area for the development to comply with the maximum 40% ba coverage that applies in the Planned Residential Development Overlay Zone. 'I derlying land use designation is mufti- 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 e zoning on that particular site to Planned Community, leaving the underlying Is e designation in the General Plan as multi - family residential. Therefore, we are hi fight with a proposed Planned Community Text and a proposed Zoning Amendm change the land use designation to Planned Community. With that the Planr eidential 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 ti 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 I file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 111/21/2005 _ 333 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 3 of 35 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 o 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. Staf 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, e 10 foot setback be provided. That is included in the development standards or 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 adjoin: 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 Homeowner; 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 he 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 it 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 l 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. mmissioner 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 file: //H:1Plancomm12 00 511 1 030 5.htm 11/21/2005 334 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 4 of 35 10 the west, and the commercial across the street. You have the opportunity to use the PC text to make sure that the access to the waterfront is maintained and enhanced with ome of the conditions of approval. He then noted other areas where a similar process as occurred. Hawkins asked what the smallest parcel is that the PC text has to? 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 prc 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 wi lyzed as well as consistency with plans. We have noted that the underiy 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 a i documents, it is consistent with that change in the front. Physical impa aciated 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:gc 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 file : //HAPlancomm\200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 33S Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 5 of 35 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. Z dedication will be on the property that they actually control as the exisl 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 114 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. l offer of dedication will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit t 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 transferr 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 marina. . 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 fe iser to the bulkhead to be used for public access. person 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. file: //14:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 ss Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Harp noted the reason for this condition is to resolve the issue of the fact that ;way is currently not on the proponent's property, it is on a third party's who has is. 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. Campbell noted the free - standing fireplaces issue would require a Modificatior nit in most cases because a fireplace would be higher than three and a half feet. Zoning Administrator could not come up with any current permitted free standincc laces in bulkhead locations. Free- standing barbecues have been done, but not f 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. Harp answered that if the Irvine Company revoked the right to have the walkwE would probably also revoke the right to have the slips. The main intent of tl iition is to ensure that the public has access to walk along, not so much as sss the slips. Typically, we don't make a condition where a third party approval essary. A condition could be edited that the offer to dedicate, or obtain, easemer eby giving the option of one or the other, that way you are not conditioning it on I party. ring, Commissioner Hawkins asked what sort of agreement is there now for 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 v( 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 rnned 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 proper 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 € ile : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11 /03/2005 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 Coasl Commission in order to occur. We understand that . If has been confirmed that the triangular piece of land at the end of the walkway owned by the applicant. The walkway will be straightened out allowing 1 landscaping and a sign that enhances the availability of the public walkway. It v 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. V1 will construct an additional hand rail so there will be handralls 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 Cali& 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 island 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 We we found that the City's property line varied and we had between 2 and 6 fE nd the sidewalk before the property line. What we discussed with staff is that ti Id have an agreement that would allow us to landscape the City's property Page 7 of 35 file : //H:1Plancomm1200511 f 0305.htm 11/21 /2005 33g Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 8 of 35 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 I Teen 6 and 10 feet of landscape area along that frontage. Allowing the 10 fo ack for the property owner would set the homes further away from Bayside Drii that is what we would prefer. in 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. Campbell noted the Tentative Maps show pad elevations and they are within tent 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 elude 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, doesnl 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 propost 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 his led 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 a to re -do the Harbor Permit and possible relocation of docks would be done gate 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. file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.hon 11121/2005 339 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 9 of 35 r. Harp answered that it may have been the intent for The Irvine Company to give u e rights to it so it may not be difficult for them to obtain the easement but there is tha restriction as far as posing obligations where a third party needs to consent to it an at 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 sd 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. mon 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 ti 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 'r oving the obstructions that perhaps that met the intent of what the Commission ;ing 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. linuing, 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 tt Fcation, 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 perty, 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. file: //HAPlancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 X40 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 10 of 35 Public 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 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 floating access and whether the floating access is adequate and meets the requirements of the Coastal Act. He then cited from the Coastal Commission summary of staff 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 causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shag extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landwart 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 to of MOO. This tells me the access has to be on land, regardless of what othe people have suggested. He then discussed the possibility of redevelopment o the subject and adjacent properties. He disagreed with the applicant's assertio that there is a remote chance that the Cove condominium development woul ever be redeveloped. He countered that the Cove Condominium development will 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, enabling a continuous land based bay front walkway from Bayside Drive to the Marine Avenue bridge? He then referenced an exhibit depicting the lateral coastal 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 and file : //H:\Plancomm\2005\110305.hun 11121/2005 S41 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page I 1 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 ant discussed. In conclusion, he noted it is the Commission's responsibility for tht 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 V 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 soluti( 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 ite aware of how much they have gone through to have access available to water eryone here in Newport Beach. I am happy that we have the access so long as i1 nll lit, the fact that it is no longer 10 feet wide, I can accept that. I just want it wi ough so that everyone can use it and enjoy that aspect. Whether it floats, iandws seaward, 1 don't care, it is access and adequate to me. 1 am happy with the way it )mmissioner Cole noted his concurrence with comments of Commissioner McDaniel. ris project provides significant access both vertical and lateral. The enhancement; oposed are good ones and will create an attractive walkway for the community. It ii large burden to ask the applicant in effect to what would basically be a redesign o B entire plan when the alternative seems to be relatively reasonable and attractive. missioner Hawkins noted the previous comments. He stated that the City's Di 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 tl are enhancing. 1 don't believe we can make those findings. I would be concern it requiring the access on land due to the proximity of the public acre sdiately adjacent to a residential community. He affirmed he is in favor of 1 ng walkway with the enhancements. imissioner Eaton noted he agrees with the other Commissioners. He added this project will have to go in front of the Coastal Commission and if pretation of their language is different than our interpretation, then the applit file : //H:1Planconun12 00511 1 0 3 0 5.htm 11/21/2005 S42 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 12 of 35 Will have to deal with that. and slips. mmissioner Cole affirmed with staff that the residents of the Cove Co mplex can not rent the slips associated with this project due to the limited parking and that anyone who is currently renting slips will have to move. iissioner 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 1 114 whereas most of the project setback is 5 -6 feet total. . Frontage along Sayside 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 N 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( s. 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 asterly of the entrance appears to be 1.25 feet for that stretch. file: //H:1Plancomm12005U 10305.htm 11/21/2005 343 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 13 of 35 McDermott noted that 1.25 is accurate and that at the westerly end the way r their landscaping and the property line connect with the enhancement of t 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 go resulting in a total width of 9 -10 feet at some points. visions of the landscape being 10 feet from the sidewalk with 5 feet sett; 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. Fing a discussion on the driveway lengths, turning radii, and distances it v that a condition is included whereby the Public Works Department will review at circulation and parking scheme that will be conducted by the applicant. Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted the reason the condition is there is mre 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. ;on asked if the lot configuration had to change to accommodate this, come back to the Planning Commission? Campbell answered it would depend on the nature of the change. This lot could Is wider to accommodate and it could be determined to be in substan 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. ;. 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 alopable for residences. We could do something if you want. It was determined r file: //HAPlancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 344 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. walls. Campbell answered the provision is the exception to the height of fences and w �re the front wall of the house could extend perpendicular to the side property I i the front wall of the house to the side property line a maximum of 12 feet. It is titectural 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 finer Henn clarified that this also includes the ability to build a 10400t Staff clamed. He noted that would not be appropriate due to s 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 Trent matter. Staff is not comfortable with those either and feel that modificatil 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:1Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 345 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 15 of 35 tandard could accommodate that and the typical barbecues meet that height. Th replaces 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 ecues up to a limit height of 5 feet. wing a discussion on permanently installed barbecues, it was determined th aces will be dealt with separately through the modifications process and up to foot height with a four foot setback from the property line would not. TI mission agreed. 4 - on site drainage. a drain pipe apparent at low tide water source is undetermined. Staff offered it r a storm drain and following a brief discussion noted that all requirements and Ws 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. 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 1 come up with a condition. Temple noted there is a condition of approval in the City's standard requirement, iring 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. file: //H:1Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 S40 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 16 of 35 i . U.S. Bulkhead line determination. • Add /change /delete 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 mciment 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. n Toerge noted that this is a quality project; however, the City has to follow the Coastal Act and given my interpretation of it, I won't the motion. ,sioner Henn asked if we are violating the terms of the Coastal Act by as proposed. Harp answered the language is added to the plan. The focus is whether or not the shorefront development is contributing or causing adverse public access impacts. determination could go either way. This will go to the Coastal Commission to roval /denial and they will require what access they deem appropriate if differen i Citv's determination. It is not a violation to oroceed with this action. Toerge Tucker None k • M Following a brief intermission the Commission resumed with Commissioner Tucker taking his place. John Walter Velardo (PA2004 -274) ITEM NO. 3 3009 Channel Place I PA2004 -274 file: //14APlancomm12 00 511 1 03 0 5.htm 11/21 12005 S47 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 17 of 35 Request a Variance to the maximum allowable floor area and minimum required open space Approved or the construction of a 988 sq. ft. residence on a 1,034 sq. ft. lot. The application also requests a Modification Permit to allow the proposed residence to encroach within the front, de and rear setbacks. r. Campbell gave an overview of the staff report noting that the property is presently Bveloped 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 luare 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 ,y 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 Btermined, at this time, is the design and amount of square footage, and the location f 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. >ioner 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 rcent 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 our ,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 permit are required. Temple noted that there currently is a two-car garage on the property. That �lopment, while it doesn't comply with the setback requirements or the floor area s just as the proposed home and new garage does not, R does exist and doesn't file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 S42 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 .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. iissioner Toerge noted that K we didn't need a variance then somebody could in and apply for a building permit. The lot is a legal lot that we would have to a permit for it. Temple answered yes, but because of the absence of any buildable area today, if 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 ss one way and at the end of the block and the house is oriented another way you J 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 n his dream to build a beach house on it for his family to use. They have hired an ihect and will be complying with the City's requirements and will be maintaining the to footprint as the existing garages. There will be no larger dwelling than is there r. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has read and understand the conditions of immissioner 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 : answer to the email. Campbell noted that the location of the structure is not within the private easement is that is for the benefit of the adjacent property. Now, does the proposal create ne other impediment that the owner might feel, I don't know, but the building itself is ! 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 uid 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. Hawkins asked what the current use of the garage is. Velardo answered the current use is storage, no vehicles are involved. comment was opened. e Kirstein, property owner of 505 and 5051/2 38th Street, referring to the vicinity stated her properties are the ones most affected by this project. She noted her aition to this project: . The setbacks are extreme and do not allow for any kind of air space. fi le://H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm Page 18 of 35 11/21/2005 S-�-q Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 19 of 35 • 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 J 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. rissioner 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. airperson 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 ilf, 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. T otion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the variance request and the odification permit for PA2004 -274 with the conditions attached with the changes of e minimum interior depth of the garage is per the Municipal Code and to have ndition 7 stipulate that it is operable, registered vehicles being parked in that garage. file: //HAPlancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11/21/2005 350 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 ;ommissioner Eaton noted we have had a number of applications where the back end: 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 I 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. rmissioner 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. 3sioner 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 ibdivision Map Act. There are other penalties with doing it that are not tied to the artific ate 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 urr discretion. It is not a'takings' issue because they are already using the lot for a irage 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 wes. He is support of the motion. Cole noted he agrees with the Chairman and is in support of the Henn noted we do not have the perpetrator before us, I am sympathetic file: //H:1Plancomm1200551110305.htm Page 20 of 35 11/21/2005 S151- Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 21 of 35 �o the current owner's situation. I visited the site and I don't believe the proposed plan s inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. nmissioner Tucker asked what year the Map Act was adopted. Harp answered that it was 1971 when it was actually codified, but it goes back to 1800's. Campbell added that the City established subdivision standards and in 1959 the le was changed to require parcel maps reviewed by the Commission if the lots that e suggested didn't meet the minimum parcel size, which this lot does not. This lion would have required a map in 1959 if the division happened in 1960. nmissioner Hawkins noted that the finding on the certificate of compliance say that issue the certificate but the Planning Director states that the above described real )erty does not comply with the applicable provisions, nevertheless, pursuant to the division Map Act what we are creating is an identifiable parcel that we can track. arguments presented tonight are very important, but this parcel is too small and vport Island has a host of problems that this project would exacerbate and so he not cunnnrt tha mntinn Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins None None 1301 Quail I PA2005 -251 ookfield Homes plans to construct 86 multi- family residential condominium units Continued to Thin 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 of 2005 ruce 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 anned 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 distri ;ulations will establish use and development regulations for the proposed ndominium project. A tentative tract Map is also sought that would subdivide the l0 establish 86 condominium units. Lawrence, City's consultant case planner for this project, gave an overview of report, noting: . Project 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 residential designation. file: 1/H: \Plancomm \2005 \l 10305.htm 11121/2005 5152 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 . The zoning amendment would add provisions for residential development to Newport Place PC regulations. These residential standards were derived by from the submitted site plan as shown on the wall. . 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 heav 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 tl property. • Potential problems are inherent in establishing a residential designation on of parcel surrounded by office and commercial development without a coordina 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 pf file: //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm Page 22 of 35 11/21/2005 3153 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 used the wrong trip generation rates for the study prepared for the project. It c predicted a.m. traffic and under predicted p.m. traffic (less than a dozen trip We prepared an analysis and arrived at the same conclusion that there would 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 o 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 eject 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 iff 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 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, rtd have one lane there to accommodate street parking and be quite comfortable" file://HAPlanconun\2005\I 10305.htm Page 23 of 35 11/21/2005 S154- Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 r. Edmonston answered the concept at that time of development was no on -s irking and that was the standard in terms of actual demand. it could be explored one of the issues being looked at in the General Plan update as a residential use uld accommodate changes to the streetscapes, whether parking or wide parkvu 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? mioner Eaton asked if the TPO traffic study needs to be approved and, if so, Won needs to see the study. What would the City and/or the CC and 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, auld be 30 feet for the front, which would be Quail, possibly Spruce, and for the Qu itside, the some 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 Page 24 of 35 11/21/2005 51515 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 25 of 35 i This project is an opportunity for the City to see a transformation of residentiall I land use into the airport area. He gave a brief description of his company. f . 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 s 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 access/pedestdan 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 affordablq 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. f it e: //H:\Plancomrn\2005 \110305.htm 11/21/2005 3150 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 th density and sacrificing what you want to do in a'for sale' project. II I 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. s 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 receiv 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 N 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 11/21/2005 3� Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 27 of 35 ommissioner Eaton asked if all the garage spaces were part of the condo sale to th snits 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 10:30. 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 Sts 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 8. mmissioner Cote noted: I f ile : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.hhn 11/21/2005 352 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 ter the Charter Section 423 analysis. Temple answered that is on page 8 in the second chart that shows the %lopment that has been approved. Campbell noted the project would take 86 units out of the 900 trip threshold. Vl Id then track 80% of those 86 for the next ten years against any other general pla :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 aase 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 curve setbacks and allowable building heights compared to the setbacks and heights the proposed structure. e The process for the General Plan update is important. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance is important and needs to be reviewed. nissioner Tucker noted his concurrence with all previous Commissior nents 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 :\Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htrn 111/21/2005 3,�9 I • Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 1• . Concern of the neighbors need to be addressed, hopefully prior to the meeting. missioner Henn noted: . We need to have a substantially better understanding of where the City heading with the General Plan in this study area. ommissioneT Tucker asked that the City Attorney's office have the right to review • pprove the CC and R's on the property. The CC and R documents should grant to City the right of enforcement of the parking provisions. 1• ollowing a brief discussion on timing of this project along with deliberations on Ind use in the airport area, circulation and mobility policies of the General Plan upc was agreed that the first meeting in December would be the better time to hear was made to December 8. 2005. Page 29 of 35 • Noes: Absent: Abstain: Henn None None SUBJECT: Lennar Homes (PA2004 -169) ITEM NO. 5 900 Newport Center Drive PA2004 -169 • nnar Homes proposes to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 acre site presently Recommended eveloped with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. Th for approval pplicant proposes to construct three buildings that are approximately 65 feet in height. The equested applications would change the General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan Ian se designations from commercial to Multiple Family Residential. The existing APF zoning is Iso proposed to be changed to PC (Planned Community) and a Planned Community • Development Plan text that would establish use and development regulations is proposed. Implementation of the project also requires a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasin rdinance, Tentative Parcel and Tract Maps for subdivision purposes, and a Coasta esidential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing in accordant ith the Zoning Code and Housing Element of the General Plan. N • (Commissioner Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this item. Rosalinh Ung gave an overview of the staff report, noting: (Development consists of 79 condominium units with 8 different floor plan options with • underground parking structures. . General Plan amendmenULCP Land Use Plan - the change from APF to Multi Family Residential is necessary because the proposed residential uses are no permitted in the APF designation. • The MFR land use designation is appropriate for the project and will be compatible with the surrounding uses. . The Planned Community Development Plan Text Adoption is a request to rezone • file: //H: \Plancomm \2005 \110305.htm 11I2112O1� Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 the subject property from APF to the PC District and waiver of 10 -acre minims land area requirement for Planned Community District as the subject property approximately 4.25 acres in size. . Tentative Parcel Map is requested to sub - divide the property from the W Hotel complex. The subsequent Tract Map is proposed for the condomi ownership. . The Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordii and concluded that project related traffic does not cause an unacceptable le service at the studied intersections. . The Coastal Residential Development Permit is required as the project inc 16 units for affordable housing in accordance with the Municipal Code. applicant proposes to locate these units off -site within the City limits. . A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the project wit traditional zoning of multiple family residential followed by a thirty day revie period from July 15th to August 15th of this year. Since then it has been determined the most appropriate zoning designation for th property would be Planned Community. An addendum has been prepared t address the change of the zoning designation and is attached to the document fo consideration. . Staff believes the findings for this project can be made and that it additional residential opportunities comparable with surrounding area of Center. rson Toerge asked if the new condominiums would absorb any of the allocation. He was answered no. Dustin Fuller of David Evans and Associates, responsible for the iments. noted: . The project will be exporting about 40,000 cubic yards of material, which equE to approximately 80 truck trips per day over a 36 day period, which broken do equals 11 -12 truck trips per hour. The total ADT added to the project will minimum and will not affect traffic impacts. . The air quality analysis includes mitigation measures that would also covering the free board on the export material and require cleaning of the as the trucks exit. We will be adding language in assuming a 30 mile round trip for the fill site as tt maximum. The applicant will be looking for something closer. Based on a 30 mi round trip with 80 truck trips we would put a number on the trips. 'Durir demolition and excavation daily total haul trucks shall travel no more than cumulative 2400 miles per day hauling materials from the site to and fro the dumping site.' Another mitigation measure to be added to addresses a ha truck route 'Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the projec the applicant shall submit to the City calculations showing the propose travel route for all trucks, the distance traveled and how many daily true trips that can be accommodated while keeping the cumulative miles traveh tile: //H: \Plancomm \21105\ 1 10305.htm Page 30 of 35 • C7 • • n • • • • i • 11/21/2005 • SO-1 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 31 of 35 to below 2400 miles each day. The daily haul truck trips shall not exceal 2400 miles during demolition and excavation activities. Harp asked that 'review and approval by the City to be included in both rson 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 iirperson Toerge asked if the construction works parking was addressed in the EI0 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 IN it be a parking problem, we would ask the contractor to identify how that would caged so there would not be on- street impacts. sing, 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. >erson 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 end homes; turnover in the rental stock, and that is what the Census tells us. alee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, representing the applicant, rn 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 A 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 mures and are in agreement to ail. 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: //H:1Plancomm1200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 302 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. f • 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 112 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. rin 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, surrounds on the windows, wrought iron detailing on railings and Juliet 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 SOS 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 3y will locate 18 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. Eaton asked about the parking designation of visitor parking; Suchta, referring to the garage plan, showed the visitor parking designations. ds 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. Gui ang will not be behind the gates, residents' parking will be gated. The park! 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; wh building is open there will be a fence between the golf course and the propel ending on what the edge looks like, some of those units are 3-4 feet above gn t is so they likely won't need a fence, but, in other places the golf course ,essed their desire to have a fence. We are working on something that will finable to both Lennar and the golf course and nice for the residents. The build! 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 endl file : //H:1Plancomm120051110305.htm 11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 Page 34 of 35 units at that location. There is no common room as the residents will have the use of the Marriott. )lic comment was closed. airperson 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 be shut off. Temple answered that the FAR reflects the total of the building and we estal 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 %mendment No. 2004 -005, Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2 )01, Planned Community Development Plan No. 2005 -003, Tentative Parcel Map ?005 -014, Tentative tract Map No. 2004 -004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 -002, coastal Residential Development No. 2005 -004 to the City Council to the City Coi rnd approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration OA2004 -169 subject to the find and None Tucker None file : //H:1Plancomm12 00511 1 03 05.htm 11/21 /2005 Planning Commission Minutes 11/03/2005 F- L Page 35 of 35 A* file: //H:1Plancomm\200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Soo 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 - none provided due to late hour. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at 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 A* file: //H:1Plancomm\200511 1 03 05.htm 11/21/2005 Soo EXHIBIT 4 1• 1• 0 Page: 14 • Attachment 1 RESOLUTION Nit. 2006- z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2005• 071067) AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Nit. 2004-005, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005- 001, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 20015-0114, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Nit. 2004-004 (16774), TRAFFIC STUDY Nit. 2005402 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2005404 FOR PROPERTY . LOCATED AT 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA 2004.169) WHEREAS, an application was Bled by Lennar Homes with rasped to property located at 900 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1, as per map Bled In Book 75 pages 33 and 34 of parcel maps. In the office o1 Me County Recorder to construct 79 residential condominiums on a 4.25 -acre site presently developed with tennis courts operated by the adjacent Newport Beach Marriott Hotel. The applicant requests approval of. a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1090 Loral Coastal Plan Ladd Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the land use designations of the 4.26acm site from Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial to MuMple -Faintly Residential; an Amendment of the 2004 LCPLUP to change the land use designation from Visitor-Serving Commercial (CV.B) to Medium Density Residential C (RM-C); a Zone Change to rezone the subject property from APF to the PC District adopt e,.Planned Community Development Plan to establish permitted use and development regulations; consider a walver of the 10-acre minimum lard area "i atment for Planned Community District adoption; a Parcel Mop to subdivide the subled property from the hotel development for financing and development purposes; a Tree Map for the Condominium. ownership (79 residential units); a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a Coastal Residential Development Permit regarding the provision of affordable housing In accordance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan Housing Element. WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005, the Planning Commission held a noticed pudic hearing in the City Hell Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Sortevard, Newport Beach, California at which time the project applications, the Mitigated NegaWa Dederation and comments received thereon were considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with law and tos0monywas presented tit, and considered by, the Planning Commission at trite hearing. With a vote of 6 ayes (one recused), the Planning . Commission recommended approval of Bte above-mentioned applications to the City Council. WHEREAS, the property Is located In the Block 900 — Hotel Ptaza of the Newport Center (Statistical Area Ll) of the Lard Use Element and has a land use designation of Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial (APF) and zoned APF (Administrative. Professional, Financial). WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cade, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on November 22, 2005, which was continued to December 13. 2005 without testimony, to consider the proposed applicetlona and the recommendations of the Planning Commission. , COASTAL COMMISSION NPs /,0it ill r' A EXHIBIT #I_ PAGE I OF '7 0 Page: 14 • Page 2 of 21 WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment and an Amendment of the 1990 Local Coastal Plan land Use Plan (LCPLUP) to change the lard use designations of the eko from Pdminlstratka, Professional & Flnardal Commercial to Muleple-Family Residential Is nocassary as the proposed resklenbal use Is not permitted In the APF desgnation. A change In land use would result In a 4.25 -acre reduction in land available to be potentially used for office uses consistent YAM the APF designation. However, within the Newport Center, them Is approdmately 200 acres doslgnaled APF and the two percent (2%) reduction proposed by the project Is not a significant reduction. WHEREAS, the residential condominium project Is consistent with the proposed Multi- Fanety Residential land use doslgnsbon. The proposed residential condominium project would be compatible with the residential developments to the south and northeast of Ire site. The proposed project Is vlewed as Incompatible with the office uses across Santa Barbera Street and Is also compatible with the adjacent hotel and golf course WHEREAS. Ihs 2004 LCP land Use Plan deetyhasas the eke for Meteor Serving Commercial Lees. "is designation was apptted due to the wishing use of the Marriott Hotel oNT#ex A change In tend use deeigrhation from CV-8 (Vlslalor.Serving Corcvnercial) to RM-C (Medium Density Residential C) Is recess" for the proposed residential developrtmnt The charge h kind use d08grhatlon will reduce the lend available for Asistor- salving oamherdd uses by 4.25 acres. Although this reduction In area would occur, the opportunity to construct the remaining hotel room entlement of 79 rooms would not be lost and they could be conaltucled WHEREAS, Section 30260(e) of the California Coastal Act (CCA) provides crllerle for the location of new development. The Coastal Act provides for the protection of ocahttal resources by requiring that new development be located In dose proximity to existing development with avalktre public serrvtcea to minimize the Impact& assodeted with the extension of infrastructure and services. The profed is located within Newport Center, which Is a development area with all public services (utillbos mods, police, fire eta) presently provided. WHEREAS. Section 30262(4) requires new development within the Coastal Zone lo provide adequate parking tackles or provide subs1aU,e means of serving the development with public Irunsportatim. The proposed development prowess an adequate number of on-ske perking spates. The project also will be conditioned so Mat to parking structures will have adequate dknensars, cierances, arid access to Insure their proper use WHEREAS, Section 30212, requires public access must be provided from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast in now development The subject property 1a not adjacent to the ocean or bay, therefore, coastal access easements are not required. WHEREAS. Section 30222 requires the use of private land suitable for visitor - serving mnmeroal recreational facilities for coastal recreation must have priority ovor private residential, general industry, or gainerel commercial development Although, the charge in lend use doegnet4n will reduce tine lend available for violator serving commercial uses by 4.25 acres: der oppotuNry to construct the remaining hotel room omrtkmerht of 79 rooms world not Page: 15 • • • n u L • • • 370 Page 3 of 21 be lost and :thay could be omebucted neeibYwfthln the portion of Newport Centorthat Is located! unison the Coastal Zone. WHEREAS, the'Cfy'a General Plan Indicates that the City shag maintain sultabie and adequate standards for landscaping, sign ooribrnl, site and. building design, parking and undengrounding of utNfties and other development standards to ansure that the beauty and charm of existng residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed PC Text contains one daufficatlon of land use and provides the development standards for the entire subject property. The draft PC Text contains development regulations for the subject she which Includes dentition and Information concerning requirements for development site coverage, building heighk setbacks, off-street perkkg, vehicular access, signing, lighting,- storage, and screening and landscaping to ensure that the pmjed Would be compatible With the surrounding land uses consistent with the objedgms of the Land Use Hement WHEREAS, to be consistent with the Housing Programs 2.2.1 and 22.3 of the City s Housing Element, the project Is required to provide a minimum of 20 %of the total units (16 units) for affordable Income households for a minimum of 30 years. The applicant is requesting that the affordable housing provision be off -she, at an approved waton within the City. sit affordable hwwing_is riot feasible at the subject alts. According to fits applicant, the projed'a Horns Owner's Association fees are expected to be a minimum of $1,500 per moth, which is a substantial muttiple of the statutory mortgage payment limits for affordable housing when combined with acquisition costs and taxes. With this pro rislon, the applicant well be required to enter Into an agreement with the City to provkle said units aR -alts within the Ceys grille, The agreement will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and will. be executed prior to the recordation of tract map or the Issuance of a building or grading permit for the propoeed.lomJect . WHEREAS; an approval of the prom Is Implementing Housing Program 3.2A that allows the City lo consider 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 an possible In response to the demand for housing in the CHy. WHEREAS, Charter Section 423 requires all proposed General Plan Amendmeme to be reviewed to determine If the square footage, peak hour vehicle trip or dwelling units thresholds have been exceeded and a vote by fie public is required. This project has been reviewed In accordance with Council Policy A•18 and a voter approval Is not required as the project represents an increase of 39 —A.M. and 35 — P.M. peak tour trips for a new 79 dwelling unit development These increases, when added with 80% of the Increases attributable to two previously approved amendments, result In a total of 47 — A.M. peak hour trips and 43.8 — P.M. peak hour trips; 3,840 square feet of non-residential floor area and 79 dwelling units do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds for a vote. WHEREAS, the projed is located within Newport Center whore public services and infrastructure are available to sane 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 S71 Page 4 of 21 WHEREAS, the parking requirement for a muipptedamiy raefdehtat toned, Project Is two Spaces per unit, including one Covered, plus 0.6 spaces for Went parking for developments of four or more units. A total 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 therefire, the projerd Monte the parking requirements of the Municipal Coda. In addition b the provision of adequate on•ske perking, the project is conditioned that the parking designs most all City requirements rogueing parking stall width, depth, grade, and alsle•luming radio. WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following standard findings must be made to approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Tract Map. 1. The proposed Tentative Maps are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code f title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map ACL Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19 and the SubdwWon Map Ad. 2, Lot 1 of the Parcel Map is being proposed for the residential development and Is Of sufficient sire for the Intensity of development and the site Is physically suitable for the project. The project provides an adequate number of parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code. Access to the aka can be provided through the proposed driveways along Santa Barbera Dnve. Additionally, no earthquake faults were Pound on eke. There is no known Incidence of landaitde, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction. or collapse on aile or near the she; however, existing soils will be required to be excavated and to-comp aided to create stable soil conditions to support the proposed . development, The Impfementseon of mi lgetim measures Identified In the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce any potential Impede. The site Is, therefore, physically suitable for development. 3. Lot 2 of Parcel Map Is proposed to retain a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, ProPoealonal & Rnandal Commercial. Lot 2 is not proposed for new development and this parcel will continue to be used as a ,hotel and It Is of sufficient at% to support its existing use. 4. Under the proposed Parcel Map, Lot 2 doss not Include any 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 to known to exist that would Indicate that the proposed subdivisions will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be Implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health, S. No public easements for aaoesa 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 i5x. r il I-7 Page: 17 S72 Page 5 of 21 0, Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meat minimum heating and cooling e*Aohcy standards depending on location and clkthate. The Newport Beath Building Departmand enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes. T. The proposed subdMslon fadlilates the creation of 79 new residential units. The provision of 18 affordable units will assist the City In meeting its (rousing needs as Identified In the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and Ste Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expeaetl to be leas 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 wats"rianted recreational uses. The project is consistent With the Ctilys 1990 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and tie recently madifled and approved LCPLUP that will replace the 1990 certified LUP. The subject site 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 site resources for water- OKented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prlorl&e waterodented recreational activities car other land uses and encourage aquacuiture and waterorienied recreational support WAties. The protect aka proposed to be subdivided Is not suitable for water - oriented recreational acavhfaa due to its size and location, approximately 1.5 miles from the shoreline. WHEREAS. the soft Irojed Is located within the Coastal Zone and requests the canehucton 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, affordable housing must be Included within the project unless it can be determined Infeasible. The Housing Element of the General Plan determines the number and typo of affordable housing that Is required. In accordance with the Housing Element 18 affordable (rousing units would be required to be provided, WHEREAS, a TrafRC Study has been prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and ks Implementing guidelines (Appendlx P of the Mitigated Negative Declaration). CEGA analysis for cumulative projads and intersection capacity utiltzation (ICU). and General Plan analysis. The project will result In a net Increase of 330 new average daily trips, 42 veNde trips during morning (AM) peak hour end 39 vehicle trips during the afternoon (PM) peak hour. The study concluded that the proposed project will not cause a significant Impact at the study area Itdemectlons; therefore, no Improvements are required at these Intersections. '4" I 5/-7 Page: 18 Page 0 o 2i WHEREAS, an Initial Study and aJiftgated "Negative Declaration (MIND) have been prepared In compliance with the Erikonmerdsl Quality Act (CEQA), the. State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K3: The Dreg MND was circulated for public comment between July 15 and August 15, 2006: Comments were received from the Califomla Coastal Commission, Airport Land Use Commission *and Mr. Torok Seleh" of Costs Mess. The contents of the environmental document, Including comments on the document. have been considered in the various de*Ions on Oft project Since than, it was determined that the most appropriate zoning designation for the property would be PC (Planned Community). This new zoning designation does not affect the sae, scope or design of the project that would potentially create additional physical environmental impacts. As result, It has been detemined that the MND adequately deeorlbes the potential impacts of the project 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 slgnilkent impact upon the environment and dhare 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 fire project nor cumulative impacts anticipated In connection wkh "tire project. The mitigation measures Identified are feasible and reduce potential Omdronmentel impacts to a lose than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 20044M. Planned Community Development Plan No. 2003003, Tentative Parcel Map Nw 2006-014, Tentative Tract Map No. 2004-04 (10774). Treffro Study No. 2005-002 and Coastal Resklernial Development Permit No. 2005 -04 shed only became effective upon the approval of LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -01 by are California Coastal Cornmlasion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. 2WH71064 approve General Plan Amendment No. 20044W by amending the Land Use Element Statistiol Ares L1, Block 060 4O0*1 Plaza and the Estimated &owth for Statistical Area Lt Table of the General Plan as depkxed in Exhibk •A' and Lend Use map m Exhibit V, LCP Lord Use Plan Amendment No. 2005001 by reftng Land Use map as depleted In Exhibit 'C', Tentative Peroel Map No. 2003 014, Tentative Taut Map No. 2004.004 (16774), Traffic Study No. 2005 002 and Coastal Residantlat Develo"ni Permit No. 20054D04, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit *V x- r L f Page: 19 Page 7 o 21 '! This resolutlon shall take effect Immediately upon adoption. Passed and adopted by the City 4 Council of New* Beach at a. regular meeting held on the 10°1 day of January 2008 by the following vote to wIC RYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, salich, Hoeansky, etdoeway. Daigle, Nichol*. Mayor Nabb NOES, COUNCIL MPAABER3 Now ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS Nona 0A A MAYOR ATTEST. s�1 67R. I 7 /7 Page: 20 37'�7 RESOLUTION NO. 2006. 26 A;.,RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH: DECLARING THAT LOCAL COAST PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NOS, 2005 -001 AND 2000 -001 ARE INTENDED TO BE CARIED OUT IN FULL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT WHEREAS, on. January 10, 2006, the City Council approved Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005-001 changing the coastal land use designation of a 4.25-acre site locates at 900 Newport Center Drive from CV-8 (Visitor-Serving Commercial) to RML (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 jOpan Space) to facllltate 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 specified when the amendments become effective, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. Coastal Land Use Pian Amendment Nos. 2005-001 and 2006-001 are intended to be carded out In full conformance with the California Coastal Act. Section 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Nos. 2005.001 and 2006001 shall take effect 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 City Council adopts the Commission suggested modifications. Section 3. This resolution shall 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 2008 by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Curry, selich aosanak Ridgewa Daig e, Nichols, Mayor Nebb NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS --- ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS „ MAYOR ATT jTjJ' CITY CLERK O �aau Page: 29 COASTAL COMMISSION NPg I -2- P►�i- }- pAGE�— OF --?z s C EXHIBIT 5 S77 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOW SCHWARZENEGGER. Govemw CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangats, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 008024302 t582) 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 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 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 S7g 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 - 300D. 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 S�j I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 -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 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. esolution for Certification with Sunciested 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 �g0 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 S21, 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. Suaaested 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 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 3g-1? 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 21.2 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 sg-� 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 Appllcation 5 -07 -085 (Lennar), which seeks authorization to develop the condominium project, will be considered by the Commission at a subsequent hearing. Page: 7 3g-:� Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use Plan 2.3.1 -3 On land designated for visitor - serving andfor 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, "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 3 g� Visitor Serving Commercial Designation Amount of Land CV -A 0.5 -0.75 7.65 acres CV -B 0.5 -1.25 42.90 acres Newport Coast Planned Community 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% 14.25/(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, [fjhe 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 facifities" to be provided under Page: 9 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 finds 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 andlor 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. Mitioation.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 S27 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 S224 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 S2 . EXHIBIT 6 �9 D 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: 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 S 1 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 \... 11/4/20 02 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 (MND) 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 S� 3 mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/201- 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 /20TJ AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 5 of 17 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan City of Newport Beach, CA July 24, 2007 395 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 g City ProCE 3 Summary 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 S III. Consistency with Housing Element 9 IV. Income and Rent Limits Io Appendix A — City of Newport Beach Resolution of Approval ii mhtml:le://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2Bf� (O fi AHIP & 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 \... 11/4/20T4:7 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos II. 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: o New 30 gallon electric water heaters and non -burst water supply lines o New countertop for folding clothes o 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 \... 11/4/20 1J g 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: • Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including unbroken windows and doors • 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 • Gas facilities in good working order • Heating facilities in good working order • An electric system, including lighting, wiring, and equipment, in good working order • Clean and sanitary buildings, grounds, and appurtenances (for example, courtyard, swimming pool and-carports), free from debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents, and vermin • Adequate trash receptacles in good repair • Floors, stairways, and railings in good repair • 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 • Operable deadbolt locks on the main entry doors of rental units, and operable locking or security devices on windows o Working smoke detectors in all units and in common stairwells o Ground fault circuit interrupters for swimming pools and antisuction protections mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/20�J� AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Project Location Map Page 10 of 17 mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 1 1 /4/2 0 1 10 0 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos ❑7r .r 0 V Up Page 11 of 17 mhtml:fle://C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011�� AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos III. 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 renter and available to Moderate Income Households owner occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the city mhtml:frle: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/20f,02 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:Mocuments and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/201�� 1 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 1 mhtml:file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \ocbowne\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/20 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 wo 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 \... I 1 /4 /20flo 0 AHIP & MOU - Santa Barbara Condos Page 17 of 17 mhtml:51e: / /C: \Documents and Settings \ocbowne \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \... 11/4/2011 EXHIBIT 7 • C7 • F, C] • • • • • • CHAPTER 3 Land Use Element Land Use Element Table LU2 Anomaly Number Anomaly Locaflons Statistical Land Use Development Area Designation Limit (30 Development Limit Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -1-12 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) _ 2 L4 MU -H2 1,052,880 2.1 1.4 MU -H2 18,810 11,544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 5 L4 MU -1-12 32.500 6 L4 MU -1-12 46,044 7 L4 MU -1-12 81,372 8 L4 MU -1-12 442,775 _ 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms ( included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -1-12 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not induced in total scuare footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -1-12 457,880 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO- G/MU -H2 860,884 _ 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -H2 33.292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf; Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO-G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 _ 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 - 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 L1 CO -R 484,348 35 L1 CO-R 199,095 36 Ll CO -R 227,797 Newport Beach General Plan 411 • 0 11 0 0 0 0 • • C 10 1• 10 n• lie 0 9 • 71 Land Use Element Table LU2 name ty Number Anomaly statistical Area Locations Land Use Designation Development Umll (so Development Umlt Other Additional Information 37 Ll CO -R 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 38 L1 CO-M 443,627 39 Ll MU -1-13 408,084 40 L1 MU -1-13 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41 L1 CO -R 327,671 42 Lt CO -R 286,166 43 Ll CV 611 Hotel Roams 44 Ll CR 1,619,525 1,700 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 45 Lt COG 162,364 46 Lt MU -H31PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. 47 L1 CG 105,000 48 Ll MU -1-13 337,261 49 Ll PI 45,208 50 Lt CG 25,000 51 KI PR 20,000 52 KI CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 Kt PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 it CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 56 A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined grass floor area of bath campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 59 H4 MU -W1 247,402 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) 60 N CV 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 CN 66,000 64 M3 CN 74,000 65 M5 CN 80,000 66 J2 CN 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM -D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) 71 COG 11,630 72 COG 8,000 73 EA3 CO -M 350,000 74 PR 35,000 Newport Beach General Plan M Land Use Element Table Anomaly StoNetieal land Use Development Number Area Designation urny Development Limit Other Additional Information City Hall, and the administrative offices of 75 Lt PF the City of Newport Beach, and related panting, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four legal 76 H1 CO-G 0.5 FAR lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design 77 H4 Cv 240,000 157 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 78 B5 CM 139,840 Development limit of 19,905 sq.fL 79 H4 CG 0.310.5 permitted, provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design LU 4.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions • J • Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units • unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been IegaUy merged through the Sxbdrviaion Map Art and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be re- subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories. (Imp 6.1) • LU 4.3 Transfer of Development Rights Permit the transfer of development rights from a property to one or more other properties when: a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City • such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of extraordinary open space, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities; (2) preservation of a historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of the area's scale and development character; (4) consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; • and /or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion; c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in this Plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. d. Transfer of Development Rights in Newport Center is governed by • Policy 6.14.3 (Imp 2.1, 5.1, 10.2) Newport Beach General Plan • • � l EXHIBIT 8 4 -4 EXHIBIT 9 417 May 11, 2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92655 (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. 412 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 or 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 511 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. t9 May 11, 2004 Page - 3 Conditions: 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. All 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 IJavier S. AICP Senior Planner F\USERS\PLMSHARED\PA'S \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 Rockledde Drive, Suite 1500 Bethesda, MD 20817 4 20 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. 421 May 11, 20D4 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. 422 May 11, 2004 Page - 6 VICINITY MAP Staff Approval No. SA2004 -009 (PA2004 -084) 900 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 422 EXHIBIT 10 i• i I• 1• II• I• I• 19 I• EM 1• 19 Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach Adopted by the Newport Beach City Council Octobe-24, 1988 Resolution No. 88 -100 (huaporates General Plan Amendments Approved Through September, 1995) Jarnboree Road /AtacArtlrur Boulevard Area (Statistical Division L) This area is comprised of the major commercial and residential planned communities, including Newport Center, Big Canyon, Aeronutronic FordBelcourt, North Ford, San Diego Creek North, Jamboree/MacArthur, Koll Center Newport and Newport Place, as well as the Campus • Drive Industrial Tract. Newport Center (Statistical Area Ll) The Newport Center area is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, San Joaquin • Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Development is allocated to Newport Center on a block -by -block basis, as set forth in the following discussion. All landscaped entry areas of Newport Center are designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space. Transfers of development rights in Newport Center are permitted, 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. It is proposed that Newport Center be rezoned to the Planned Community District, with a comprehensive Planned Community Text developed and adopted. All development limits are exclusive of parking. Block O - Corporate Plaza. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Farallon • Drive, Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allccated 432,320 sq.ft. of office development. 85,000 sq.ft. of this total was transferred from Newport Village as part of the Library Exchange Agreement (Amendment No. 728). Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. • 2 Block /00 - Galeuray, Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Anacapa Drive and Farallon Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 196,545 sq.ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. • 3 Block 200 - Design Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Block 300, Avocado Avenue, Farallon Drive and Anacapa Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 178,777 sq.ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation • 4 Block 300 - Thearer Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and Block 200. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 104,158 sq ft of office development and 2,947 theater seats. [GPA 94- 1(B)]. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation • Land t, w h:/emcnt 1'111 427 n u Is 5. Block 400 - Medical Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Nicolas Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Miguel Drive. The site is designated for Ad- ministrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 88,173 sq.ft. of office development, and 351,945 sq.ft. of medical office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. 6. Block 500 - Company Plaza. This area is bounded Newport Center Drive, Santa Rosa • Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Avocado Avenue and San Nicolas Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 377,170 sq.ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. • 7. Block 600 - Financial Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Cruz Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 959,134 sq.ft. of office development and 325 hotel rooms. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within the office portion of this development allocation. [GPA • 93 -2(D)] S. Block 700 - Insurance Plaza. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Maria Road, San Clemente Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 327,671 sq.ft. of office development. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed • within this development allocation. 9. Block 800 - Pacific Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, Santa Barbara Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Maria Road. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Multi- Family Residential • land uses. The office portion of the block is allocated 240,888 sq.ft. of office development and 13,096 sq.ft. of restaurant use. Support retail commercial uses are also allowed within this development allocation. The residential portion of this block is allocated 245 dwelling units. 11• 11• 10. Block 900 - Hotel Plaza. This area is bounded by Newport Center Drive, the Balboa Bay Tennis Club, the Newport Beach Country Club, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial and Multi - Family Residential land uses. The allowed development is 611 hotel rooms with ancillary hotel support facilities and 16,630 sq.ft. of office development. [GPA 94- 1(A)]. The residential site is allocated 67 dwelling units. 11. Civic Plaza. This area is bounded by Jamboree Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive, and Santa Barbara Drive. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Retail and Service Commercial and Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities. Entitlement in this block is • as follows Land Use Element n u Pnge 68 0117ce: 337,261 sq.ft, Poliec Station: 48,000 sq.ft. Muscum: 31,208 sq.fl. Auto Dealer: 2.14 acres/25,000 sq.ft. Fire Stadon: 13,481 sq.ft. Retail: 1,760 sq.ft. The City library site was previously shown for Government, Educational and i Institutional Facilities, with an alternate use of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. As part of the Newport Center Library Exchange Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company, GPA 91 -1(C) and Amendment No. 729 were approved deleting the library designation from Civic Plaza and increasing the Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial entitlement by 57, 150 sq.ft., • 35,000 sq.ft. of which was transferred from Newport Village and 22,150 sq.ft. of which was new entitlement. Subsequently, an additional 30,000 sq.ft. of office entitlement was transferred to Civic Plaza from Corporate Plaza West (Amendment No. 755). The existing 14,000 sq.ft. library will be permitted to remain in Civic Plaza until such time as the new library is completed in Newport Village. The existing art i museum occupies 21,203 sq.ft., with an allocation for 10,000 additional sq.ft. 12. CaPorate Placo ll ist. This site is bounded by Newport Center Drive, East Coast Highway, the Newport Beach Country Club and the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. The site is designated for Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial land use. The site is allocated 115,000 sq.ft. 13. Balboa Bay Tennis Club. This site is bounded by Corporate Plaza West, the Newport Beach Tennis Club and the Granville Apartments. The site is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space and is allocated 24 tennis courts. • 14. Neuport Bendy Counhy Club. This site is designated for Recreational and - Environmental Open Space to allow the continuation of the 131.52 acre facility. 15 Andnig's Nursery. This site is located on East Coast Highway and is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use. The maximum allowed development is 5,000 sq.ft. for retail commercial land use only. 16. Villa Point. This site is bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Sea Island and the Newport Beach Country Club. The site is designated for Multi - Family Residential land use and is allocated 228 dwelling units. 20% of the units shall be affordable, with the affordability standards and term determined at the time of project approval. 17 Sea Island. This area is located on Jamboree Road across from the Newporter Resort. The site is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 132 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 0 18. Farhiat Island This site is located within the circle formed by Newport Center Drive. The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is allocated 1,603,850 sq.ft. for regional retail and 1,700 theater seats. An additional 30,000 sq.fl 1_nnd U. %r Clcmew Pq¢c 69 l �9 • a• it of regional retail may be added upon commitment of the Bayview Landing site for senior citizen housing. [GPA 94- 2(B)]. No office development is allowed in Fashion Island. 19. Nenporl Village. This area is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard, East Coast Highway and Avocado Avenue. A. Ten acres at Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard are designated for • Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities for museum use with a maximum allowed development of 100,000 sq.ft. B. Four acres of the Newport Village area are shown for Recreational and Environmental Open Space for neighborhood park use. The precise location of • the park site has not been established, but will be determined when plans are submitted for of- -site development that was transferred as part of the Library Exchange Agreement. The property owner shall provide the City with an irrevocable offer of • dedication of four acres of the site in consideration for the conversion of previous residential entitlement to office use. The offer to dedicate the four acre parcel may be modified to require dedication of another site within the City subject to the consent of the property owner and the City. The irrevocable offer to dedicate the four acre parcel shall be provided within sixty (60) days after a written request from the City to the property owner. The irrevocable • offer shall not obligate the property owner to dedicate the property prior to issuance of permits for the office development that was transferred off-site, or the execution of a development agreement which vests the property owner's rights to construct the allowable development. • C. Approximately 2.5 acres at the corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Mac- Arthur Boulevard is also designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, for use as the Orange County Transit District transfer facility. Storage of buses overnight and routine maintenance of vehicles is not allowed on this site. • D. A four acre portion of the Newport Village site was previously shown for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial Uses with an alternate of Government, Educational, Institutional Facilities to allow for the possible relocation of the City library currently located in Civic Plaza. As part of the • Library Exchange Agreement, GPA 91 -1(C) and Amendment No. 746 were approved designating this four -acre site for a 65,000 sq.ft. library, and deleting all previous entitlements. E. The balance of the site, which was previously designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use, was redesignated for • Recreational and Environmental Open space as part of the Library Exchange Agreement and Amendment No. 746. All development entitlements for this Land Use Element I • Page 70 properly were transferred to other areas of Newport Center as part of that agreement. Big Canyon (Statistical Area L2) Big Canyon is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The area is identified as the Big Canyon Planned Community. The areas are numbered as on Planned Community Text map. (see Map 4) Big Canyon Area 1. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 83 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 2. Big Canyon Area 2. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 17 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 3. Big Can) -on Areo 3. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 12 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use Land L'xc Element Page 71 U • u • • • ESTiN4ATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA Ll Residential (in du's) Commercial (in sq.RJ Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Gron1lr 1/1/87 Projection GrouUt I. Block -0- -0- -0- 246,146 432,320 186,174 2. Block 100 -0- -0- -0- 196,545 196,545 -0- 3. Block 200 -0- -0- -0- 207,781 207,781 -0- 4. Block 300 -0- -0- -0- 130,408 134,908 4,500 5. Block 400 -0- -0- -0- 440,118 440,118 -0- 6. Block 500 -0- -0- -0- 377,170 377,170 -0- 7. Block 600 -0- -0- -0- 1,284,134 1,284,134 -0- 8. Block 700 -0- -0- -0- 327,671 327,671 -0- 9. Block 800 -0- 245 245 253,984 253,984 -0- 10. Block 900 67 67 -0- 616,630 622,630 6.000 11. Ci%icPlaza -0- -0- -0- 365,160 456,710 91,550 12. Corponic Plvv -0- -0- -0- 15,000 115,000 100,000 13. Tennis Club -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 14. NB Country Club -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 15. Amling's -0- -0- -0- 3,960 5,000 1,040 16. Villa Point -0- 228 228 -0- -0- -0- 17. Sea Island 132 132 -0- -0- -0- -0- 18. Fasluon Island -0- -0- -0- 1,603,850 1,633,850 311.000 19. Nc%ipon Village -0- -0- -0- 650 165,000 164.350 TOTAL 199 672 473 6,069, 207 6,652,321 553,614 Population 394 1,331 937 (Raised 12/94) Big Canyon (Statistical Area L2) Big Canyon is bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road, Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The area is identified as the Big Canyon Planned Community. The areas are numbered as on Planned Community Text map. (see Map 4) Big Canyon Area 1. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 83 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 2. Big Canyon Area 2. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 17 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use. 3. Big Can) -on Areo 3. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 12 dwelling units, which reflects the existing land use Land L'xc Element Page 71 U • u • • • EXHIBIT 11 4S2 STATE AL South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangete, Suite +000 Long Beach, CA 008024302 (562)58Pu071 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 DESCRIPTIQN 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. 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 E�NY the proposed City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan Amendment NPB MAJ 1 -08 Part A as submitted and APPROVE _P� 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 M'4 43:� 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. 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 S. Vicinity Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 6. Site Map (Crystal Cove State Park) 7. City of Newport Beach letter Page: 2 C 434 I. COMMISSION RESOLUTION ON CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1.06 (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 Dente 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 YjLvote. 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 43,� 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 43ot 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. ..: mo 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 i 4S7 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. Vt. 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 t 4SR B. Findings For Denial The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows: Site Description and Land Use Desianation 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: 7 439, Applicable Land Use Plan Policies from the certified Coastal Land Use PI 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-13 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 dose 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 44b� 10 10 Visitor Serving Commercial Designation Amount of Land CV -A 0.5 -0.75 7.65 acres CV -B 0.5 -1.25 42.90 acres Ne%vWrt Coast Planned Comniuidty 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% [4.251(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, [tjhe 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: 9 110 ,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 finds 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 visilor- 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. Mitioation to Replace the Loss of Visitor - Servina 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 • 1• 1• 1• 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 C: Page: 11 1• • 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 'visitorserving 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 1 • 444 r -- EXHIBIT 12 445 city Council Meeting. February 14, 1983 Agenda Item No. .... D -1 -- Supple mental Report CITY OF NEWPORT: BEACH...' - .. T0: 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 a result of the approval of the Traffic -Study and S'ita.1"ian 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 addition the Marriott. Corporation. was also required, . as a result of the approval of the General Plan AmendBient;, to pay to the City, a. negotiated sum. of money, towards the construction, of additional circulation system improvements. The purpose of this supplemental' report is to summarize. €or the City Council what the actual contribution amounts. to. Noise walls adjacent to Eastbluff,Irvine Terrace and.West Newport $1301-200,00 Traffic signal at the intersection of - Santa.- Barbara Drive and:. Newport Center - - - Drive (50 %) 40,000.00. Traffic circulation system improvements PCH /orange Street,'PCH /Prospect Street., - - PCH/Bayside Drive and Jamboree 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'huildout and applied to- ward the City's share.of tfie 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 - 442 City Council Attachment 15 Staff Memo - Conversion of Tennis Courts to Floor Area or Hotel Room 4 -�9 450 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: James Campbell, Principal Planner �w�b 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. 1 Traffic and Parking Analysis for Newport Beach County Club, Clubhouse Improvement and Tennis Improvement project, Kimly -Horn and Associates, August 2009. z Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Newport Beach County Club (PA2005 -140), Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, September 2010. 1 451 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 LUIS), 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. ° 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. 4152 November 9, 2011 larger Statistical Area is not exceeded. Statistical Area Li represents Newport Center and includes the project site. The Tennis Club portion of the project site is classified "MU- 1­13 /1311" 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 LU2 5. 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 #46): 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 5 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-1-13. Cl 4153 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 -H3 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 1u M.u-� 4 IM-11 City Council Attachment 16 Compromise Plans 45115 450 C COAST HIGHWAY sa • t• n 1 n a ARCHITECTURE Y40 YN +� 14 ]A51 Midi i 1 WJ.f '6+ CON CoR Rutty Fund One Uppee Nenport Rua Nexpost Beach, CA 9266 NBCC Planned Community Heepod Beach, CA 92660 P60EIVED @y COMMUNITY NOV 0 9 2011 i 0, DEVELOPMENT .t of NEWPOa� e PG Mxln Ran Compeomise 9 shoring IBC Roposed CON Clubhouse d CRB Wing vA 1'di 5' e" MI,XO RoJett nunnn C9 C COAST HIGHWAY me - 1 . . . ARCHITECTURE winix W... "M one Coll Really Fund One Uppers R"p it Plena, Renpod Beach, CA 92660 HBCC Planned Community Reepolt Beach, CA 92660 Comptom'ce 10 Bhoning IBC Proposed Colt Clubhouse 4 CRF PaWg (+Cuacdhouse 6 Fencing) r V' i' �npb Me,M ft* eambu C10 452 City Council Attachment 17 Phasing Plans 4 ,�9 Iwo] NBCC Planned Community PHASING PLANS 401 402 ITH -� -�` 'El ll GREEEN 1 L �I U c IIII I PAGT/ TE I n� REE GREEN EXISTING —� - GOLF CLUBHOUSE t CART STORAGE — ,E ;E I A V, / f o — — — — — — — — — — _ II �4 HIGHWAY PACIFIC COAST \ N \ f� P09 CF \ Nl 9 NorIM1 b= TENNIS CLUB PHASE I - INSTALLATION • Temporary Modular Tennis Clubhouse LEGEND new building new sitework E:] existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n 5 1 of ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 MIy 25,1011 i� i � ��:pgr�f /1 CART STORAGE i - TENNIS CLUB PHASE I - DEMOLITION / IBC • Tennis Club building • 9 tennis courts - perimeter Tennis Courtfence remains • Portion of Tennis Club parking lot (61 spaces removed, 61 remain) LEGEND C� Existing area to be demolished \\ Existing structures (on property) i IEE lilt% �I \_ _ L I1��_�f11I_�I1Iy11� ^JI11 O - T l COAST HI — j� - _ _ _- 1 u iW — - - -- -- — _ _ _ _ - NBCC r -- _ -- -- -- - Planned Community — _ _ - - -- — — —' s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 2of8 TE TEE - ,a l // iEE IpgpgTlLEI 1 GREEN GREEN J °O -GLEN CART STORAGE F GPEEEN EXISTING l/ - -�i' GOLF CLUBHOUSE —\ _— — — -= - - - - - - - - -- - -- i 1ACIEIC COAST HIGHNI AY TENNIS CLUB PHASE II - DEMOLITION • Remaining Tennis Club building • 3tennis courts • Portion of Tennis Club parking lot LEGEND r Existing area to be demolished ❑ Existing structures (on property) - NBCC Planned Community 0 25 50 10OF No ^^ s 4 e a r n s 3 of 8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 I5t TEE pgpCTIC GAEEN 1NM1 GREEN EXISTING GOLF CLUBHOUSE �NaCry J I CART STORAGE TH t -E THE VILLAS GAE I Cq 4N� f 0 e 0o zs� � O NorlM1 TENNIS CLUB PHASE II - CONSTRUCTION • The Villas -3 single family homes • private street from County Club Drive to The Villas • new Tennis Clubhouse & parking lots LEGEND ❑ new building new sitework existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n 7 4of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 Mq 26, 2011 J IBiM1 PEEN �C "FEN � CART STORAGE V) rEr I - THE VILLAS � \ r / It iEE pgpCTILEI GflEEN/ �° 1' EXISTING GOLF CLUBHOUSE rr, � I 0 i , 0 l \ �ql I pACIFIC COAST HIGHNI AY tf9 i ^1 TENNIS CLUB PHASE III - DEMOLITION •3tennis courts • Remaining portion of old Tennis Club parking lot • Removal of Temporary Modular Tennis Clubhouse LEGEND r� Existing area to be demolished [_] Existing structures (on property) _ -- NBCC Planned Community 0 25 50 100 F N ° ^M1 S t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 5of8 7 a III - 18in GHFEN 0 IPHHCTIC9 HEED EXISTING GOLECLUBHOUSE (I1 i 11 X11 MIIM 9TH GHEEEN Will ZZ t ,k ja J 1� X _ s9gNo F �v CART STORAGE :T / -T\ �rTT�F r�(��rt��I J 1 I � i I — - - -- - �I _ - -- -- — _ - - – -------- - -- 0 aft" i pgCIFIC COAST HIGHWAY P 4Q 'NF 9 \ r \C� p9j '1J ZHOUSE c X Noon R TENNIS CLUB PHASE III - CONSTRUCTION • Center Court Area • Bungalow Pool LEGEND ❑ new building ❑ new sitework ❑ existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 6of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 IE 11 enema �a�ee. / INM1\\ - I\ ��—� "vEu q O CARESTORAGE a i I EXISTING GOLF CLUBHOUSE 1171a91lwA l G / /GPETEE \N / 1 \ / J / \ I REN10VE EXISTING FENCE ANTI CUES OR RETAINS WAi V ri Y � 7 = 0 o1ln_IIfrYTI,I (�1 I��I \, �� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (HOUSE c 5 X D 2' 1 Noon R TENNIS CLUB PHASE IV - DEMOLITION • 2 tennis courts • Perimeter tennis court fence in front of The Villas • Perimeter tennis court fence in front of The Golf Bungalows upon Phase IV substantial completion of The Golf Bungalows LEGEND Existing area to be demolished Lj ❑ Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r 7 s 7of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 n � IiEE pgpLil LEI PEEN EXISTING GOLF CLUBHOUSE 1171a91lwA l G / /GPETEE \N / 1 \ / J / \ I REN10VE EXISTING FENCE ANTI CUES OR RETAINS WAi V ri Y � 7 = 0 o1ln_IIfrYTI,I (�1 I��I \, �� PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (HOUSE c 5 X D 2' 1 Noon R TENNIS CLUB PHASE IV - DEMOLITION • 2 tennis courts • Perimeter tennis court fence in front of The Villas • Perimeter tennis court fence in front of The Golf Bungalows upon Phase IV substantial completion of The Golf Bungalows LEGEND Existing area to be demolished Lj ❑ Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r 7 s 7of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 dTiv ^p rangC I I 18tH I HHEE� 0 / isn CART STORAGE ,% ��. iUL I �U�NGAI i i i i i lit - enEEN/ ACTT E %ISTING GULF CLUBHOUSE J N . NV PACIFIC COAST RIGHW AY v L�j`U J P 4Q i NMS MOUSE C X -" —__� Noon R TENNIS CLUB PHASE IV - CONSTRUCTION • new Golf Bungalows 13 boutique hotel units • new Tennis Bungalows 14 boutique hotel units • The Villas - 2 single family homes LEGEND ❑ new building ❑ new sitework ❑ existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 8of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 � � r� IF - I � I TEE TEE 1, 1 EXISTING GOLF CLUBHOUSE THE VILLAS l BTH �i�VJJ GHEEEN �, UU Lf \ , IJNGALPW -- 4 � \r 11 II I Hq i koft" i hr 9r \ OFN \ O Noon GOLF CLUB PHASE I - DEMOLITION • East side of existing Golf Clubhouse parking lot • Entry drive from PCH LEGEND Existing area to be demolished Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s of ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 FFEN J 1 HIP !GPE n \� II TEE \ TEE �\ iil iEE PGflEE // IBiM1 � � GflEEN o0 EXISTING GULF CLUBHOUSE I THE VILLAS w � BTH GPEEEN ���yyyFFF SNACK /lam STAND G(` \ � - � TEMPORARY GAIT STUBAGE �� P PARING i i / Y CLUB �I AN � !y I �— PACIFIC Gun G Noon GOLF CLUB PHASEI - CONSTRUCTION • East side of Golf Clubhouse parking lot, restripe parking area at porte cochere • Entry drive from PCH LEGEND F-] new building ❑ new sitework ❑ existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s of ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 n \� II TEE \ TEE TEE P�TICEI GflF N� IBiM1 GPEEN �v �O niP NG GPE — EXISTING .. GULF CLUBMUUSE CARTSTURAGE � 9gry w L� a THE VILLAS BEE GPEEEN 9NACN STAND TEn1PaorR AHKIIVG KU Y CLUB G I _ _ _ _ — -- TEN ZDDQJ � U 1LJLLi� ,ACIFIC COA ST HIGHWAY — — , FN 0 9 Ike tf9 i ^1 X 00 25� , V N01h GOLF CLUB PHASE II - DEMOLITION • West side of Golf Clubhouse parking lot LEGEND r Existing area to be demolished E] Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 'of' ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 1 CH G NG GRE I TEE \ TEE )t J \ iEE PPAOTIOG I GflEEN/ I J GPEEN V � � O EXISTING GULF CLUBMUUSE J AG CAGSTOHAGE \[\ Y i U Ir Ifim — — T I A THE VILLAS w � BTH GPEEEN SNACK STAND �) A TEMPORARY PARKING P CLUB 2z I Hq T kob" TEN ZDDQ U 1lJ1LL� p ACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY — — i hr 9r \ OFN \ \O \ 9j`F U tf9 i ^1 X Noon Ly P GOLF CLUB PHASE II - CONSTRUCTION • West side of Golf Club parking lot • Temporary Golf Clubhouse LEGEND ❑ new building ❑ new sitework ❑ existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 'of' ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 GRE CH tlly nA renAe� _ �� THE VILLAS n i \ 1? �aR GREEEN —_� TEE ACK STAND _ n iEE PPAGTIG61 GflE V / 1 j 4� GREEN O \; CLUBHOUSE - - -�.�— 60LE EXISTING i h' TEMPORARY / PARKING LBy AII �1 1 f h~ �ETN CART STDRADE GOLF CLDRHD L \ h ^i S �S C; TEN11 UNGAI CEE w — TTrTT11v� T 4I, �Fic c As HIGHWAY 1 0 -- ,_ -- - - - - - - -- — - / + Ike i Eye � A 9 O 9 tf9 i ^1 X Noon GOLF CLUB PHASE III - DEMOLITION • Golf Clubhouse LEGEND r Existing area to be demolished ❑ Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 5of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 Ifim iEE I CH G NG GHE TEE \ iEE GOLF CLUBHOUSE GREEN/ GGLEN � ��A\ �II Gi V ARY / _rim J CART STpRAGE GOLF CLURHDI� � THE VILLAS 1� 9iH GHEEEN ACC STAND LII PG EEN /vw 2a ✓ CLUB I / TEN ZDDQ p ACI FIC C04ST HIGHNI AY — I VA. A0 FN 0 9 GOLF CLUB PHASE III - CONSTRUCTION • Golf Clubhouse LEGEND ❑ new building ❑ new sitework �� \\ Ej existing structures (on property) tf9 i ^1 X Noon Ly NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach,CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 E TEE GOLF CLUBHOUSE F\j cill "FEN CARGESTORAGE GOLF COURRHOU \S�v CH THE VILLAS I NA�IK'� LIT11)a E T� �A PU71NG GREEN 0 LF BUNGALOWS TEW C', UNGAI 4� HIG"WAY PACIFIC COAST Allill — — — — — — — — — — — — — F, "7'W'W 0, Ike I N X 0 25 50 or, �) NnGh G 0 LF C LU B PHASE IV - DEMOLITION * Portion of Greenskeeper Area *Temporary modular Golf Clubhouse Northern portion of Golf Clubhouse parking lot LEGEND r Existing area to be demolished LJ [_] Existing structures (on property) NBCC Planned Community s t e a r of 8 A R C H I T E C T 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, 949 376 7160 FAX 949 TEE \ TEE \ iEE GOLF CLUBHOUSE �I Kh J GPEEN 0 FTEN J IEI� w EF f ` II TA1 r � r1 �_ TAm� CHIP ING GBE P, THE VILLAS \\ U BTUH I cBEEEN SNACK STAND MC GPEEN ' L FING EEN 7 ❑ G de :J � Hq i 0 TEN 11llLLLLllLJ -ll..0 RP CLUB vn —. .... .. l - V 11J� -�•'� 'F� Qe I- IFIC COPST HIGHNI PY — -- - -_ =- - -- i FN 0 9 tf9 i ^1 X No1h Ly GOLF CLUB PHASE IV - CONSTRUCTION • Portion of Greenskeeper Area • golf porte cochere & parking LEGEND new building new sitework ❑ existing structures (on property) .1 NBCC Planned Community s t e a r n s 8of8 ARCHITECTURE 500 Broadway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949 376 7160 FAX 949 376 1560 City Council Attachment 18 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 479 420 City Council Attachment 19 Development Agreement 42S 424 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 Attn: Citv 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 WITHIN THE NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT A10 -00773 e4 01.06.11 FINAL 425 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 .................................................... .............................10 4.3 Reservations of Authority ...................................................... .............................10 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps .................................................. .............................12 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ......................... .......... ....:.:......................12 6. Enfor cement ....................................................................................... .............................13 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 Cureof Owner's Default ...................................................... .............................13 8. Events of Default ......................................................::....................... .............................14 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 ....................................................................... .............................15 8.5 Waiver .................................................................................... .............................15 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy ............................................... .............................15 8.7 Monetary Damages ................................................................ .............................15 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Owner's Defaul t ....................... .............................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 A10.00773 v401.06.11 FINAL i 420 Pave 10. Indemnity Obligations of Owner ....................................................... .............................16 10.1 ................................................................................................ .............................16 10.2 Third Party Litigation ............................................................ .............................17 11. Assigivnent ........................................................................................ .............................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 ......................................................................... .............................20 13.1 Notices ................................................................................... .............................20 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking ............................................... .............................20 13.3 Cooperation ............................................................................ .............................21 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 ................................................................... .............................22 13.10 Severability ............................................................................ .............................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 A10 -00773 v401.06.11 FINAL -ii- 427 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 ( "City "), and Golf Realty Fund, a California limited partnership "Owner "). 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 District. 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 A10.00773 v401.06.11 FINAL -I- Ogg 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 hnpact 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 Corrunission held a public hearing on this Agreement, made findings and detenninations 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: 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 fi•onn time to time. " Agreement Date" shall mean the date first written above, which date is the date the City Council adopted the Adopting Ordinance. "CEOA" 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. AIO -00773 001.06.11 FINAL 2 4 eq "City" 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 tern 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 terns "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 Goverrmient 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 Newport Beach Planned Community District, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Council on or before the Agreement consistent with this Agreement. Development Plan approved by the City Date, as the same may be amended from time to time "Development Regulations" shall mean the following regulations as they are in effect as of the Agreement 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 Agreement Date that impairs or restricts Owner's rights set forth A10.00773 v401.06.11 FINAL - 90 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 Tern 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, gale, 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 pennits 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; (v) the date of or if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the validity or legality of the approval of a coastal development permit for the Project, the date on which said challenge is finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the coastal development permit for the Project, 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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Effective Date shall be no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the Agreement Date. 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 AIO -00773 v4 01.06.1.1 RNAL 4 T91- Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601, et s�Mc., 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 se Mc ., as amended ( "RCRA "); the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sections 11001 et seq., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et M., as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 gt seq., as amended; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 136 et seq., as amended; the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et seq., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et se ., as amended; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et seq., as amended; and California Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et SeMC . "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. A10-00773 001.06.11 FINAL 5 - /' 92 "Property" 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. "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 1 I of this Agreement. 2. General Provisions. 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation. This Agreement and the Development Regulations applicable to the Property are 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 terns of this Agreement. 2.3 Owner Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property 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) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) that to the best of Owner's knowledge, 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; (v) that neither Owner nor any co -owner comprising Owner is the subject of any voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy; and (vi) that to the best of Owner's knowledge, Owner has the authority and 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." A10 -00773 x401.06.11 FINAL 6 -93 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, a coastal development permit for the Project 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, their 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 time 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 A10-00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 7 494 which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject (herein, the "Public Benefit Fee ") in the sum of (i) Ninety -three thousand Dollars ($ 93,000 ) 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 '"date (the first "Adjustment Date ") and thereafter with the unpaid balance of said Public Benefit Fee increased on each subsequent January 1 during the Tenn 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 1 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 hrdex 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 to Owner or on Owner's behalf 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 seg.), 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 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 Bost If the City has entered into a separate Development Agreement with The Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (the "NBCC DA "), pertaining to the development of a golf clubhouse on the Property, this requirement to pay a Public Benefit Fee for the construction of the golf clubhouse shall not apply to Owner, unless Owner itself is seeking issuance of pemtits for the construction of the golf clubhouse. A10.00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 8 -�9 5 numerous events of significant social and economic benefit to the City, its citizens, businesses and charitable institutions. 4. Development of 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 teens 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 applied for by Owner, or that are required, for Development of the Project as of the Agreement Date provided that all such actions are consistent with the Development Regulations, 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 unless this Agreement also is amended, 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. In addition, Owner may apply to City for approval of minor 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.. A 1000773 v401.06.11 FINAL 9 -49 0 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 Agreement 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 Govermnent Code Section 65866 consistent with the procedures specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Caniarillo (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 Agreement 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. A10 -00773 v401.06. 11 FINAL 10 49:7 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. 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 liereinbelow). In addition, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be deetmed 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 this Agreement, the Project and any of the Development AIO -00773 r4 01.06.11 FINAL 1 1 "T9 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. 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 Mans. 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. A1000773 x401.06.11 FFNAL 12. 49-9 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 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) clays 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 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. A10 -00773 A01.06,11 FINAL 13 500 8. Events of Default. 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. It is the intention of the Parties that, while the City Council may declare a default and initiate termination of this Agreement on the basis of substantial evidence in the administrative record, if the declaration of default is contested in court, the court will review the default claim de novo and base its decision on whether the preponderance of evidence supports the City Council's finding of breach. AIO -00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 14 501 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 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 terns 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 cagy 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, A10-00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 15 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. 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 Part in 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 Majeure. 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 Tenn 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 shall 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. AIO -00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 16 503 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 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 fidly 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. hi 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 interest in to the Property, in whole or in part, to any person, AIO -00773 v401,06.11 FINAL 17 150 /, 1 partnership, joint venture, firm, 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 sea.) or City's local subdivision 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 Ri nts. 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 AIO -00773 A01.06.11 FINAL 18 SD5 with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Project. 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 terns 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. AIO -00773 v401.06.11 r1NAL 19 SD0 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 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 Party 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 Panty 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 foth 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. AIO -00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 20 13.3 Cooperation. Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Patty 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 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 Patty 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. A10 -00773 001.06.11 FINAL 21 1502 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. 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 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 applicable principle or presumptions of contract construction or interpretation, if any, shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against either Party. 13.12 Successes 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 refi•ain 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 A10.00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 22 509 regardless of whether such person or entity has expressly entered into an assignment and assumption agreement as provided for in Section 11. 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. AIO -00773 v401,06.11 FINAL 23 510 SIGNATURE PAGE TO ZONING IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC BENEFIT SPACE AGREEMENT "OWNER" Its: Its: "CITY" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Its: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: D� rl W Aaron Harp, City ktonky ( 17, A10 -00773 v401.06.11 FINAL 24 w �w 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 AIO -00777 x401.06.11 FINAL -25- 1512 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The Tennis Club: Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 94 -102, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 316, Pages 3 to 6, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County. The Golf Club: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County. Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 79 -704, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 152, Pages 17 to 20, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County. A10 -00773 001.06.11 FINAL 1 Po \/o Q� EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF PROPERTY rC/ TMENW z IHE ;- nuwr r u° ru"rr a u 4 W AIO -00773 v4O1,06,11 FINAL 1 MASTER PLAN .THE TENNIS CLUB - I MW fLQiuR [OUA �ienn6CLMouss ."EVRIAS �ssinCle hmiry Bamu -THE BUNBAIOWS D µgirt renleluNH - NEOOUC1UB N�SCC a PlRnnud C.. Nry nnu 911 a s • " BIT ARCHIIFCiURF 1 �n��mr.quu�1 5714 City Council Attachment 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program, & Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed Separately) 515 1510 aEWepa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard u i P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644 -3200 Notice • 3 Intent to Adopt • '• ' To: From: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department ® State Clearinghouse 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. BOX 3044 P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 County Clerk, County of Orange EI Public Services Division Date: 9/16/2010 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public Review Period: 30 days (September 20, 2010 to October 19, 2010) Project Name: Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005 -140) Project Location: 1600 — 1602 East Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Demolition of the existing tennis and golf clubhouses and the construction of a new tennis clubhouse (3,735 square feet) and golf clubhouse (35,000 square feet) and Project Description: ancillary facilities (i.e., cart barn). The applicant is also proposing to construct 27 "Bungalows') short-term visitor - serving units ( and Bungalow spa/fitness area and concierge and guest meeting facilities, and five single - family residential dwelling units "Villas" on the subject property. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ❑X attached 0 on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and /or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned. Planner, Title Contact No. __F Email Date Date Rosalinh Un , Assoc. Planner 949 644 -3208 rung@newportbeachca.gov 16, 2010 Updated 01 -12 -10 C Documents and Settings\My Files\KKC-01 17.NB COUNTRY CLUBTraal Initial Study \NOI.City ofNB.doc 1517 512 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 1 CITT O RE11PORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community (PA2005 -140) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rosalinh Ung, Planning Department Rung @newportbeachca.gov (949) 644 -3208 4. Project Location: 1600 -1602 East Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Byron de Arakal 180 Newport Center Drive, Suite 219 Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: MU -H3 (Mixed Use Horizontal) PR (Parks and Recreation) 7. Zoning: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community 8. Introduction: The subject property is currently occupied by the Newport Beach Country Club (the "Golf Club ") and The Tennis Club formerly known as the Balboa Bay Racquet Club (the "Tennis Club "), which are located within the Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community (PC) District that was adopted in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97 -10. The Tennis Club and the Golf Club facilities total approximately 145 acres. The adopted Land Use Element designates the Tennis Club site as Mixed Use — Horizontal 3 (MU -1­13). The Golf Club is designated as Park and Recreation (PR). The applicant is proposing a Planned Community Text adoption, Transfer of Development Rights, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, and Development Agreement to implement the proposed project. A PC District Text was not adopted when the PC District zoning was adopted in 1997. The proposed Planned Community Text is intended to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as a coordinated, cohesive, comprehensive large -scale planning project as set forth in Chapter 20.35.010 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The proposed Planned Community Text allows for limited mixed uses, including the private Tennis Club, the private Golf Clubhouse, "The Bungalows" (a small boutique hotel consisting of twenty - seven short -term visitor - serving units, a spa /fitness area, and concierge and guest meeting facilities), and the Villas consist of five single -unit, semi - custom residential dwelling units. 9. Project Description: Project Location The subject property (refer to the Vicinity Map), encompasses approximately 145 acres adjacent to Fashion Island in the City of Newport Beach. The site is generally bordered by East Coast Highway on the south, Jamboree Road on the West, Santa Barbara Avenue and Newport Center on the north, and Corporate Plaza West on the east and south. �19 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 2 Existing Improvements The Tennis Club presently consists of 24 tennis courts, a 3,725 square foot Tennis Clubhouse, and 125 surface parking spaces. The Golf Club presently consists of a 6,587 -yard, championship 18 -hole golf course with returning nines and related practice and golf club facilities, a 23,460 square foot Golf Clubhouse, golf cart storage barn (6,050 square feet), a greens keeper building (2,010 square feet), men's and women's restroom facilities (630 square feet), a 180- square foot snack bar, and 140 - square foot starter shack. The Golf Clubhouse parking lot is located directly off East Coast Highway and includes 420 surface parking spaces. Exhibit 1 illustrates the existing improvements. Proposed Improvements The demolition of the existing Tennis Clubhouse and Golf Clubhouse; • The construction of new Tennis Clubhouse and Golf Clubhouse; • The construction of The Bungalows (a small boutique hotel consisting of twenty -seven short-term visitor- serving units, a spa /fitness area, and concierge and guest meeting facilities)'; and The construction of The Villas (five single - family residential dwelling units). Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed project. 'All references to the "Bungalows" mean the small boutique hotel consisting of twenty -seven short-term visitor - serving rental units, a spa /fitness area, and concierge and guest meeting facilities. 1520 e o� c� e" C o (/ OP Z -100-00 3 9 1IG 52-1 VJ W m LL y2� O W HC W V e � c WWQ zL •Q RA e o� c� e" C o (/ OP Z -100-00 3 9 1IG 52-1 522 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 4 Table 1 Summary of Proposed Uses The Golf Club and The Tennis Club Existmg;Project ProposedeProject'. Golf Clubhouse Component Floor Area (sq. ft.) Component Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1s Floor Clubhouse 20,702 1s Floor Clubhouse 18,069 2 nd Floor Clubhouse 2,758 2 nu Floor 16,931 Total 23,460 Total 35,000 Cart Barn 6,050 Cart Storage 5,834 Snack Bar 180 Snack Bar 180 Restroom Facilities 630 Restroom Facilities 630 Greens Keeper 2,010 Greens Keeper 2,010 Starter Shack 140 Starter Shack 140 Total 32,470 Total 43,794 Tennis Clubhouse & Courts Component Floor Area (sq. ft. ) Component Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1s Floor Clubhouse 3,725 1s Floor Clubhouse 3,725 24 Courts 7 Courts Total 3,725 Total 3,725 Bungalows Component Floor Area sq.. ft.) Component Floor Area (sq. ft.) 13 Golf Bungalows N/A 14 Tennis Bungalows N/A Spa 7,490 Concierge & Guest Meeting Facility 2,170 Total 9,666' Villas Component Floor Area (sq. ft. ) Component Floor Areas . ft. 5 SFR N/A Total N/A Building Heights Component Height (ft.) Component Height ft.) Golf Clubhouse 23' -9" Golf Clubhouse 50 Tennis Clubhouse Tennis Clubhouse 30 Villas 35 Bungalows 31 Cart Barn 12' -0" Greens Keeper 18' -0" Greens Keeper 18' -0 'Exempt from General Plan Development Limit — Ancillary to Golf Course 2Exempt from General Plan Development Limit — Ancillary to Hotel use 523 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 5 Each of the project components proposed for the Property is illustrated on Exhibit 2 and described below. Tennis Clubhouse and Center Court The Tennis Club portion of the project proposes seven tennis courts, six of which are existing, plus a new stadium center court and construction of a new Tennis Clubhouse (3,725 square feet). The existing Tennis Clubhouse is approximately 3,725 square feet with 24 tennis courts. Thirty - eight (38) parking spaces are provided for the Tennis Clubhouse. The Bungalows As noted above, the proposed Bungalows consist of a small boutique hotel comprised of twenty - seven (27) short -term visitor - serving units, a Concierge & Guest Meeting Facility, and The Bungalow Spa. A total of 50 parking spaces is proposed for the Bungalows. The Villas Five (5) single - family residential dwelling units will be constructed adjacent to the Tennis Club and 9t' green of the golf course. These dwelling units will range in size from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 5,297 square feet (Plan D). Twenty (20) parking spaces are proposed to accommodate The Villas. Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Hand Car Wash The Golf Club Parking Lot and Entry will be redesigned to provide 300 on -site parking spaces. In addition, an existing offsite Parking Agreement will continue to provide 554 parking spaces to supplement the onsite Golf Club parking. The access easement that exists along the frontage of PCH will be eliminated. In addition, a private hand car wash is also proposed within the parking lot in the vicinity of Country Club Drive (refer to Exhibit 3). The area identified to accommodate this project feature encompasses approximately 240 square feet (i.e., 12 feet wide and 20 feet long). Use of the private hand car wash is limited to tennis and golf club members only. Golf Clubhouse The existing Golf Clubhouse will be demolished and a new Golf Clubhouse encompassing 40,834 square feet, including banquet/event facilities that can accommodate dining and special events (e.g., weddings, banquets, etc.), will be constructed in its place. This clubhouse will include both men's and women's locker rooms. 1524 Z a Y� K N Via_ N'm [ate y u '- r„L 1' w� S[ ,:\ F 3 j3 ¢S Z. m W • w e® E `F gm U H U c r p 2 - Za w a GA *k \J r \ l NOW, rya _ S�5 520 Z V W C 0] v 1 I 1 I 1 I 3 _ wE� °cc a=a y X 3 o] Q � V Q J�o ¢z w Q ~w' 0 Q W � Z a 1527 m W Z V W C 0] v 1 I 1 I 1 I 3 _ wE� °cc a=a y X 3 o] Q � V Q J�o ¢z w Q ~w' 0 Q W � Z a 1527 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005-140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 8 Project Phasing — Tennis Club The Tennis Club component of the proposed project will be implemented in four (4) construction and demolition phases that are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 38 months. The demolition and construction activities of the Tennis Club component of the proposed project are identified and described in Table 2. Table 2 Tennis Club Development Phasing The phasing plans for the Tennis club are related facilities are illustrated in Exhibit 4 through 10. 1522 Duration Phase Description (Months 1 Construct Temporary Modular Clubhouse 1 Demolition 1 Construct The Villas (3), Private Street, New Tennis 2 Clubhouse and Parkin Lots 14 Demolition 1 3 Construct Center Court and Bungalow Pool 3 Demolition 1 Construct Golf and Tennis Bungalows and Remaining 4 Villas 15 Tatal'Scheduie 36 'Anticipated Start date is September 2011. SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group Jul 2010 The phasing plans for the Tennis club are related facilities are illustrated in Exhibit 4 through 10. 1522 S e� c �1 529 Y 0 m H r o Z Y W ;erg x H a W c m 2 a Y Q �A S e� c �1 529 530 0 as m o � _ �— z •w�$ c • � sm V � c L c � E •� m& y w � � H m o • w £� 2 - _ - = m D rn w � • _ z� °M W cJ c u p e° sit f i • • � �i � 26� n 6 8'd b }'�� � npsia i 111111 I, ,I Y i � C F 53l 5S2 o v o° 2 o c >1 w w ry� Em Cm 3m U Z `F k w a co n t9 c c m m_w a w aA ®o❑ ze_ iIJ. I!W i i 1 533 1534 'o o ° m c w Z E n M o o 2 H a o Z • �+ F IF Aj `n F 1 • ¢ ~ � � W x m � • gm f' L 'sjo C I I 1 535 5s o \ � 00 M\\ .i, ��4s} ®z] �\ �.�. �. \ \ ,537 5S2 = Z E N W @ 9 F Z W C 0 C y n 2 Z h W VX W W (Q R m Up NX as tttt F a . � �❑ Z a n¢ �� k �.r "SSSJJJ I yy � Via' ` ; \ � � • \ i I I � 't Iii II 'I't if I _ � 1 III 1 Il I n u I II I III I it JT39 MIR z 0 v `JY Y Y\LL g s t- �Q \ \� 11 3 c� v Z m i 4 I ry�il CAF n� 15'1- c o2 c D a == u ew €'E •z sg W 33.x U c IO rU �m C Y\LL g s t- �Q \ \� 11 3 c� v Z m i 4 I ry�il CAF n� 15'1- X42 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 16 Project Phasing — Golf Clubhouse The Golf Clubhouse component of the proposed project will be implemented in four (4) discrete development phases. Although a definitive schedule has not been developed, demolition and construction of this component are anticipated to occur over a period of approximately 34 months, as described in Table 3. Table 3 Golf Clubhouse Development Phasing The phasing plans for the Golf club are related facilities are illustrated in Exhibit 11 through 18. JT /I 3 Duration Phase ° Description (Nidnth "s 1 Demolition'1 Construct East Side Parking Lot and PCH Ent 4 2 Demolition 1 Construct West Side Parking Lot and Temporary Golf Club 6 3 Demolition 2 Construct New Golf Clubhouse 14 Demolition 2 4 Construct Greenskeeper Area and Golf Porte Cache and Parking 4 I TiotaItS6K0d41IJer;, 34: 'Start date to determined. 2Includes car wash. SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group Jul 2010 The phasing plans for the Golf club are related facilities are illustrated in Exhibit 11 through 18. JT /I 3 544 9 rt ����� •1J i W� oQ co � N 2 Q N 7 W a 2 F E17 545 L U r 9 O p a � x i ° �' • W „2 m 1 • Z 6 w Q$ 8 u❑ 9 rt ����� •1J i W� oQ co � N 2 Q N 7 W a 2 F E17 545 �4 � m � m 0 d m m N Z O C O Q y 6 d C N G �m ;zt;� o m W c� d � ®�❑ za •a i�a a il°'}= m ` s rt c i I , +, n ..ZE II it s9 � ICI "S J 'E off E 3 \ Y L C I S4 g m 'o » t N c w o° 2 r E n q WO J O U 9� A w ryA G`m iW7 u'S 'ui m W p d � n J �� ❑ 24 • a �x it p _� �. ✓/ � \�, III �q D �[ � ` ,� • III \ P� m r _ _ q 5 j L n �l vl 550 a zw nnn 551 1552 _ P Z S L E n J 3 L ~ V- , `1� J O O p w a rn rn a UA� _ P m I i i �I I0 _ _l a 51153 S s J 3 m I i i �I I0 _ _l a 51153 554 m $ I fl r u v F L, a 1 �C JI 5,515 z 0 a 'Q LL = � C a' _rn � •_ 3� p� m $ I fl r u v F L, a 1 �C JI 5,515 550 m m o d U U m q O ° O a m AK- IMAXAMIll 0 r � m • x s„ mA t.G W Rr- q l r. .I I l I a� 4 t ' 1557 a E n m e a m m u J w ❑ it m AK- IMAXAMIll 0 r � m • x s„ mA t.G W Rr- q l r. .I I l I a� 4 t ' 1557 552 m x m 0 v 0 m V •I I � it f 1 1 I 1 _ I 11 3:1 1 lilt ._.�11 •i; I �e ��9 0 d o S: 7l /y� v�� ¢ d � p C K � t� m Z E F �^• W C7 Y J ®�❑ X16 •6H m x m 0 v 0 m V •I I � it f 1 1 I 1 _ I 11 3:1 1 lilt ._.�11 •i; I �e ��9 'E S: 7l y T. m x m 0 v 0 m V •I I � it f 1 1 I 1 _ I 11 3:1 1 lilt ._.�11 •i; I �e ��9 500 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 25 Discretionary Approvals Implementation of the proposed project will require approval of the following discretionary approvals by the City of Newport Beach: Planned Community Text Adoption Transfer of Development Rights Approval -in- Concept for Coastal Development Permit Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tennis Component) Development Agreement Temporary Use Permit 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: East Coast Highway abuts the site along a portion of the southern property boundary. In addition, the Armstrong Garden Center and residential homes are also located along the southern property boundary. Residential development west of Granville Drive and office buildings are located east and southeast of the site, respectively. The Marriott Hotel is also located east of the golf course. Jamboree Road and residential development are located along the western property limits. The Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, Santa Barbara Drive, residential development and the Newport Beach Fire Department are located to the north. LOCATION L GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE NB Country Club, including golf ON -SITE PR and MU -H3 PC -47 course, clubhouse and tennis facilities Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, Jamboree Road, NORTH PF, OS and RM APF, GEIF Santa Barbara Drive, residential development and Newport Beach Fire Department. Armstrong Garden Center, SOUTH RS -D and PR PC -30, R -1 residential, office development and East Coast Highway PC -40, RMD, APF, PC- Marriott Hotel, office EAST CO -G, RM, CV, CO -R 54 development, and residential development WEST OS, PF, CV, and RM PC -21, PC -41 Residential development and Jamboree Road 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Coastal Commission (CDP) California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Permit) 1501 502 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 26 VICINITY MAP 503 504 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005'140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 27 GENERALPLAN 0 40 245 DU � r ` ��� � .�- � CO~R 500 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005-140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 28 ----C—PC-19 --- I T SAN C;LEMeNTE OF PC-41 18 .,P 1 C-21 -54% PC -23 RSC PC-47 PC-39 PC-30 MnE Do tire, r RM s MF co z PC-40 R-1 )wry - Z z IO M o" I 1507 502 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 29 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. H I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a 'potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothiael er is required.^ / ❑ SdIbm ted by: Rosalinh Ung, Assipciatq Planner Date Prepared by: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Cc 16 . 1® Date 1509 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 30 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less inan Less than No Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of El El 0 El b) site and its surroundings? El 11 11 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would El El 0 11 C) adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson El 11 11 0 Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or cause the rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources 11 El 11 0 Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, El El El 0 to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality plan? ,570 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 31 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated El El El ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ✓❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 571 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 32 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an El ❑ Q archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource El 11 Q or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of El El El Q formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on ❑ ❑ Q ❑ other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially El Q El El in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life ❑ El ❑ ❑ or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where ❑ ❑ ❑ Q sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ❑ ❑ D ❑ 572 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 33 Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ❑ Q ❑ ❑ materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions El El El involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter ❑ ❑ Q ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code El El El Q Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted El El Q El response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed ❑ ❑ ❑ R] with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El El Q ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? `�3 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 34 G) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? 0) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ F1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 S`-Zy ,lf, NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 35 Less roan Lessthan No Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) 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, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural El 11 El Q community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ El El Q would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q specific plan, or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground El ❑ Q El vibration or ground borne noise levels? G) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the El El Q 11 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ project? e) For a project located within an airport land use or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or El El Q El (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 575 - NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 36 mentimy Less Than Less than No gnificant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating El El El 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El El 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Police protection? ❑ p 0 ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that El ❑ 0 El physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ El 0 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? L EMI 9 0 570 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 37 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel a) demand measures, or other standards established by the ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 county congestion management agency for designated roads b) or highways? G) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an El El 11 ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in El El El substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ❑ ❑ Q ❑ (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ El ❑ El transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable El 11 El Q Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the El El 11 ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the El El R1 El construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to E] El Q F-1 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 577 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 38 XIX. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist. The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; however, mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project's physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Those mitigation measures are specified in the following sections. Each recommended mitigation measure has been agreed to by the applicant. ® Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered potentially significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). 572 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ El Q 11 when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ [a ❑ ❑ XIX. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist. The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; however, mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project's physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Those mitigation measures are specified in the following sections. Each recommended mitigation measure has been agreed to by the applicant. ® Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered potentially significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). 572 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 39 AESTHETICS a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project encompasses approximately 145 acres adjacent to Fashion Island and is located north of Coast Highway. Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive east /west to Farallon Drive is designated as a Coastal View Road. Although Coast Highway is not designated as a Coastal View Road between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, a Public View Point is located within Irvine Terrace Park, which is located south of that arterial and the subject property in the Corona del Mar service area. Policies NR 20.2 and 20.3 in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan are intended to protect and enhance public view corridors. Specifically, new development must restore and enhance the visual quality and protect and restore public views. Similar policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) are also intended to ensure that coastal views and development within the coastal zone are protected and enhanced (refer to the analysis presented in Section X.b). To that end, the proposed Planned Community District (PCD) Regulations include development standards to "... ensure harmony and continuity of the design parameters that are respectful of the properties of its California coastal heritage." Guidelines have been included in the PCD regulations that address building mass, scale, materials, landscape treatment, and community design to ensure compatibility. Although the PCD regulations limit the maximum building height of a structure to 50 feet, building heights for the proposed structures will range from 30 feet for The Bungalows, to 32 feet for the Villas and the Tennis Clubhouse, to 50 feet for the Golf Clubhouse, which will be the largest structure within the PCD. In addition, landscaping will be provided in all areas not devoted to structures, parking and driveways, which consists of a combination of trees, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements. In addition, the Master Plan (refer to Exhibit 2) and the Preliminary Landscape Plan (Exhibit 19) in the PCD Plan show a variable width landscape berm screening the golf club parking lot along approximately 650 linear feet of East Coast Highway. The width varies from 20 feet to approximately 60 feet. In addition, there is significant landscaping between each row of parking to further soften the appearance of the golf club parking lot has also been provided. Landscape materials, including trees, shrubs and groundcover are also proposed around the site perimeter to soften the development edges between adjacent existing residential and commercial development. The preliminary landscape plan includes a variety of accent/specimen trees (i.e., California oak, California pepper), spatial definition trees (e.g., California sycamore, thornless citrus, lemon- scented gum, etc.) and background trees (i.e., Aleppo pine, Brisbane box) along with other species of olive and palm trees to enhance the aesthetic character of the site and to complement the existing development in the project environs. The architectural style proposed for the project is classical California Mediterranean, which is consistent and compatible with the surrounding development. The design and implementation of the proposed project will not result in a substantial visual impact. Although the proposed clubhouse will be approximately 11,500 square feet larger than the existing structure, it is designed to be compatible with the nearby development. In addition, the proposed villas are designed to be compatible with the character of the residential development to the north along Granville. Views from the Public View Point in Irvine Terrace Park are primarily oriented to the south to the harbor and ocean; however, with the integration of the landscaping and setbacks along Coast Highway, views from the vantage and inland into Fashion Island the adjacent areas would not be adversely affected. Significant visual impacts from the segment of Newport Center Drive designated as a Coastal View Road would not occur because adequate landscape materials, setbacks, and building heights have been integrated into the project design to enhance and protect views as intended by the applicable Recreation Element policies. In addition, mechanical and trash enclosures as well as pool /spa equipment, tennis courts, and ground mounted air conditioning compressor units will be screened by walls and /or landscaping. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 520 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 41 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is currently developed with private golf and tennis facilities. As a result, the site has been substantially altered in order to accommodate the existing land uses. The site is generally devoid of significant natural features such as rock outcroppings and /or native or important habitat. The existing trees and vegetation that are located on the site are introduced landscape species; no historic buildings exist on the site and the site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect existing scenic resources. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation includes the demolition of several existing structures (e.g., Golf Clubhouse and ancillary facilities, Tennis Clubhouse, etc.) and features (e.g., tennis courts) and the construction of a new Golf Club clubhouse and related facilities for the Golf Club component. In addition, a new Tennis Club, The Bungalows and single - family residential uses (i.e., The Villas) are also proposed. As indicated previously, the subject property is not designated as an important visual resource. Nonetheless, the PCD regulations prescribed development standards that address building height, setbacks, landscaping, lighting, architectural character and other elements to ensure that the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area are not adversely affected. The maximum building height of the Golf Clubhouse is 53.5 feet from the existing grade to the roof peak. The proposed Tennis Clubhouse would have a maximum height of 30 feet above the existing grade. The maximum building height of the bungalows is 31 feet, with minimum five feet setbacks. The Villas would not exceed 35 feet (Villa D), as prescribed in the PCD regulations. The two land uses have been designed within the property to be visually and aesthetically compatible with each other. In order to address the aesthetic character of the site along East Coast Highway, the proposed Golf Clubhouse component has been designed with a variable landscape setback that will act as buffer along 650 linear feet of East Coast Highway. Although East Coast Highway is not designated as a scenic corridor by the City, the wide, variable landscape setback will enhance the character of that arterial and provide a significantly wider buffer for the residents of Irvine Terrace. The setback will vary from 20 feet to 55 feet and will be landscaped with a ground cover and a variety of shrubs and trees that complement the proposed development. The Villas will be screened from the tennis courts with a five -foot block wall plastered to match the adjacent Villa or by a 10 -foot chain link fence covered by a windscreen. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The existing development is characterized by lighting that illuminates the surface parking lot that serves the existing golf and tennis facilities. In addition, lighting is also associated with existing tennis courts and security lighting for the parking lot and structures. Project implementation will result in the elimination of 17 lighted tennis courts and the intensification of development on the site through the construction of the Tennis Clubhouse, new tennis facilities, the Bungalows and the Villas. Lighting will also be provided for the same purpose as currently exists (i.e., security and parking lot illumination). Lighting required to illuminate the proposed parking lots for the Golf Clubhouse and Tennis Club facilities will comply with standards established by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Proposed lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties. The single - family residential dwelling units will be screened from the tennis courts with a minimum 5 -foot block wall or by a 10 -foot windscreen chain link fence. One of the proposed single - family residential dwelling units is proposed to be located near the one of the existing tennis courts; however, a swimming pool is proposed between the tennis court and the residence to minimize the potential nuisance posed by the tennis court lighting. In addition, some of the Bungalows will also be located in close proximity to the proposed tennis courts. Although it is anticipated that the lighting will be energy efficient and will also be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the property, the applicant will be required to prepare a final lighting /photometric plan to ensure that lighting on site meets the City's requirements. In addition, tennis 1521 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 42 court lights will be turned off at 10:00 p.m. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. However, the project shall incorporate the following standard condition prescribed by the City of Newport Beach for lighting. SC -1 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 Department. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Parks and Recreation" (PR) and "Mixed Use — Horizontal" (MU -H3) and the zone designation for the site is "Planned Community." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is neither zoned nor designated as forest land. The site is currently developed as a golf course and tennis club. Project implementation would not result in the conversion of any forest land subject to the Public Resources Code. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. As indicated above, the site is currently developed and is devoid of forest resources. Project implementation will not result in the site's conversion of forest land to non - forest uses. 15'2 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 43 e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No Impact. The site is not being used for either agricultural or forest land purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural or forest land. The subject property and the area surrounding the site are developed with a variety of residential, professional office, retail, public facilities, and recreational uses. Therefore, no agricultural or forest uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural or non - forest use. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted in June 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone (03) and the smallest airborne particulates (PM2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both pollutants. Key emissions reductions strategies in the updated air quality plan include: Ultra -low emissions standards for both new and existing sources (including on- and -off- road heavy trucks, industrial and service equipment, locomotives, ships and aircraft). Accelerated fleet turnover to achieve benefits of cleaner engines. Reformulation of consumer products. Modernization and technology advancements from stationary sources (refineries, power plants, etc.) Development such as the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing "general" development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of master planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on a project- specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less- than - significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project- specific basis. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. To accurately assess the environmental impacts of new or renovated development, environmental pollution and population growth are projected for future scenarios. There are two key indicators of consistency: 1523 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 44 Indicator 1 Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated by the state and USEPA as non - attainment for 03, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds to determine whether or not a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then the project would substantially contribute to air quality violations in the SCAB. In addition, the project would also contribute to air pollutant violations if localized emissions result in an exceedance of the AAQS. Neither short -term nor long -term emissions generated by the project exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions (as shown in detail below) and would therefore contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP. Consequently, the project would not be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator. Indicator Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. The current zoning designation permits development through a planned community development plan. Therefore, development of new land uses and their associated air pollutant emissions would be accounted for in the assumptions of the AQMP. Furthermore, the purpose and intent of a "Planned Community" is to encourage mixed -use development and integration of residential, recreational, commercial, and retail uses. Because the proposed project would accommodate a mix of recreational and residential uses within walking distance, there would be a limited reduction in vehicle trips for residents within the project site and surrounding area for commercial retail and recreational needs. This reduction in trips would likewise result in a reduction in air pollution. Consequently, implementation of the project would not conflict with the AQMP under the second indicator. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will be consistent with the relevant policies and requirements established by the Land Use Element. Approval of the proposed project would not result in any land use conflicts with existing, surrounding development. As indicated in Ill.c, below, neither construction nor operational air emissions would exceed significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Since the South Coast Air Basin is in non - attainment with respect to ozone and PM10, and the construction emissions would add to the regional burden of these pollutants, compliance with a vigorous set of air pollution control measures related to dust control, paint emissions etc.) is required to ensure that projects do not contribute directly to an air quality violation. Air Pollution Control Measures Dust Control Measures Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas. Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Water exposed surfaces 3 times /day. Cover all stockpiles with tarps. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as feasible. Sg4 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 45 Exhaust Emission Measures Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off -road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Utilize equipment whose engines are equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts if available. Utilize diesel particulate filter on heavy equipment where feasible. Painting and Coating Measures Use low VOC coatings and high pressure -low volume C) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing Golf Clubhouse and the existing Tennis Clubhouse as well as related features, including asphalt parking lots, etc., in order to accommodate the proposed uses. Potential air quality impacts are discussed below. Short -Term (Construction) Emissions Construction activities will result in short -term pollutant emissions that are summarized in Table 1, below. With or without the use of mitigation, peak daily construction activity emissions will not exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds and will be further reduced by recommended mitigation. The recommended emissions mitigation measures are detailed in the "Mitigation" section of this report. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 -hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 -year lifetime exposure. Public exposure to heavy equipment emissions will be an extremely small fraction of the above dosage assumption. Diesel equipment is also becoming progressively "cleaner" in response to air quality rules on new off -road equipment. Any public health risk associated with project - related heavy equipment operations exhaust is therefore not quantifiable, but small. Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to the surface disturbance area. There may, however, be some "spill- over" into the surrounding community. That spill -over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is washed into public streets. Passing non - project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off -site dust impacts. "Spillover" may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, lane closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan that will maintain such "spill- over" effects at a less- than - significant level. 525 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 46 Table 1 Construction - Related Pollutant Emissions (pounds /day) Newport Beach Country Club Activity ROG NOx CO I SO 2, Demolition of Structure No Mitigation 2.2 18.4 9.4 0.0 2.2 1.1 1,895.0 Mitigation 2.2 15.9 9.4 0.0 1.4 0.4 1,895.0 Asphalt Demolition and Crushing lReclamation No Mitigation 3.2 31.3 14.1 0.0 1.8 1.3 3,191.0 Mitigation 3.2 26.7 14.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 3,191.0 Mass Grading No Mitigation 9.0 88.7 41.3 0.0 11.0 5.1 9,004.8 Mitigation 9.0 79.3 41.3 000 2.3 1.6 9,004.8 Fine Grading No Miti ation 3.3 26.1 15.1 0.0 8.3 2.8 2,552.3 Mitigation 3.3 22.2 15.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 2,552.3 Trenching No Mitigation 3.8 30.5 17.7 0.0 1.6 1.5 3,095.5 Mitigation 3.8 25.9 17.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 3,095.5 Construction No Mitigation 2.7 19.0 13.1 0.0 1.4 1.2 2,070.0 Mitigation 2.7 16.2 13.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 2,070.0 Construction and Paining No Mitigation 11.6 17.7 12.9 0.0 1.3 1.2 2,087.4 Mitigation 10.7 15.1 Y2.9 0.0 0.2 0.2 2,087.4 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 'No significance threshold has been adopted. SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (July 2009 Local Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has also developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions -based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1 -4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional because they were derived for economically or socially disadvantaged communities. For residential, hotel and recreational developments, the only source of LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM,, and PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 520 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 47 most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The URBEMIS model estimates that the daily construction disturbance "footprint" will be 0.7 acres. LST pollutant concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites. Utilizing data for a 1 acre site and a source receptor distance of 50 meters, the LST thresholds are presented in Table 2. As indicated in the table, project - related construction emissions would not exceed the relevant LSTs. Table 2 Local Significance Thresholds (pounds /day) Newport Beach Country Club North Coastal Orange Count CO NOx PM10 PMZ5 LST Threshold 528 163 13 5 Propose Project Unmitigated 9-41 18 — 89 1 — 11 1 — 3 Mitigated 9-41 16 — 79 1 —2 1 1 —2 SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (July 2009 Long -Term (Operational) Emissions Possible project - related air quality concerns relate to the potential for impacts as a result of mobile source emissions that will be generated by the recreational, residential, and hotel uses proposed for the project site. The proposed project, however, replaces an existing facility and decreases existing tennis court facilities with the Bungalows and The Villas. With respect to operational emissions, it is anticipated that 389 fewer daily trips will be generated as a result of this project. Operational emissions for existing and proposed project - related traffic were calculated using a computerized procedure developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for urban growth mobile source emissions. The URBEMIS2007 model was run using the trip generation factors obtained from the traffic report for this project. The model was used to calculate area source emissions and the resulting vehicular operational emissions for existing uses in 2009 and proposed uses in 2012. A comparison was made of the two scenarios and the results are shown in Table 3. The few residential uses associated with the proposed project may generate small quantities of organic compounds from cleaning products, personal care products, landscape maintenance, cooking, etc. Because the existing site has no residential use component, the area source emissions are slightly higher for the proposed project than for existing uses. As seen in Table 3, mobile source emissions in 2009 are higher for existing uses than for the proposed project for an assumed 2012 build -out. 1527 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 48 Table 3 Project - Related Emissions Burden (pounds /day) Newport Beach Country Club Because the proposed project generates fewer trips than existing uses and since area source emissions are minimal compared to mobile source emissions, the SCAQMD's recommended threshold levels will not be exceeded. Operational emissions will be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The area in which the subject property is located is dominated by non- residential development, including professional office. Some residential development exists north of the existing tennis club and a senior housing development is located west of the proposed project site near Jamboree Road between Back Bay Road and Coast Highway; however, there are no hospitals, schools or other sensitive receptors located near the proposed project site. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding assessment of potential air quality impacts, the proposed project would not generate pollutant emissions that would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds, either during the temporary construction phases or over the long -term operating life of the proposed facilities and residences when occupied. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, several conditions are prescribed to further reduce dust and construction equipment exhaust emissions during the construction phase. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. A variety of odors would be associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions and application of paints and other architectural coatings. The odors would be minor and temporary in nature and would not significantly affect people residing or occupying areas beyond the immediate construction zones. Subsequent to the completion of construction activities, development of the site with the proposed Golf Club and Tennis Club, The Bungalows, and The Villas would not result in any significant change in the kinds of odors that could be experienced in the project environs, which is composed of single - family residential dwelling units similar to The Villas. Occasional, less than significant odors may occur in 1522 ROG NOx I CO I S02 PM40 PM2,5 CO2- Exist in Uses 2009 Area Sources 0.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 Mobile Sources 11.5 15.4 149.5 0.2 24.3 4.7 14,288.0 Total 11.8 15.4 152.6 0.2 24.3 4.7 14,293.6 Proposed Project (2012) Area Sources 0.8 0.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 372.0 Mobile Sources 6.8 9.0 87.8 0.1 18.4 3.6 10,829.9 Total 7.6 9.4 92.9 0.1 18.4 3.6 11,201.9 Net Difference (Pro osed versus Existing Uses Area Sources 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 366.4 Mobile Sources -4.7 -6.4 -61.7 -0.1 -5.9 -1.1 - 3,458.1 Total -4.2 -6.0 -59.7 -0.1 -5.9 -1.1 - 3,091.7 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 'No significance threshold has been adopted. SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (July 2009 Because the proposed project generates fewer trips than existing uses and since area source emissions are minimal compared to mobile source emissions, the SCAQMD's recommended threshold levels will not be exceeded. Operational emissions will be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The area in which the subject property is located is dominated by non- residential development, including professional office. Some residential development exists north of the existing tennis club and a senior housing development is located west of the proposed project site near Jamboree Road between Back Bay Road and Coast Highway; however, there are no hospitals, schools or other sensitive receptors located near the proposed project site. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding assessment of potential air quality impacts, the proposed project would not generate pollutant emissions that would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds, either during the temporary construction phases or over the long -term operating life of the proposed facilities and residences when occupied. Although no significant impacts are anticipated, several conditions are prescribed to further reduce dust and construction equipment exhaust emissions during the construction phase. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. A variety of odors would be associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions and application of paints and other architectural coatings. The odors would be minor and temporary in nature and would not significantly affect people residing or occupying areas beyond the immediate construction zones. Subsequent to the completion of construction activities, development of the site with the proposed Golf Club and Tennis Club, The Bungalows, and The Villas would not result in any significant change in the kinds of odors that could be experienced in the project environs, which is composed of single - family residential dwelling units similar to The Villas. Occasional, less than significant odors may occur in 1522 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 49 conjunction with trash pick up and outdoor food preparation (e.g., barbeques), and possibly with outdoor maintenance activities. Trash containers would be equipped with lids and would be stored inside the dwelling units and garages. The proposed project will not generate unusual or large quantities of solid waste materials, or utilize chemicals, food products, or other materials that emit strong odors that would adversely affect the ambient air quality in the project environs. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors; and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures Although no significant short -term (i.e., construction) or long -term (operational) air quality impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project, the following measures are required by the South Coast AQMD to further reduce construction emissions: SC -2 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property to be emitted within the SoCAB. SC -3 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities. SC -4 Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC -5 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. SC -6 Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. SC -7 Adherence to Title 24 energy- efficient design requirements as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The subject property has been extensively altered as a result of site development. No important biological resources are identified in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan (refer to Figure NR1) and no environmental study areas exist on the site (refer to Figure NR2) in that Element. As previously indicated, the majority of the site is developed with golf and tennis facilities, including parking lots. Virtually all of the vegetation existing within the limits of the site is introduced landscape species. Furthermore, the site is entirely surrounded by residential and commercial development as well as the Marriott Hotel and roadways. No sensitive habitat and /or sensitive plant or animal species exist on the subject property. The proposed project will result in the demolition of some existing structures, including the existing Golf and Tennis Clubhouses and several tennis courts in order to accommodate the proposed new development. Project implementation will not result in any modifications to sensitive habitat and /or sensitive species of plants or animals. Alteration of the site as proposed will not result in any potentially significant direct or indirect impacts to sensitive habitat and /or species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. �g9 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 50 b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. With the exception of two man -made lakes that are part of the existing golf course, no riparian features exist within the limits of the site. The two lakes are not included within the development limits and, therefore, will not be directly affected by the proposed new development. Grading and site development proposed by the applicant will not result in any impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified either in the City's General Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan. C) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. As indicated above, no riparian habitat exists on the subject property and no wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the site. Project implementation will not result in any potential adverse affects to either wetlands or riparian species. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The subject property and the surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be affected by development of the subject property. As a result, the proposed project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The site is devoid of protected habitat and /or species, including heritage trees. Project implementation will not result in any conflicts with adopted policies or ordinances intended to protect biological resources. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property, which has been developed as private recreation (i.e., Golf Club and Tennis Club) does not support native habitat and /or species and is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. No significant direct or indirect impacts to an existing HCP and /or NCCP will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required ,a�9 o NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 51 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined §15604.5? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an 18 -hole Golf Club, clubhouse and ancillary facilities, and a private tennis club with 24 tennis courts. Figure HR1 in the City's Historical Resources Element indicates that no historical resources are located on the site. Although no historic sites are located on the subject property, the California Point of Historical Interest (2009) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, lists one property within a one -half mile radius of the subject property. ORA -009, the site of the 1953 National Boy Scout Jamboree (i.e., present location of Newport Center) is near the site. This site is also listed on the California Historic Resources Inventory. No historic resources and /or properties within one -half mile of the site are identified by the California Historical Landmarks (2009) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, or the National Register of Historic Places. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to the existing historic site (ORA -009). Furthermore, the site is not identified by the City as possessing potentially important historic resources. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5? Less than Significant Impact. Thirty -eight (38) studies have been conducted within a one -half mile radius of the subject property.2 However, none of the studies occurred within the project site. In addition, 19 investigations also occurred on the Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Tustin 7.5- minute U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps that are also potentially within one -half mile of the site. Although no site specific surveys have been conducted on the subject property, the site has been substantially altered in order to accommodate the existing golf and tennis facilities. The project proposes changes only to areas of the site that have previously been altered by grading and prior development. The new Golf Clubhouse is proposed to be located in the same area as the existing Golf Clubhouse. As a result, any grading and site alteration that is anticipated would affect the same areas that have previously been altered in order to accommodate the existing Golf Clubhouse and related facilities. Similarly, alteration of the Tennis Club portion of the site necessary to accommodate the new Tennis Clubhouse, The Bungalows, and The Villas will also affect areas that have previously been graded and substantially altered. As a result, project implementation will not adversely affect archaeological /cultural resources that may exist on the site. Although no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary, the City will require that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist be present during grading and site alteration to monitor grading and landform alteration (refer to SC -8). Implementation of this measure is consistent with applicable Policy No. HR 2.2 of the Historic Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The City of Newport Beach complied with the requirements of SIB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent a tribal consultation request to the Native American representative, Mr. David Belardes (Chairperson, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation) on September 8, 2005 in compliance with both SB18 and Policy No. HR 2.3 that requires notification of cultural organizations. The City did not receive a response to the SB18 consultation request. Subsequent to that letter, a follow -up request was sent to Mr. Belardes on May 15, 2009 to apprise the Native American representative of changes to the project and request consultation with the Native Americans. To date, no response to the consultation request has been received by the City. z "Record Search Results for the Proposed Newport Beach Country Club Project Located in the City of Newport Beach, California; South. Central Coastal Information Center; Letter dated June 2, 2009. NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 52 C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the project area is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach and has been previously graded and developed. Any near - surface paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been disturbed and /or destroyed by prior development activities. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. It is not likely that implementation of the project will result in any potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources because of the prior development activities that have taken place on the site. Nonetheless, as identified below, monitoring of the grading activities by a qualified paleontologist will be required as prescribed below to ensure that in the event that fossils or other important paleontological resources are encountered, appropriate measures can be taken to avoid adverse impacts to those resources. d) Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site (i.e., golf and tennis facilities) and in the vicinity of the project site (i.e., Newport Center), it is anticipated that project implementation would not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; however, as indicated below, a qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor will be present on -site during grading to ensure that in the event human remains are encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with State law regarding human remains. Mitigation Measures Although no significant impacts are anticipated, the following standard condition is required by the City to ensure that potential impacts to cultural and /or scientific resources that may be encountered during grading are avoided. SC -8 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be available during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. MM -1 The City shall provide an opportunity for a Native American representative to monitor excavation activities. The representative shall be determined by the City based on input from concerned Native American tribes (i.e., Gabrielino, Juaneno, and Tongvas). '!q2 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 53 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Significant Impact. The site is located in the Newport Center /Fashion Island area of the City, which is near the intersection of the Southwestern Block and the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Southwestern Block is the westerly seaward portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which includes Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach, and is bounded on the east by the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The landward part of the NIFZ is a northwesterly- trending zone that extends from Beverly Hills on the north to Newport Bay on the south, where it continues offshore to the south; however, it eventually returns ashore again near La Jolla, where it is expressed by the Rose Canyon Fault. The NIFZ within the project environs is not included on the State - published Alquist - Priolo Special Studies zonation map. The subject property is located within a seismically active area. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on the site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Zone. However, the site is located within close proximity of several surface faults that are presently zoned as active or potentially active by the California Geological Survey. The site is located approximately 3.7 kilometers (km) east of the Newport - Inglewood fault zone. The site may also be located within in 1 km of the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, an inferred, low -angle fault system (e.g., blind thrust). These faults normally do not break the ground surface during sizeable earthquakes. Another active fault that could generate seismic activity that affects the subject property and surrounding area is the Elsinore Fault. The Newport- Inglewood and Elsinore Fault Zones could produce earthquakes of magnitude 6 — 7 on the Richter Scale, with local strong ground motion equivalent to at least VIII — IX on the modified Mercali Scale. Although episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, it is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface rupture. Therefore, no significant ground rupture impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response to Vl.a (i) above. As indicated above, the subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Due to the proximity of the site to the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust and the Newport - Inglewood Fault zone, the subject property has a moderate to high probability to be subjected to seismic and associated hazards. A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of horizontal ground shaking was performed to evaluate the likelihood of future earthquake ground motions occurring at the site. The maximum earthquake of 23 faults within an 80 km radius of the site based on the seismic hazard analysis conducted for the project. The earthquake magnitudes associated with each fault are presented in Table 4. "�qs NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 54 Table 4 Seismic Source Model Newport Beach Country Club Fault Distance (km) Seismology Parameters Maximum M, Fault Type' Slip Rate- (mm/ r) San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust <1.0 6.6 bt 0.5 Newport Inglewood Offshore 3.7 7.1 rl -ss 1.5 Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 4.1 7.1 rl -ss 1.0 Palos Verdes 22.9 7.3 rl -ss 3.0 Chino - Central Avenue 30.7 6.7 rl -r -o 1.0 Whittier 33.7 6.8 rl -ss 2.5 Elsinore -Glen Ivy 35.2 6.8 rl -ss 5.0 Puente Hill Thrust 35.2 7.1 bt 0.4 Coronado Bank 38.3 7.6 rl -ss 3.0 San Jose 47.7 6.4 II-r -o 0.5 Elsinore - Temecula 49.4 6.8 rl -ss 5.0 Elysian Park Thrust (upper) 54.8 6.4 r 1.3 Sierra Madre 58.2 7.2 r 2.0 Cucamonga 58.9 6.9 r 5.0 Raymond 60.6 6.5 II-r -o 1.5 Verdugo 63.2 6.9 r 0.5 Clamshell -Saw it 64.0 6.5 r 0.5 Hollywood 65.2 6.4 II -r -o 1.0 Rose Canyon 68.8 7.2 rl -ss 1.5 Santa Monica 70.7 6.6 11-r -o 1.0 San Jacinto -San Bernardino 74.1 6.7 rl -ss 12.0 San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 75.0 6.9 rI -ss 12.0 Malibu Coast 76.4 6.7 11-r -o 0.3 'rl - right - lateral; II - left lateral; ss - strike -slip; r - reverse; o - oblique; bt - blind thrust SOURCE: GMU Geotechnical, Inc. (May 2, 2008 The maximum earthquake on the NIFZ is estimated to be 7.1 on the Richter Scale. Similarly, the maximum earthquake on the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust is 6.6. Other faults capable of producing seismic activity that could affect the subject property include the San Jacinto Fault and the Whittier Fault, which is a northern branch of the Elsinore Fault. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, incorporation of the recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical report, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach, and compliance with current California Building Code standards would reduce the potential adverse effects of ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Based on the geologic exploration undertaken on the subject property, the site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation. These rocks do not have the potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, no groundwater is present to the depths and no loose sands or coarse silt is present. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is negligible and less than significant. Proper design of the proposed structures will ensure that ground failure, including that associated with liquefaction, will not pose a significant hazard to the development. �9 `f" NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 55 iv) Landslides? No Impact. The site is generally devoid of slopes and no significant slopes are planned within the property. Potential effects associated with slope stability are, therefore not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated an no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed Golf Clubhouse, Tennis Club, The Bungalows, and The Villas that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit an adequate drainage and erosion control plan, which complies with current City standards. Although it is possible that potential erosion could occur without the incorporation of appropriate measures, implementation of the mandatory appropriate erosion controls will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Other efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion and sediment movement from the site. As a result, potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section VI.a.iv, above. As previously indicated, potential slope failure /landslide potential is not anticipated because no slopes are proposed and no significant slopes exist on the subject property. Therefore, site preparation and design of the proposed residence in accordance with the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical report and compliance with the California Building Code will ensure that potential impacts will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. The depth of planned engineered fill is anticipated to be five to 10 feet following both design and corrective grading. Total fill depths (i.e., new and existing fill) are anticipated to range from five to 25 feet. All fill will be placed as engineered fill on top of existing suitable artificial fill, terrace deposits, or bedrock. Post - grading settlement of the shallow -depth fills is anticipated to be minor as most of the grading related to settlement (i.e., due to fill self weight) should be complete at the completion of grading. Secondary compression is not anticipated due to: (1) the low plasticity of anticipated fill soils; (2) the low fill thickness; and (3) the over - consolidated nature of the underlying terrace deposits and bedrock. Hydro- compression of the fill soils should also be minor due to the fact that the fills will be placed above optimum moisture content. Significant post - grading settlement of the underlying bedrock due to loading from the proposed fills is not anticipated. Similarly, hydro- collapse of the bedrock materials will be negligible due to the existing high density and over - consolidated nature of the materials. For these reasons, post - grading settlements related to grading are not anticipated to have a significant effect on structures and improvements. Adherence to the recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical report will ensure that potential effects associated with settlement would be avoided. J!95 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 56 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the California Building Code (2007)), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis conducted for the proposed project, the on -site surface materials have a very low to low expansion index and a negligible sulfate content. However, because testing results were in the upper limit of the "low" expansion classification, it is anticipated that medium expansion potential may exist. The subject site is underlain by artificial fill, colluvium, and terrace deposits overlying bedrock assigned to the Monterey Formation. Adherence to the recommendations in the Report of Geotechnical Studies (GMU, 2008) prepared for the project will ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils would be avoided. With the incorporation of these recommendations, potential impacts will be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project will be connected to existing sewer lines. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the implementation of an alternative waste disposal system are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures As indicated in the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project, construction of the proposed improvements (i.e., Golf Club, Tennis Club, The Bungalows, and Villas) is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that no potentially significant geotechnical impacts identified in the preceding analysis occur. SC -9 All grading operations and construction shall comply with the applicable City of Newport Beach Grading Code and Grading Manual and the most recent version of the California Building Code. SC -10 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official. SC -11 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. MM -2 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 Geotechnical Studies and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15347" (May 2, 2008) prepared by GMU Geotechnical that address site grading, site clearing, compaction, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, landscape maintenance, etc. The Building Department shall review the grading plan to ensure conformance with recommendations contained in the final geotechnical report. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Background The earth's natural warming process is known as the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect keeps the earth warm and habitable, raising the temperature of the earth's surface by about sixty degrees Fahrenheit. With the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the earth is about 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Obviously, the earth would be much less inviting without the greenhouse effect.' It is 'Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Center on the States. SJ° 0 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 57 normal for the earth's temperature to fluctuate over extended periods of time. For example, the climate of the Northern Hemisphere varied from a relatively warm period between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries to a period of cooler temperatures between the seventeenth century and the middle of the nineteenth century .4 Viewed in historic terms, global climate change is a natural phenomenon. Over the past one hundred years, the earth's average global temperature has generally increased by one degree Fahrenheit. In some regions of the world, the increase has been as much as four degrees Fahrenheit.5 Many scientists studying the particularly rapid rise in global temperatures durin� the late twentieth century say that natural variability does not alone account for what is happening now. Rather, they say, human activity spawned by the industrial revolution has resulted in increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other forms of "greenhouse gas" (GHG), primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, etc.) and deforestation, as well as agricultural activity and the decomposition of solid waste. These scientists refer to the global warming context of the past century as the "enhanced greenhouse effect" to distinguish it from the natural greenhouse effect.' While the increase in temperature is known as "global warming," the resulting change in weather patterns is known as "global climate change." Global climate change is evidenced in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and air temperature. The human - produced GHGs believed to be responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect and their relative influence on the global warming process (i.e., their relative ability to trap heat in the atmosphere) are estimated to be: carbon dioxide (CO2) (53 percent); methane (CH4) (17 percent); near - surface ozone (03) (13 percent); nitrous oxide (N20) (12 percent); and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (5 percent). The most common GHG is CO2, which constitutes approximately 84 percent of all GHG emissions in California (California Energy Commission, 2006). Worldwide, the State of California ranks as the 12'h to 16th largest emitter of CO2 (the most prevalent GHG) and is responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world's CO2 emissions (CEC 2006). The warming pattern of the last 100 years, however, does not present a steady and consistent rise in the earth's temperature. Scientists have noted significant warming between 1910 and 1940, moderate cooling from 1940 to 1975, and a large warming again starting in 1975.8 Additionally, there remains debate over the precise extent to which the enhanced greenhouse effect differs from the natural greenhouse effect, as well as the amount of the change in temperature and climate which can be attributed to human activity, as opposed to natural cycles. There is, however, general agreement within the scientific community that increasing emissions of GHGs have significantly contributed to a trend of increasing the Earth's average temperature and that human activity plays a significant role in those emissions. It also is generally agreed that the warming of the earth produces changes in the Earth's climate. Methodology has been evolving over the past several years relative to the evaluation under CEQA of the potential impacts of GHG emissions upon global climate change and, in turn, the impacts of global climate change upon the environment. The evaluation contained in this MND reflects the City's thorough investigation and analysis of the proposed Project's incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impacts those emissions may have on the environment. This evaluation has been shaped by (i) the provisions of CEQA and its Guidelines (and, specifically, newly effective CEQA Guidelines addressing the evaluation of GHG emissions) which dictate the required scope and extent of 'Id. 'Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Hans, at al., Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006. 111: p. D12106, doi:10.1029/2003JA009974. 6Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. "Comparison between modeled and observations of temperature rise since the year 1860:' In Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report. Robert T. Watson and the Core Writing Team, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, published by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Center on the States. 8 Id. 1597 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 58 impact analysis, and (ii) the City's recently employed methodology for the evaluation of GHG emissions which supplements CEQA's requirements. Additional background is as follows: AB 32 and Amended CEQA Guidelines In adopting the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (commonly known as "AB 32 "), the State Legislature declared that "[g]Iobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California" Further, the Legislature determined that "the potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious disease, asthma, and other human health - related problems." The Legislature added that "[g]lobal warming will have detrimental effects on some of California's largest industries" and will "increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air - conditioning in the hottest parts of the state." AB 32, however, did not amend CEQA or establish regulatory standards to be applied to new development or environmental review of projects within the State. Rather, AB 32 initiated a long -term program for "the development of [GHG] emissions reduction measures." Quoting from a public notice prepared by the staff of the California Air Resources Board ( "CARB ") in connection with a meeting on October 25, 2007, to consider "early discrete actions," AB 32 "creates a comprehensive, multi -year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California, with the overall goal of restoring emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020." The Act recognizes that such an ambitious effort requires careful planning and a well thought out set of strategies. Despite some perceptions to the contrary, neither AB 32 nor subsequent actions taken to date by either the Legislature, the Governor, the California Air Resources Board (GARB), or the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) have established either (i) specific new regulatory standards as part of a statewide or regional plan to curb global warming impacts, or (ii) thresholds of significance for the evaluation of either direct or cumulative impacts under CEQA. Certain milestones were, however, established by the Act, including an important milestone for the adoption of amended CEQA Guidelines intended to address the methodology for evaluating GHG impacts (the "Amended Guidelines "). Those Amended Guidelines have been adopted and became effective on March 18, 2010. However, while the Amended Guidelines provide guidance to public agencies in their analysis under CEQA of GHG emissions and call for a "good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4), they do not establish any specific thresholds to be used by agencies in evaluating the significance of potential GHG impacts. Therefore, this MIND evaluates potential GHG impacts by following the guidance of the Guidelines in the context of the overall directives of CEQA for impact evaluation. To supplement that CEQA analysis, this [AND also evaluates potential GHG impacts using a separate threshold recently employed by the City for the evaluation of GHG emissions. Global Climate Change in the CEQA Context The evaluation of a project's impacts on global climate change begins with an analysis of the project's GHG emissions. Greenhouse gases include CO2, CH,, N20, and CFCs. CO2 is the GHG most focused upon, because it exists in greatest volume in the atmosphere. Currently CO2 levels are approximately 380 ppm (parts per million). Prior to the industrial era (which began in the late 1800s), CO2 levels in the atmosphere had not exceeded 280 ppm, for the last million years. Due to human activities after the onset of the industrial era, GHGs, including COZ, have risen at exponential levels. It is well documented that human activities are a direct cause of increases in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere over this time period. �9 2 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 59 A particular challenge to global climate change analysis under CEQA, however, is that while the evaluation of a project's direct impacts may start with the simple question of whether the project contributes to an environmental effect such as global climate change, it does not end there. Rather, CEQA requires a legitimate determination as to whether the project contributes to a level that makes that contribution significant. CEQA defines a "significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Exactly what contribution to an impact is required for an impact to be "significant" is evaluated through the establishment of a "threshold of significance. "9 A threshold of significance cannot be an arbitrary measure. With respect to global climate change and absent an adopted regulatory standard, the establishment of a feasible and practical significance threshold which meets the requirements of CEQA and the United States Constitution has proved challenging. Because GHGs are well mixed in the atmosphere and remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries, GHG emissions from each single worldwide source commingle with emissions from all other worldwide sources in a matter of days to influence climate change on a global, rather than local or regional, basis.10 California GHG emissions, for example, do not specifically produce global climate change impacts in California, but rather quickly commingle with GHG emissions from around the world to influence global climate change patterns throughout the world. This "commingled" nature of GHG emissions makes it infeasible to assess the relative contribution of any one project's GHG emissions to worldwide GHG emissions without undue speculation. So, while certain emissions may contribute to both air quality and global climate change impacts, air quality impacts represent an entirely different phenomenon than global climate change impacts. Therefore, the analysis of the impact of GHG emissions on global climate change requires different methodology than does the analysis of the impact of the emission of air pollutants on air quality conditions. CEQA does not authorize the imposition of mitigation measures that do not comply with the doctrines of "nexus" and "rough proportionality' (see CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(4)(A and B). These doctrines have been articulated by the United States Supreme Court and provide, in essence, that before mitigation may be imposed upon a proposed project, (i) there must be a direct relationship (i.e., "nexus ") between the impacts of the project and the mitigation imposed and (ii) the mitigation required must be "roughly proportional" to the project's contribution to the impact relative to existing conditions and other projects. Thus, even if it were feasible to evaluate the impacts of a small project on global climate change, mitigation of that project's contribution to global climate change may be required only if (i) the proposed project's impact can be determined based upon an appropriate threshold of significance, (ii) feasible mitigation can be identified which has a nexus to the impact, and (iii) the mitigation is roughly proportional to the proposed project's relative contribution to the impact. These criteria also are infeasible, if not impossible, to apply without speculation. CEQA also allows a project to be evaluated for consistency with "applicable general plans and regional plans" (see CEQA Guidelines §15125(e)). Such plans would include, for example, "the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan." These plans involve legislative or regulatory programs applicable to all projects within the region. They establish standards which are independent of the impact analysis described in the CEQA Guidelines (see provisions beginning with Section 15126). Therefore, the ,'measuring stick" of a regional plan does not require a typical CEQA impact analysis in order to ensure compliance with that plan. While the program for GHG emissions reductions and maintenance which ultimately is intended to result from AB 32 will likely constitute such a regional plan once it is adopted, that AB 32 program does not yet exist and may not be in place for several years. No other program establishing such regulatory standards has yet been adopted. Therefore, there is not yet a regional or statewide plan regulating global warming by which the Proposed Project can be measured. ' CEQA Guideline §15064.7 defines a "threshold of significance" as "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." 10 Pew Center for Global Climate Change (2003). Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction for the U.S., retrieved March 12, 2007, from http: / /www.pewc[ imate .oro /docUi)loads /USGas%2Epdf. NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 60 Each of these considerations bears on this MND's evaluation of the potential impacts of GHG emissions on global climate change. Threshold for Determining Significance There is general scientific acceptance that global warming is occurring and that human activity is a significant contributor to the process, suggesting to some that the emission of even a minute amount of GHG contributes to the warming process. However, under CEQA, such a conclusion would result in an improper threshold. The reasons are straightforward. First, because regulatory programs establishing specific GHG emission standards have not been adopted, the CEQA analysis of global climate change, must focus only on the "relative" — as opposed to "absolute" — effects of a project, using existing environmental conditions as a baseline. That means that the evaluation of a proposed project's potential GHG impacts must determine whether the proposed project's contribution to global climate change is significant when compared to the conditions existing when preparation of the EIR began. Second, of precise relevance to any argument that even small amounts of GHG emissions are intended to be prohibited by AB 32, AB 32 explicitly established the State's policy that "de minimis" emissions shall not be subject to regulation. Specifically, AB 32 requires that CARB "recommend a de minimis threshold of greenhouse gas emissions below which emission reduction requirements will not apply." Direct Impacts Given the scope and magnitude of global GHG emissions, there is little, if any, support in the scientific and environmental communities for the proposition that an isolated project's relatively miniscule contribution of GHG standing alone (i.e., a direct, as opposed to cumulative, project impact) would significantly alter the course of global climate change. In its April 13, 2009, letter to the Secretary for Natural Resources accompanying the proposed Amended Guidelines, CPR stated that the "impact resulting from greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative in nature." In a 2008 Technical Advisory, CPR noted that "climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact." Essentially, with the theoretically possible exception of an extremely large project emitting extreme amounts of GHG, a project's "net "" contribution to GHG emissions relative to existing conditions is subject to evaluation, if at all, only on a cumulative basis. Cumulative Impacts With respect to cumulative impacts, CEQA establishes specific criteria for impact evaluation when assessing whether an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines §15064(h). The Initial Study and /or MIND must determine if the proposed project's effects would be "cumulatively considerable," meaning "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines §15065(h)(1)). Section 15064(h)(3) of the Guidelines provides that a "lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem." As noted above, no such plan or program yet exists. Section 15130 of the Guidelines sets forth the methodology by which an EIR must assess the significance of cumulative impacts. Because the MIND criteria set forth in Section 15064(h)(1) and 15064(h)(3) are essentially the same as those set forth in the more detailed Section 15130, this MND utilizes that more " "Net" refers to the relative, rather than absolute, contribution of a proposed project when compared to the existing environmental conditions. 000 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 61 detailed description as guidance in its evaluation of whether the Proposed Project's potential cumulative impacts related to global climate change are significant and cumulatively considerable. Section 15130(b) states that the "following elements are necessary (emphasis added) to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: "(1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency" Obviously, absent gross speculation, a list of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects throughout the world which potentially contribute to global warming is not feasible to assemble. And, as discussed above, there is not yet an adopted or certified planning document which contains a summary of projections based on known or likely worldwide projects. Therefore, this MIND cannot feasibly evaluate potential cumulative project global climate change impacts in the "necessary' manner currently required by CEQA. With this extensive background, the analysis of the potential effects of the Proposed Project is as follows: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. During project construction, the URBEMIS2007 computer model predicts that a peak activity day in the single worst case year of construction (2009 during demolition and grading) will generate 9,004.8 pounds /day of CO2. Equipment exhaust also contains small amounts of methane and nitric oxides, which are also GHGs. Non -0O2 GHG emissions represent approximately a three percent increase in CO2_equivalent (CO2e) emissions from diesel equipment exhaust. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that the non -CO2 GHG emissions from construction equipment are negligible, and that the total project construction GHG burden can be characterized by 40 peak activity days. The estimated annual GHG impact is estimated to be 164 metric tons (MT) /year, if all the above activities were to occur in a single year. For screening purposes, the temporary construction activity GHG emissions were compared to the chronic operational emissions in the SCAQMD's interim thresholds. The proposed industrial operational threshold is 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year. 12 Grading activities generating 164 MT are well below this threshold. Construction activity GHG emissions are also below the proposed operational screening criteria of 3,000 MT for non - industrial uses .13 The Proposed Project's daily operational CO2e emissions will be less than existing emissions from reduced project -site travel. The annual reduction of 574 MT (631 "short" tons) of CO2e emissions will offset the 196 MT of "new" CO2e emissions generated by the Proposed Project. Because the Proposed Project will generate fewer GHG emissions than are generated under existing environmental conditions and despite the challenge of establishing thresholds of significance for global climate change impacts, it can be fairly stated that under any threshold which would be permitted by CEQA, the Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on global climate change. 12 Recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 13 Id. 001 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 62 As a result, the Proposed Project will not produce GHG emissions to a level which will have a significant impact on global climate change. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation, adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed extensively above, there is not yet a plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions which is applicable to the Proposed Project. The City of Newport Beach, however, has implemented an informal policy for the environmental evaluation of potential GHG impacts of proposed projects. That policy provides that, until more guidance is provided from the expert agencies such as CARIB and /or SCAQMD, the City intends to consider projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e or less per year to be less than significant contributors to global climate change, thereby not requiring further analysis. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year, the City will consider those projects to have significant impacts if they either (1) are not substantially consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce GHGs or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Projects that do not meet these thresholds would be considered to have significant impacts, and thus could be expected to impede the State's mandatory requirement under AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As set forth above, in a "worst case" year, the Proposed Project's daily CO2e emissions during construction will equal no more than 164 metric tons. The operational activities of the Proposed Project, which, under CEQA, must be evaluated not in "absolute" terms, but rather by comparison to existing environmental conditions, will not only be well below the City's informal threshold at 196 metric tons per year on an absolute basis, but will actually reduce overall operational GHG emissions by approximately 378 metric tons per year on an ongoing basis. Therefore, not only will the Proposed Project not conflict with any adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions and comply with the City's informal GHG threshold, it will actually reduce GHG emissions on a long -term basis. As a result, the Proposed Project will not produce GHG emissions to a level which will have a significant impact on global climate change. Speculation and Guidelines Section 15145 Finally, it must also be noted that Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that "[i]f, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact" Beyond the analysis contained in this MIND, which, standing alone, complies with CEQA's analysis requirements, technical data does not yet exist that would allow the City to determine without the use of undue speculation how a project of this size would, relative to other proposed projects throughout the world, contribute to global climate change. Evaluation using speculative "per capita" or other projections of worldwide GHG emissions based upon projections of population growth over many decades may provide valuable information, but would not constitute an analysis of the "incremental effects" of the project in either of the contexts identified in Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines which are discussed above. Therefore, because (i) CEQA prohibits speculative analysis and (ii) the Proposed Project's projected GHG emissions will not exceed those generated under existing environmental conditions, further analysis is not required. Mitigation Measures Because there are no impacts related to global climate change, no mitigation measures are required. However, it should be noted that the following standard conditions and project design features have been incorporated into the Proposed Project and will contribute to the Proposed Project's net long term reduction of GHG emissions. SC -12 All new buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements. SC -13 Water conservation design features shall be incorporated into building and landscape designs 002 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 63 PDF -1 Design of buildings shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventilation efficiency and incorporate natural ventilation. PDF -2 The buildings shall incorporate energy- conserving heating and lighting systems. PDF -3 The project shall incorporate fast - growing, low water use landscape to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce water use. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would include oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint, and other similar construction - related materials. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size (i.e., redevelopment of existing private golf and tennis facilities), it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain the golf course located on the property, on -going operation of the Newport Beach Country Club and proposed residential and resort uses will not result in the storage or use of significant quantities of hazardous materials beyond that currently used. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated related to the use, disposal and /or storage of hazardous materials in association with the proposed uses. As indicated in Section Vlll.c, remediation of the ACM and LBP in accordance with regulatory requirements would avoid any potential impacts previously identified. No additional mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. According to historical sources and regulatory database information, the subject property (1600 East Coast Highway) was previously equipped with a 550- gallon underground gasoline storage (UST) tank that was installed in the southwestern corner of the property in 1965 and removed in 1987. A Summary of Remedial Operations Report was prepared (1987), which revealed that the tank had a dime -sized hole in the bottom. Subsequent sampling and laboratory analysis were undertaken that indicated elevated levels of hydrocarbon, including aromatic constituents' benzene, were present in the subsurface soil below the excavation pit. Excavation and sampling of the soils were conducted, which indicated that the constituents analyzed were non - detect 14 and closure was granted by the Orange County Health Authority (sic). Based on the results of the previous investigation and regulatory closure, the former 550 - gallon UST in the southwestern portion of the subject property is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. The proposed project's demolition and construction do not involve any activities and /or uses that would utilize hazardous materials or other substances that would, if released into the environment, create a safety or health hazard, other than those which are part of the existing environmental conditions because they are currently used to maintain the golf course and related facilities. The nature of the existing golf course use involves the application, storage, and mixing of pesticides and herbicides on the property. 14 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.; Addendum Letter dated March 29, 2010. NOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY.(PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 64 The chemicals are utilized to service the golf course greens and fairways. The chemicals, fertilizers and other hazardous materials will continue to be maintained on the premises in accordance with existing and future regulatory storage and use requirements. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. In addition, two 55- gallon drums of waste oil within the maintenance area of the golf course were observed during the field investigation conducted during the Phase I ESA. The drums were used to store waste oil during golf cart repair activities and were stored over secondary containment. No spills, leaks or drains were observed near the vicinity of the drains. Based on the good housekeeping practices and lack of direct conduit to the subsurface of the subject property near the waste oil drums, these drums are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. No changes in these operations or activities are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Continued compliance with regulatory requirements will ensure that no potentially significant impact would occur. No mitigation measures are required. Two ponds are located within the boundaries of the golf course. No violations were noted during the research and information search. No hazardous materials were noted near the vicinity of the ponds, which are located throughout the golf course. Based on the lack of documented releases and evidence of hazardous materials near the ponds, they are not expected to pose a significant environmental concern or hazard. Finally, three (3) pole- mounted transformers were observed on the subject property. The transformers are not labeled indicating PCB content. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. The transformers appear to be owned by Southern California Edison (SCE), which would be responsible for maintenance of these facilities. Additionally, no other potential PCB - containing equipment (e.g., interior transformers, oil- filled switches, hoists, lifts, dock levelers, hydraulic elevators, etc.) was observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance. C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. Visual asbestos surveys were conducted by Con -Test in 1992 and also during a Phase I ESA by prepared by Law /Crandall, Inc., in 1994. During that latter visual survey, several areas within the Newport Beach Country Club facilities were observed to have asbestos containing materials (ACM), including: • Floor tile located in the back office of the first floor of the clubhouse. Vinyl flooring located on the second floor next to the ballroom of the clubhouse. Floor tile located on the first floor in the women's restroom near the office area of the clubhouse. • Vinyl flooring located on the first floor in the restaurant waiter's room of the clubhouse. Spray- applied acoustical ceiling located in the manager /receptionist offices, professional shop, dressing room, and women's locker room of the clubhouse. Exterior plaster located outside the professional shop of the clubhouse. • Air cell pipe insulation located in the restroom hallway of the kitchen, janitor storage room, and the roof attic mechanical area of the clubhouse. • Air cell duct insulation located in the roof attic mechanical area. Pipe elbow insulation located in the roof attic mechanical area of the clubhouse. Roof penetration sealant located at the perimeter flashings and penetrations of the low and high roof of the clubhouse. The visual asbestos survey conducted by Law /Crandall, Inc., also concluded that the ACM reported in a prior survey conducted in 1992 by Con -Test was still present at the site. The Law /Crandall asbestos survey recommended that the ACM be maintained in place by instituting an operations and maintenance (O &M) program (i.e., repair damaged asbestos, clean up of contaminated areas, notification and training of employees, routine inspections of ACM, etc.), which should continue until the ACM is removed. J NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY(PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 65 A limited visual evaluation of accessible areas was also conducted during the preparation of the most recent Phase I ESA prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., for the presence of suspect ACM. Based on that limited survey, suspect ACMs were noted in the acoustic ceiling tiles, vinyl floor tiles, and drywall systems within the buildings located on the subject property. All of the ACM and PACM (presumed asbestos - containing materials) were noted to be in good condition. Demolition of the existing Golf Clubhouse and other structures, which were constructed in 1964, is proposed by the applicant. Without proper remediation, it is possible that ACM could be released into the environment; however, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ACM and PACM that are intact and in good condition can, in general, be managed safely in -place under an Operations and Maintenance (O &M) program until removal is dictated by renovation, demolition, or deteriorating material conditions. As indicated above, an O &M program was recommended in 1994 following completion of the Law /Crandall asbestos survey. In addition to ACM, it is also possible that lead -based paint (LBP) may also exist within the structures; however, due to the commercial nature of the current use of the property, LBP was not considered within the scope of the Phase I ESA. Because the structures were built in 1964, it is also possible that LBP may exist within the structures. Similar to ACM, the release of LBP into the environmental could pose a potential health risk, given the proximity of the residential uses in the project environs. Therefore, prior to any disturbance of the structures and construction materials within the project site, a comprehensive ACM and LBP survey shall be conducted and appropriate measures prescribed to ensure that no release of either ACM or LBP occurs, including during remediation and transport and disposal of those materials. Remediation shall comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Information from standard federal, state, county, and city environmental record sources provided by Track Info Services Environmental FirstSearch was included in the Phase I ESA. This information revealed that with the exception of the UST previously discussed (refer to Section Vlll.b), the subject property is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Table 5 summarizes the results of the data base records searches, which revealed that no environmental concerns were identified on the site or within the requisite distances. Based on the database search conducted for the proposed project and included in the Phase I ESA, neither the subject property nor other properties identified within one mile of the site would expose the site and /or future users to an environmental concern or hazard. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Radon has been identified as a potentially hazardous element. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a map to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon - resistant building codes. The EPA has identified a limit of 4.0 picoCuries per Liter (pCi /L) as the "Action Limit' for Radon. Radon sampling was not conducted as part of the Phase I ESA. However, review of the EPA Map of the Radon Zones places the subject property in Zone 3, where average predicted radon levels are less than 2.0 pCi /L. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 005 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 66 Table 5 Summary of Environmental Database Search Newport Beach Country Club As indicated above, no recognized environmental conditions (REC)' were identified during the on -site investigation and /or database search conducted for the proposed project and discussed in the Phase I ESA. As a result, no potentially significant health hazards or environmental hazards are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 'The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. 000 Applicable Database Radius Results Federal National Priorities List (NPL) 1 Mile No sites Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System % Mile No sites CERCLIS) Federal CERCLIS — No further Remedial Action /� Mile No sites Planned NFRAP Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1 Mile No sites (RCRA) Corrective Action (CORRACTS Facilities Federal RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal /z Mile No sites TSD List Federal RCRA Generator List 1/8 Mile 2 facilities Federal Institutional Controls /Engineering Controls Y< Mile No sites (IC /EC) Federal Emergency Notification Systems (ERNS) No sites on or adjacent to the subject property Tribal lands 1 Mile No sites State/Tribal Sites 1 Mile No sites State Spills Sites SPILLS 1/8 Mile No sites Solid Waste Landfill Facilities SWLF % Mile No sites State /Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks %: mile 21 sites (LUST) 118 Mile 8 sites State /Tribal Underground Storage The subject property and 3 Tank/Aboveground Storage Tank List UST /AST) additional sites3 State /Tribal VCP % Mile No sites State/Tribal Brownfield Sites /2 Mile No sites 'These sites are not located adjacent to the site and, based on the relative distance, are not expected to pose a significant environmental concern. 2None of the UST sites identified in the database search include such facilities as the Newport Police Department, service stations, etc., which do not pose a potential environmental concern or hazard to the subject property. 3Neither the subject property nor the UST /AST sites identified in the Phase I ESA pose a potential environmental concern or hazard. SOURCE: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (April 3, 2009) As indicated above, no recognized environmental conditions (REC)' were identified during the on -site investigation and /or database search conducted for the proposed project and discussed in the Phase I ESA. As a result, no potentially significant health hazards or environmental hazards are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 'The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. 000 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 67 e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.0 miles south of John Wayne Airport (JWA). A portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) Notification Area (i.e., FAR Part 77) for JWA. Although operations at JWA would not pose a safety hazard for the golf course and related facilities or future occupants and /or visitors at the site due to the proximity of the project to the airport, the City is required to submit the PC Amendment to the Airport Land Use commission (ALUC) for a determination of consistency in accordance with Section 4.3 of the AELUP prior to adoption by the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The subject property is not located within proximity to a private airstrip. Development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people utilizing the proposed golf and tennis amenities or others residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to seismic shaking, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Potential circulation impacts associated with construction will be temporary in nature and will be addressed through the Construction Staging Plan that will be implemented (refer to Section XVI.f.) In addition, any construction vehicles within the public right of way are prohibited from completely blocking vehicular and emergency access by the Vehicle Code. As a result, potential short -term circulation impacts associated with construction would not be significant. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. Neither the project site nor the surrounding areas are not located within a "Potential Fire Hazard Area" as identified by the Newport General Plan Public Safety Element. The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No significant areas of natural vegetation and /or habitat exists on the site and the proposed project would not be directly affected by the potential for wildland fires. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. Therefore, the site is not subject to a potential risk of wildland fires. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. �J NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 68 Mitigation Measures The following measures shall be implemented to ensure that no potentially significant hazards or hazardous material impacts identified in the preceding analysis occur. SC -14 Prior to any disturbance of the construction materials within the Golf Clubhouse and /or the Tennis Clubhouse, a comprehensive ACM and 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 be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM and _BP shall be followed in accordance with federal, state and local regulatory requirements federal and California Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 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. SC -15 During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant impact. Waste discharges associated with this project that could affect water quality would be limited to non -point source discharges, including potential storm water runoff of construction materials and wastes and storm water runoff from the developed site. This project would not generate any point sources of water pollution; all wastewater generated by the proposed project would discharge directly to the City's sanitary sewer system, which would not affect the present permit to operate the affected wastewater treatment plant. Because the proposed project consists of development similar to existing and adjacent properties, the raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project would be similar in nature to that now generated and would not significantly affect wastewater treatment. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the site will be designed to address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. The water quality features incorporated into the project will be selected to address the main pollutants of concern for a project of this type, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay, which is located approximately 0.5 mile from the site, is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to copper, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides (e.g., chlordane, DDT, PCBs, etc.), and sediment toxicity. The pollutants of concern associated with the proposed project include sediment, nutrients, pathogens (i.e., bacteria /viruses), and pesticides. Urban runoff pollutants and their potential sources are summarized in Table 6. 002 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 69 Table 6 Urban Runoff Pollutants Newport Beach Country Club Pollutants POtentlaLSburce 303(tl ) Listing,,, Sediment/Turbidity Landscape Activities Lower Newport Bay 801.14 Sediment Nutrients Fertilizers Lower Newport Bay 801.14 Nutrients Bacteria and Viruses Animal Waste Lower Newport Bay (801.14 ) Nutrients Oil and Grease Automobiles N/A Oxygen Demanding Substances Landscape Activities N/A Trash and Debris Human Waste I N/A Pesticides Landscape Activities Lower Newport Bay (801.14 (Chlordane, DDT, Or anos hos hate pesticides SOURCE: Adams Streeter, Civil Engineers, Inc. (January 14, 2009) Implementation of the water quality features prescribed in the NPDES Technical Study prepared for the project, prior to issuance of the grading permit, will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. In accordance with the Water Quality Management Plan that will be prepared for the project, appropriate BMPs will be incorporated to ensure that water quality impacts are minimized, including for the hand car wash, which includes a feature to capture and clean the wash water before it enters the sanitary sewer system. It is important to note that no water quality features exist within the limits of the project site. As a result, surface runoff currently emanating on the site and entering Newport Harbor is not treated. However, project implementation will incorporate BMPs that will treat the surface runoff associated with the existing and proposed development and will discharge treated water that will meet discharge requirements prescribed for Newport Harbor. Tables 10 (General Plan Policy Analysis) and 11 (Coastal Land Use Policy Analysis) in Section X (Land Use and Planning) provide a discussion of the project's consistency with relevant General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to water quality. As indicated in that discussion, the proposed project is consistent with meeting the intent of minimizing potential water quality impacts. Therefore, no long -term water quality impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. This project would not result in a significant increase in water demand and the project's potable and non - potable water demands would be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. The proposed project would actually result in some increased groundwater recharge through its design, which includes a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces (i.e., a concomitant increase in the amount of pervious surfaces on the site), thereby resulting in increased groundwater recharge. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of this project. There are no water wells located on or near the site, and since this project would not affect any existing wells or require any new water wells, the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. No significant impacts to groundwater recharge are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 009 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 70 C) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. No stream or river exists on site, which is developed with a Golf Club, clubhouse and related ancillary facilities and the Tennis Club. The portion of the property that is the subject of the proposed improvements encompasses less than 20 acres within five drainage areas. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property is directed through each drainage area to existing on -site storm drain facilities before entering a 69 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that extends under Coast Highway and to a discharge point in Newport Harbor west of the site, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. Although on -site soils would be exposed during grading of the property, a variety of Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented both during construction and during the long -term operation of the proposed project. For example, sediment control BMPs will be installed and maintained at all operational storm drain inlets and permanent erosion control BMPs (either physical or vegetation) shall be in place and operational during grading and construction to ensure that on- and off -site erosion is minimized. Furthermore, compliance with applicable building, grading and water quality codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check stage, will ensure that surface flows can be accommodated and water quality protected, including potential erosion. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated above, project implementation will alter the existing drainage conditions on the site. At the present time, the development area (i.e., less than 20 acres) is divided into five drainage areas. Drainage Areas A and B comprise the existing Golf Clubhouse and parking lot, totaling 11.59 acres. Stormwater runoff occurring in Drainage Area A (7.7 acres) occurs as sheet flow in a southeasterly direction towards a curb and gutter that empties into a catch basin in the southerly corner of the parking lot. The catch basin is connected to an 18 -inch RCP pipe, which connects to an existing 24 -inch RCP that runs parallel to Coast Highway. Area B, comprised of 3.89 acres that encompass a portion of the grassy golf course, sheet flows towards Irvine Terrace Road and into a cross gutter, where it is directed to two catch basins on Irvine Terrace Road. This flow ultimately connects to the same 24 -inch RCP pipe identified for Drainage Area A. The 25 -year volume (Q25) for Drainage Areas A and B is 26.56 cubic feet per second (cfs) at elevation 85.0 msl in the 24 -inch RCP. The combined flow conveyed in the 24 -inch RCP enters an existing 69 -inch RCP storm drain, which conveys the runoff to Newport Bay where it is discharged. Drainage Area C encompasses 5.62 acres within the tennis club area in the easterly portion of the property. Surface runoff within Drainage Area C sheet flows over the tennis courts and onto the parking lot; storm flows then sheet flow over the parking lot, through a curb cut -out and into a drainage sump consisting of an 18 -inch square inlet. Flows are conveyed from the inlet, via an 8 -inch PVC pipe, which also connects to the 69 -inch RCP. The Qz5 volume generated in Drainage Area C is 14.27 cfs, which enters an existing 8 -inch polyvinyl pipe (PVC) and then a 69 -inch RCP. The existing 8 -inch PVC pipe that was installed during the Corporate Plaza West Extension is deficient (in size) and cannot efficiently convey storm flows under the existing conditions. The smallest drainage area (Drainage Area D) encompasses 0.19 acre in the southeastern corner of the Balboa Bay Tennis Club. Less than 1 cfs (Q25) is directed south where it enters the parking lot of the adjacent commercial office property and is accommodated in the existing storm runoff facilities of that property. M NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 71 Drainage Area E encompasses 1.24 -acres that remain within in the tennis club (six tennis courts and entry to the parking lot). Runoff generated on the property sheet flows over the existing tennis courts into a concrete v- ditch, into a curb and gutter, and finally into a 12 -inch inlet. Flows travel from the inlet, via a 12 -inch PVC, which transitions to an 18 -inch RCP before entering the 24 -inch RCP in Coast Highway. All of the surface flows emanating on the site are conveyed in the existing 69 -inch RCP that ultimately discharges into Newport Harbor. A summary of the existing storm flows generated within each of the drainage areas is presented in Table 7. Table 7 Existing Runoff Newport Beach Country Club Sub -Area Area In Acres) Flow (Q) cfs A & B 11.59 26.56 C 5.62 14.27 D 0.19 0.82 E 1.24` 4.16 Total 18.64 45.81 SOUCE: Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers Inc. (July 10, 2009 The proposed development is also divided into five drainage areas; however, these areas have been reconfigured based on the grading associated with the project design. Drainage Areas A and B (11.68 acres) comprise nearly the same areas as previously identified; however, Drainage Area A has decreased in size to 6.59 acres and Drainage Area B has increased in size to 5.09 acres. Storm flows emanating from Drainage Areas A and B are proposed to be captured using a storm system comprised of catch basins and pipes ranging in size from 8 inches to 24 inches. The proposed storm drain system will be installed within the site's parking lot and within the site's entry westerly parkway and will connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP storm drain that connects to the existing 69 -inch RCP storm drain. The post - development runoff volume (Q25) is estimated to be 27.82 cfs. The existing 24 -inch storm drain is not adequate to accept and convey the existing or proposed storm flows. Therefore, this facility will be upsized. Drainage Area C will be expanded to encompass 6.16 acres, including some of the existing tennis courts, a new center court, Tennis Clubhouse, pool, The Bungalows, and The Villas along with interior street and paths. Storm flows for Area C will be captured using a storm drain system comprised of catch basins and pipes ranging in size from eight to 30 inches. Because inadequate storm drain stubs were provided to the project area (i.e., one 12 -inch PVC pipe and one 8 -inch PVC pipe), a 30 -inch RCP will be constructed in the parking lot of the adjacent property. This Drainage Area will generate a Q25 volume of 20.74 cfs. Drainage Area D encompasses 0.63 acre in the southeastern corner of the tennis facility. This area will consist of the newly designed and /or reconfigured parking lot for the Tennis Club. Storm flows emanating in Drainage Area D will sheet flow in a southerly direction to the existing parking lot located on the adjacent property. Once in the parking lot, it will sheet flow into existing catch basins and into the existing 69 -inch RCP. This drainage area will generate a Q25 of 2.64 cfs. Drainage Area E comprises the smallest of the five drainage areas and is located near the southwestern limits of the tennis facility. The 0.19 -acre area will generate a storm flow volume of 0.81 cfs AA which would travel to the southwest corner of the site where it would enter a catch basin that will connect to an existing 8 -inch PVC pipe that would also connect to the 69 -inch RCP south of the subject property. Table 8 provides a summary of the post - development runoff conditions. 011 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 72 Table 8 Post - Development Runoff Newport Beach Country Club Sub, Area• Area (In Acres Flow (Q) (cfs A & B 11.68 27.82 C 6.16 20.74 D 0.63 2.64 E 0.19 0.81 Total 18.66 52.01 SOUCE: Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers Inc. (July 10, 2009 Project implementation would result in an increase of approximately 13.5 percent in storm surface runoff volume. Table 9 provides a comparison of the pre- and post - development runoff characteristics. Table 9 Pre- and Post Development Runoff Comparison Newport Beach Country Club Sub -Area Existing Runoffs Q25 cfs Developed Runoff (Qzs cfs) Difference Q25 cfs A & B 26.56 27.82 126 C 14,27 20.74 6.47 D 0.82 2.64 1.82 E 4.16 0.81 -3.35 Total 45.81 52.01 6.2 SOUCE: Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers Inc. (July 10, 2009 Although the land use for the proposed project has a lower runoff coefficient than that under existing conditions, the overall flow volumes have increased as a result of the lower time of concentration that occurs when the storm flows are routed in a pipe versus sheet flow under existing conditions. As indicated above, project implementation will result in an increase of 6.2 cfs entering the 69 -inch RCP that will convey the storm flows to Newport Harbor. This increase in runoff equates to a 1.3 percent increase in the existing 462 cfs that currently flows in this facility. Because the time of concentration within the 69- inch RCP is much greater than the site's contribution in flow, the increased runoff generated by the proposed project would be negligible and, therefore, would not have a significant impact on the existing storm drain facilities. The site will be graded and designed to facilitate post - development storm flows. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Although project implementation will result in a decrease in impervious surfaces on the site, additional surface runoff would be generated (refer to the previous discussion in Section IX.d). However, the post - development impervious surfaces would be reduced by approximately 2,300 square feet, which would not generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff (i.e., an increase 012 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 73 of 6.2 cfs). The existing storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities within the project area (i.e., 18- and 24 -inch pipes previously described) will be upgraded as determined necessary to provide adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated previously, Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result of the development of the subject property as proposed that could result in potential impacts to water quality. However, the project will be designed to comply with all relevant building, grading and water quality codes and policies to ensure that there will not be an adverse effect on water quality, either during construction or during the operational life of the project. The applicant will be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will identify both structural and non - structural features intended to minimize erosion and sedimentation as well as other water quality impacts that would occur during the construction phase. In addition, a Conceptual WQMP identifies several measures that would minimize potential water quality impacts. Final plan check will include the preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. The site is located in Zone X (Other Areas), which is classified by FEMA as "Areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain." During a 100 -year storm, the site would be protected from flooding, as the water surface for all street flows would remain within the gutter and street; average depth of flow for the entire site is less than one foot. Secondary overflow for the site is provided by outletting through the site's interior streets to the exit on Coast Highway. As a result, no homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. No residential structures are proposed to be located within the 100 -year flood zone. Refer to the response to Section IX.g. i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As indicated above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. Figure S3 (Flood Hazards) in the Newport Beach Safety Element indicates that in the event of failure of either the San Joaquin Reservoir or the Big Canyon Reservoir, the site would not be subject to flooding. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a potentially significant impact; no mitigation measures are required. j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than Significant Impact, The subject property is located inland of Coast Highway and is not within the area of influence of Newport Harbor area. Tsunamis (i.e., seismic sea waves) are generated on offshore faults by movement that is primarily vertical in nature. The subject property is not within a Tsunami Hazard Zone illustrated on Figure S1 (Coastal Hazards) in the City's Safety Element. According to that figure, in the event of a tsunami, surge waves would threaten the lower elevations along the 013 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 74 Newport Beach coastline and in Newport Bay; however, the site is not subject to the effects of a tsunami. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Seiche is defined as a standing wave oscillation effect generated in a closed or semi - closed body of water caused by wind, tidal current, and earthquake. Seiche potential is highest in large, deep, steep -sided reservoirs or water bodies. The nearest such water bodies include San Joaquin Reservoir, which is located approximately two miles northeast of the site and Big Canyon Reservoir, located approximately one mile east - northeast of the subject property. The subject property is located well beyond the area that could potentially be inundated as a result of a seiche. In addition, Newport Bay, which is located approximately one -half mile east of the project area, lacks significant potential for damaging seiche because it is very shallow. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to responses to Section IX.a and Section IX.f. 1) Would the project result in potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less than Significant Impact. Stormwater discharge from the site will be virtually the same as the stormwater currently generated on the site, which are those associated with the residential and recreation uses. In addition, the proposed residential and bungalows would also contribute similar stormwater pollutants that may include detergents, fertilizers, pesticides, automobile hydrocarbons, etc., typically associated with those uses. Although some temporary impacts associated with construction of the proposed structures may occur (refer to Sections IX.a through IX.f), no new long -term outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are proposed. The golf cart storage and maintenance areas, which are currently located above grade, partially open on one side, are proposed to be fully enclosed in the lower level of the new clubhouse. Project implementation will result in improvements to the stormwater discharges associated with site development. The project will be designed to comply with all requisite codes and policies prescribed by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that stormwater impacts during or after construction are minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible. For example, the City's standard practice is to require street sweeping as a construction control measure, rather than washing down the street surface, to avoid runoff of construction wastes, sediment and debris into the storm drain system or the bay. Other construction BMPs would include those that address sediment control and waste management and materials pollution control. Little or no pollution control measures exist within the property, which was developed before the more stringent regulatory controls were enacted. As a result, with the implementation of such structural and non - structural BMPs as well as the project's compliance with the requirements imposed by the City, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. M) Would the project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to responses to Section IX.a and Section IX.f. n) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation will result in a decrease in impervious surfaces on the site. It must be noted that even though the land use for the proposed development has a lower runoff coefficient than the existing condition, the overall flow volumes have increased. This is due to the lower time of concentration that occurs when the storm flows are routed in a pipe versus the current condition of sheet flow. However, the site would be graded in order to ensure that post - development 014 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 75 runoff is minimized and, further, is directed to existing storm drain facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate the increase flows. As a result, this project would not result in adverse impacts due to changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. o) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact. See responses to IX.a through IX.f. As previously indicated, part of the final plan check review includes the preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable City standards. Implementation of this plan will ensure that potentially significant increases in erosion resulting from the proposed project will not occur. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The applicant has prepared an NPDES Technical Study that identifies a range of BMPs and related water quality features to ensure that water quality impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced to an acceptable level. Implementation of BMPs that will be refined and included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will ensure that construction impacts are minimized. Similarly, BMPs will also be refined and incorporated into the project design to avoid post- construction impacts to water quality. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. SC -16 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the State Water Quality Resources Control Board for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity at a future site. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC -17 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 shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush" The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. SC -18 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion and prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site. The project shall also incorporate all monitoring elements as required in the General Construction Permit. The project applicant shall also develop an erosion and sediment control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading permit. SC -19 Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable building code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project divide an established community? No Impact. The 145 -acre site is developed with golf and tennis facilities. The proposed project includes the construction of a larger Golf Clubhouse and modifications to the existing Tennis Club on the subject property. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with mixed -use development, including residential, professional office, commercial and governmental land 015 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 76 uses. Development of the site as proposed would not directly affect adjacent properties because it is consistent with the applicable development standards and requirements for site development as prescribed in the proposed Planned Community District development regulations. In particular, project implementation does not include features that would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or change an established community (e.g., roadways, flood control channels, etc.). The proposed Golf Clubhouse is in keeping with the intensity of development and existing character in the project environs. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency and 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 Significant Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach Zoning Code contain land use plans, policies and regulations of concern with respect to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consistency of the proposed project with applicable provisions and /or policies of the relevant Elements of the General Plan are addressed in Table 10. Table 10 General Plan Policy Analysis Newport Beach Country Club Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis - Land Use Element Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique The proposed project includes an adoption of the PC character of the different neighborhoods, business District regulations, which will guide development districts, and harbor that together identify Newport occurring within the project site. The development LU 1.1 Beach. Locate and - design development to reflect standards address building height, setbacks, landscaping, Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, architectural character, etc., and are intended to ensure and view sheds. that the City's unique character, which reflects both land use and architectural diversity, is maintained. The area in which the site is located is characterized by a variety of residential, commercial, recreation, and public land uses that reflect a range of densities and a variety of architectural styles, which contribute to the unique While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its character of the City. The intensity of the proposed project neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the (i.e., larger Golf Club clubhouse and redeveloped tennis LU 1.2 entire City that differentiates it as a special place within center) and architectural character are compatible with the the Southern California region. variety of densities and styles within the area, which is "identity" consistent with the of the City. The architectural character of the proposed clubhouse and related tennis center development, including The Bungalows and The Villas, is consistent with the City's desire to differentiate Newport Beach from other coastal cities. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are The character of the proposed Golf Club, Tennis Club, The complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Bungalows, and The Villas is compatible with the existing Changes in use and /or density /intensity should be land uses and development intensities in the project area. considered only in those areas that are economically Additionally, the proposed land uses are allowed under the under performing, are necessary to accommodate existing General Plan. The project has been designed to Newport Beach's share of projected regional be compatible with the existing residential, commercial, LU 3.2 population growth, improve the relationship and reduce and open space /recreation that exists in the vicinity of the commuting distance between home and jobs, or project site. In addition, the area in which the project is enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as located is adequately served by existing infrastructure, a special place to live for its residents. The scale of including circulation, sewer, water, and storm drainage growth and new development shall be coordinated with systems. As a result, project implementation will not the provision of adequate infrastructure and public adversely affect those systems or the provision of services, including standards for acceptable traffic level adequate service to nearby development. of service. LU 4.1 Accommodate land use development consistent with The uses proposed by the applicant are consistent with the Land Use Plan. the General Plan Land Use Element (i.e., land use 010 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2OO5 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 77 Policy... .. No. General PlarrPolicy' Consistency Analysis designation), which designates the golf course site PR (Parks and Recreation) and the tennis site MU- H3 /PR. The proposed Golf Clubhouse is within the 35,000 square foot allowable development limit permitted in Anomaly 74 of the Land Use Element. The tennis facility is located in Anomaly 46, which allocates 24 tennis courts with residential permitted in accordance with the MU -H3 designation. Per LU 4.3 Transfer of Development Rights, (Page 3 -20.d of the General Plan) density transfers are allowed within the Newport Center area (refer to LU 6.14.3). Based on this policy, the transfer of 27 hotel units from Anomaly 43 to Anomaly 46 (i.e., subject property) may be permitted, 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. In addition to the Transfer of Development Intensity, within Newport Center there are remaining 20 single - family units allocated for the Newport Center to accommodate the 5 single - family homes needed for The Villas. The proposed land uses are consistent with the land use designation prescribed for the site as well as the TDR and residential allocation within Newport Center. Permit the transfer of development rights from a property to one or more other properties when: - a. The donor and receiver sites are within the same Statistical Area. b. The reduced density/intensity on the donor site provides benefits to the City such as, but not limited to, the (1) provision of extraordinary open space, public visual corridor(s), parking or other amenities (2) preservation of an historic building or property or natural landscapes; (3) improvement of LU 4.3 the area's sale and development character; (4) Refer to Policy 6.14.3. consolidation of lots to achieve a better architectural design than could be achieved without lot consolidation; and /or (5) reduction of local vehicle trips and traffic congestion. c. The increment of growth transferred to the receiver site complements and is in scale with surrounding development, complies with community character and design policies contained in this plan, and does not materially degrade local traffic conditions and environmental quality. d. Transfer of Development Rights in Newport Center is governed by Policy 6.14.3. Although the site is not located adjacent to lower density residential development (e.g., single - family detached), the project has been designed to respect the proximity of the existing residential development adjacent to the project site. Specifically, single - family residential development is Require that the height of development in proposed in the area nearest to the existing residential nonresidential and higher density residential areas development to buffer the private recreation uses of the LU 5.1.2 transition as it nears lower density residential areas to Tennis Clubhouse. In addition, the proposed PC District minimize conflicts at the interface between the different text and regulations prescribe maximum building heights, types of development. setback requirements, etc., for each of the development components to ensure land use compatibility. The maximum building height has been established at 50 feet. The height of the proposed Golf Clubhouse is proposed to vary but would not exceed the maximum 50 -foot height limit prescribed for that use. Require that properties developed with a mix of As illustrated in the proposed site plan, the proposed residential and non - residential uses be designed to project includes a new golf clubhouse, tennis clubhouse achieve - high levels of architectural quality in and related amenities, twenty -seven (27) short-term LU 5.3.3 accordance with Policies 5A.8 and 5.2.2 and planned visitor - serving units (Bungalows). And five (5) single - family to assure compatibility among the uses and provide residential dwelling units. The proposed project provides adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses adequate parking for each of the proposed uses. should be seamlessly integrated with non - residential Vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been designed to uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and accommodate both residents of the Villas, as well as 017 LU 5.3.4 R1111L' EW LU 6.14.3 LU 6.14.6 LU 6.14.8 H 1.1 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 78 walls or other design elements. Require that sufficient acreage be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and non- residential uses to prevent fragmentation and assure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. Provide the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2. 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. Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. residential and mixed -use development projects that use the residential 450 units identified in Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). Development Agreements shall define the improvements and benefits to be contributed by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housina units. Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically possible. Club /spa and Bungalows. The architectural character of the uses is defined in the PC District Regulations to ensure that compatibility between the proposed uses and As indicated above, each of the uses has been designed to complement the overall development proposed by the applicant. The three distinct uses are connected via the vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, including sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. Land use compatibility is achieved through a common landscape theme and design guidelines in the PC District Regulations to ensure that the architectural integrity of the project is not I he project proposes a mix of land uses, including single - family residential, golf and tennis facilities and visitor - serving commercial (i.e., "Bungalows ") uses. These uses are permitted in Table LUt. Residential development is Project implementation includes the transfer of 27 hotel units from Anomaly No. 46 to the subject property. As indicated in the analysis of traffic, the proposed project would result in the generation of 221 daily vehicle trips for the 27 bungalows. Project implementation will result in the generation of 1,183 daily vehicle trips, including those generated by the bungalows (221 trips), which equates to a net reduction in not only daily trips (389), but also a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips (35) when compared to the existing land uses. The reduction of vehicle trips anticipated as a result of the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to the existing traffic and circulation conditions in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant traffic impacts. In addition, implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Newport Beach General Plan, as reflected in this analysis. As indicated above, the project has been designed to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and promotes recreation and tourism. The project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Land Use and other elements of the As indicated on the site plan, the proposed project provides for both pedestrian and vehicular access between the Golf and Tennis facilities. Sidewalks and pedestrian pathways are incorporated into the circulation system that are intended to accommodate pedestrians utilizing the golf and tennis /spa facilities as well as the future residents of the proposed Villas. The landscape plan includes plants materials that are intended to reflect and complement the existing character within the project The applicant has proposed a Development Agreement, which must comply with the provisions of this policy, including the identification of improvements and benefits resulting from implementation of the proposed project. I ne project site aces not include any existing nousing. However, the applicant is proposing five (5) semi - custom, single - family residential dwelling units on the subject property, which will improve the availability and quality of housing in the City. These dwelling units will supplement the City's housing supply. 01g HR 2.1 CE 7.1.1 CE 7.1.8 R 1.1 NR 1.2 NR 3.4 NR 3.5 NR 3.9 NR 3.11 General NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 79 Historical Resources Require that, In accordance with GEUA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archaeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guest, business patrons, and visitors. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Although it is unlikely that archaeological and /or paleontological resources would be encountered during grading and /or construction, the City requires that a certified archaeological /paleontological monitor be available during grading to ensure that if such resources are encountered, grading activities can be diverted in order to evaluate the resources and recommend appropriate measures to protect and /or preserve them. I ne proposed project provides adequate parking as demonstrated in the Traffic and Parking Evaluation prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates and prescribed in the PC District regulations for the project. The project will meet the anticipated parking demand on -site with 398 parking spaces. In addition to the parking proposed to accommodate the proposed uses, additional parking within two off -site parking easement areas encompass over 554 additional parking spaces that can be used for special events. parking spaces, including 28 spaces that are allocated to the Tennis Clubhouse (28 required), 50 parking spaces for the Bungalows /spa (49 required), and 300 parking spaces for the Golf Club (244 required). In addition, 20 parking spaces are also proposed to accommodate the 5 Villas (20 Recreation Element Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population, as required in the Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities. Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. and source sign and source control BMPs in all When the combination of site design The proposed project includes the development of five semi - custom, single - family residential dwelling units. The residential component of the proposed project will be subject to the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. It is anticipated that the applicant will be required to pay the applicable in -lieu fee. Water conservation measures will be required to be incorporated into the proposed project as prescribed in Chapter 14.16 (Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations) and Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the proposed hand car wash will comply with Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) to ensure that surface runoff associated with that use does not result in the degradation of either surface or groundwater. Finally, the BMPs are intended to meet the requirements prescribed in The project applicant will be required to comply with the NPDES requirements established by the City, including the preparation of a SWPPP to address construction activities and a WQMP for long -term operations of the As indicated above; the proposed project will implement BMPs to improve the quality of both construction - related and long -term runoff emanating from the site prior to their Refer to Response to Policy No. NR 3.4. The proposed project complies with the requirement to prepare a SWPPP and WQMP to address both 0 19 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2OO5 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 80 Policy No:. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis water quality as required by the NPDES, structural Both site design and structural BMPs will be incorporated treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site into the project to ensure that surface Flows emanating design and source control measures. from the subject property are treated prior to their discharge into Newport Harbor. The SWPPP and WQMP will be sufficient to protect water quality as prescribed by the NPDES requirements of the City, As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) will be prepared and will Require grading /erosion control plans with structural establish both structural and non - structural BMPs in order to BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction NR 4.4 construction for development on steep slopes, graded, phase. These measures will be incorporated in the or disturbed area. grading /erosion control plan (refer to SC -10) submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, the applicant has prepared a WQMP to address post - development water quality impacts. Require developers to use and operate construction The proposed project will comply with all South Coast NR 8.1 equipment, use building materials and paints, and AQMD rules and requisite local, state and federal control dust created by construction activities to requirements to reduce air pollutant emissions during minimize air pollutants. - construction. Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of NR 18.1 CEQA. Through planning policies and permit Refer to Response to Policy No. HR 2.1. conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archaeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American Notify cultural organizations, including Native American representatives before adopting or amending a general organizations, of proposed development that have the plan. The City has complied with the requirements of SB NR 18.3 potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow 18 by submitting a request to the Native American qualified representative of such groups to monitor Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also grading and /or excavation of development sites. sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period._ Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically NR 18.4 valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to Refer to Response to Policy No. HR 2.1. a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange county, whenever possible. Project implementation will not result in any significant visual impacts to the segment of Newport Center Drive north of Farallon, which is designated as a Coastal View Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic Road, or to the Public View Point identified in Irvine and visual resources that include open space, Terrace Park located south of East Coast Highway. Views NR 20.1 mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from from vantages along Newport Center Drive will not be public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. significantly altered as a result of project implementation. The development would not be visible from this Coastal View Road because of the landscaping that exists along the roadway, which blocks and /or filters views to the subject property. Protect and enhance public view corridors from the NR 20.3 following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), Refer to Response to Policy No. NR 20.1. and other locations may be identified in the future (Newport Center Drive). The building mass and architectural character of the proposed project will be regulated through the PC District Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of regulations that have been proposed. The City will ensure NR 22.1 structures consistent with the unique character and that these regulations do not compromise the unique visual scale of Newport Beach. aesthetic character of the City. 020 S4.7 N 1.1 N 1.4 Ni[y NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 81 Plan Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where potential active faults may occur. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N21 and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed - use projects and high density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor /ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. Encourage new mixed -use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development. The proposed structures will be designed in accordance with current adopted codes and regulations, including the California Building Code, which prescribe the design standards for new development to protect life and property. In addition, site and structural design recommendations are also included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared that will be incorporated I ne proposed uses, Including the Golf Club and Tennis Club, the Bungalows, and the villas are consistent with the noise parameters prescribed in Table N2. The residential uses will not be subject to exterior noise levels that exceed 65 dBA CNEL and the non - residential uses are also consistent with the land use noise compatibility matrix As indicated in the noise analysis prepared for the proposed project (refer to Section XII), project activities will entail the continuation of long standing outdoor golf and tennis uses and limited indoor activities. Outdoor recreational activities at the Country Club represent a continuation of existing activities, which are compatible with the nearby residential and non - residential development in the project environs. Although some noise is associated with tennis, in particular, it is not so intrusive that it would be disruptive or incompatible with the existing uses. Furthermore, the proposed residential component (i.e., the "Villas "), is not located adjacent to Coast Highway or other high volumes arterials that would generate noise levels that exceed exterior and /or interior standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts would occur. No loading docks or other high noise generating features are located in proximity to the proposed "Villas." A mitigation measure requires that heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in or adjacent to residential areas must not exceed applicable noise levels as required by the City of Newport Beach. Require the employment of noise mitigation measures Noise mitigation have been prescribed to ensure that for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise construction noise impacts are reduced to a less than N 1.8 impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs si nificant level. In addition, when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL g proper siting of HVAC produced by new development impacting noise equipment will reduce operational noise levels in the sensitive ncea residential area in compliance with this policy. N 4.1 N 4.6 110116% Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work - related activities. Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. within the harbor The noise sensitive receptors (i.e., residents of the proposed Villas) would be protected from excessive interior and exterior noise levels through compliance with the noise standards adopted by the City and presented in Table N3 of the Noise Element. Both interior and exterior by the City of Newport Beach and prescribed in the Noise Ordinance. In addition, operational noise associated with the proposed tennis and golf facilities would also be regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance. City's Noise Ordinance, which will be strictly enforced by the City of Newoort Beach. 021 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 82 Coastal Land Use Plan As previously indicated, the subject property is located in the Coastal Zone delineated within the City of Newport Beach and is, therefore, subject to the adopted policies contained within the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan. Consistency with the applicable policies of that CLUP are presented in Table 11. Table 11 Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Analysis Newport Beach Country Club Policy No. CLUP Poli q Consistency Analysis Land Use The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan, which designates the golf course site OS (Open Space) and the tennis site MU -H /PR (Mixed Use Horizontal /Parks & Recreation). The Open Space designation allows golf courses. The MU -H /PR designation allows horizontally - distributed mix of uses, which may include general or Land uses and new development in the coastal zone shall neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi - 2.1.2-1 be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, applicable LCP policies and regulations. buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses, and active public or private recreational uses, including parks, golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. In addition, the project addresses the relevant policies related to development of the site and the protection of coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in this table. General Development Policies Project implementation will result in some intensification of the development that exists within the limits of the Planned Community. As previously indicated, the Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development proposed project does not exceed the intensity of 2.2.1-1 within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the development allocated in the General Plan for Anomaly coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and No. 46 and Anomaly No. 74. Because the proposed resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. project would result in the redevelopment of the existing uses, project implementation would not adversely affect any coastal resources and development is consistent with applicable coastal resource policies. The proposed project is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by a range of Require new development be located in areas with public services and utilities, including police and fire 2.2.1-2 adequate public services or in areas that are capable of protection; circulation; sewer, water and storm drains; and having public services extended or expanded without electricity and natural gas. Adequate service will continue significant adverse effects on coastal resources. to be provided to the proposed uses. The provision of those public services and utilities will not result in any significant adverse effects on coastal resources. Residential Development The proposed PC District regulations prescribe the development standards for both residential and non- residential land uses proposed for the project. The maximum building height for the proposed single - family Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, residential dwelling units (i.e., 5 units), which are located floor area, and height limits for residential development to in the vicinity of the existing residential development, will 2.7 -1 protect the character of established neighborhoods and to range from 21 feet for Villa A to approximately 35 feet for protect coastal access and coastal resources. Villa D. Similar to building height, the front, rear, and side yard setbacks will vary, depending on the location and relationship of The Villas to each other and to existing residential development to the northeast, which are two and three stories in height. 022 t2R 04:69 Q.wal 2.9.3 -1 2.9.3 -2 2.9.3 -3 2.9.3 -5 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2OO5 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 83 Hazards and Protective Devices Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff, erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams. Require applications for new development, where applicable (i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards), to include a geologic/soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subiect to review and aooroval by the Citv. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Continue to require new development to provide off - street parking sufficient to serve the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on- street and off- street parking available for coastal access. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a stream. However, as required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish both structural and non- structural BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction phase. These measures will be incorporated in the grading /erosion control plans With the exception of the potential effects of moderate to strong seismic shaking, the subject property is not located in an area characterized by potential coastal hazards. Preliminary geotechnical design parameters for the proposed project have been recommended based on subsurface exploration and laboratory testing of the site soils. The proposed structures will be constructed based on those design parameters. accommodate all of the proposed uses, including the Golf Club, Tennis Clubhouse, the Bungalows, and The Villas. A total of 398 parking spaces is provided in the plan, including 28 parking spaces allocated to the Tennis Club (28 required), 50 parking spaces for The Bungalows /spa (49 required), and 300 parking spaces for the Golf Club (244 required). In addition, 20 parking .spaces are proposed to accommodate the five Villas (20 required). The parking plan provides for a surplus of 57 parking spaces based on the proposed PC District parking requirements. In addition to the on -site parking provided, the site plan indicates that the an existing parking easement in favor of the project site provides access to an additional 554 parking spaces in the evenings and on weekends and holidays, if needed for parking overflow during tennis and golf events. However, such events are subject to a "special event permit," must be approved by the City. In addition to other requirements, it must be shown that I ne proposea project provides adequate parking as demonstrated in the Traffic and Parking Evaluation prepared by Kimley -Horm and Associates and reflected in the PC district regulations. A surplus of 57 parking spaces is available on -site. In addition, off -site parking is also available for special events. An existing off -site Parking Agreement will provide for an additional 554 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed project. enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate Refer to Policy 2.9.3 -1. parking pursuant to the off - street parking regulations of the Zonina Code in effect as of October 13. 2005. Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. for dimensions and clearance; access to the parking is adequate. A new drive aisle with a drop -off area will also be added to the front of the Golf Clubhouse and a second entry point to the main parking lot will be added at the northwest corner of the lot. The parking rows in the main parking lot will be reconfigured to an east -west orientation, with access aisles provided on both ends of the parking lot. Each of the drive aisles will be 26 feet wide, which provides adequate room for circulation, turning, and backing for 90- degree parking aisles. 023 3.1.1 -11 101i11r4:] 3.2.1 -3 4.3.1 -6 4.3.1 -7 4.3.2 -3 4.3.2 -8 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 84 Shoreline and Bluff Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the needs of new residents when allowing new development. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. Require measures to be taken during construction to limit land use disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut - and -fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Require that development not result in the degradation of coastal waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes) caused by changes to the hydrologic landscape. To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, and other pollutants into recreational waters. Access coastal zone, it is not located along the Newport Beach shoreline and, therefore, would not deter coastal access in anv way. As indicated above, direct shoreline access from the subject property does not exist. i ne proposed project site consists of 14b acres mat presently encompass a private golf and tennis facilities. Although private in nature, these facilities will continue to serve a segment of the City's recreational needs. In addition, the five single - family residential dwelling units proposed (i.e., The Villas) will be subject to the City's park I ne project applicant is required to prepare and implement BMPs pursuant to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) that will be required prior to the issuance of the grading .permit for the proposed project. Implementation of these construction BMPs will ensure that grading /erosion control measures are implemented. These measures are intended to minimize erosion and stabilize the site during grading. As indicated above, the applicant will also be required to implement BMPs to ensure that point source and non -point source pollutants are minimized. BMPs will be required as part of the project's development in order to ensure that the potential discharge of pollutants of concern is minimized. The NPDES Technical Study prepared for the project identifies a range of potential BMPs that are intended to minimize erosion associated with water and wind. Several potential erosion control measures have been identified, including the use of hydroseeding, hydromulch, preservation of existing vegetation, scheduling of construction to avoid the climatic conditions that contribute to potential erosion, soil binders, velocity dissipation devices, etc. The SWPPP that will be prepared and approved by the City of Newport Beach will ensure that all appropriate BMPs are implemented to ensure that potential construction - related water quality Because the site has been altered and developed with existing golf and tennis facilities, project implementation will not result in significant changes to the existing runoff conditions; however, because both construction and post - construction BMPs will be incorporated into the project design, it is anticipated that some improvement in the quality of the storm and related surface runoff emanating from the site will occur when compared to the existing runoff quality. As indicated above, the applicant will be required to prepare a WQMP and SWPPP to ensure that surface discharges do not degrade the receiving waters. These plans must be approved by the City of Newport Consistent with this policy, the proposed project will be required to incorporate BMPs that address on -site retention and treatment of surface runoff. The WQMP and SWPPP will include measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system. Potential past - construction BMPs that may be implemented include grassy swales, detention basins, 024 4.3.2 -11 4.3.2 -12 4.3.2 -13 4.3.2 -16 4.3.2 -23 4.4.1 -1 4.4.1 -2 4.4.1 -6 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 85 Require new development to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to be maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. purification, and retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist on the site, to the maximum extent practicable. Where feasible, design drainage and project plans to complement and utilize existing drainage patterns and systems, conveying drainage from the developed area of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or degraded natural drainage systems should be restored, Site development on the most suitable portion of the site and design to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources. Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and repaired as necessary to ensure proper functioning for the life of the development. Condition coastal development permits to require ongoing application and maintenance as is necessary for effective operation of all BMPs (including site design, source control, and treatment Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less the 3/7 of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post- Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. hydrodynamic separator systems, etc. The BMPs will ensure that runoff will be treated to prevent the continued degradation of Newport Bay. Project implementation will result in an improvement to surface water quality because no or only limited treatment occurs at the present. time. Project implementation will result in an increase of 6.2 cfs when compared to the existing runoff volume. This increase in runoff equates to a 1.3 percent increase in the existing 462 cfs that currently flows in this the existing 69- inch RCP that transports the flows to Newport Bay where it is discharged. As indicated above, the implementation of BMPs will require detention and treatment prior to Only minor changes will occur to the existing drainage systems that accommodate runoff from the site. Surface flows will generally be directed in the same fashion and into the same existing drainage facilities that currently accept storm runoff generated on the site. resources because it has been substantially altered by prior development of golf and tennis facilities. It is anticipated that some additional pervious area of the property will be improved with structures and impervious surfaces on the Golf Club component; however, the proposed development will occur in the same general area of the site that is currently developed. No important natural and /or sensitive site resources would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The minor increase in surface runoff attributed to site development would be treated prior to its ultimate discharge into Newport Bay to The SWPPP and WQMP that will be prepared for the proposed project will include a maintenance plan and program to ensure that the structural BMPs function effectively and efficiently and that surface runoff meets discharge requirements. An NPDES Technical Study has been prepared and is the precursor to the WQMP, which will identify both structural and non - structure BMPs to treat surface runoff generated on the site. The project is not located along the ocean, bay or harbor and is devoid of coastal bluffs and other features identified by the City as important visual amenities. A Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared that incorporates a hierarchy of landscape materials, including mature trees, shrubs, and ground cover in a thematic approach to ensure that the aesthetic integrity of the site is maintained and the character complements the coastal character of the coastal zone within which the site is located. In particular, a variable setback along East Coast Highway will be landscaped and harmed to soften and aesthetically enhance and screen the parking lot and to provide enhanced views into the site to provide a greater buffer between the park and residential development 025 4.4.2 -2 4.4.3 -15 4.5.1 -1 4.5.1 -2 4.5.1 -3 4.5.1 -4 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 86 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. significantly altered as a result of project implementation. The development would not be visible from this Coastal View Road because of the landscaping that exists along the roadway, which blocks and /or filters views to the The proposed development includes the Golf Club, The Villas, The Bungalows, and the Tennis Club. The proposed PC District regulations prescribe the architectural character of the proposed structures as well as development standards related to building height, setbacks, landscaping, etc., to ensure that the mixed uses are compatible with the surrounding development. As indicated in the PC District regulations, the development standards are intended to "... ensure the harmony and continuity of design parameters that are respectful to the properties of its California coastal heritage." The development and design standards address building mass, scale, materials, landscape treatment, and the existing golf and tennis facilities. As a result, no significant rock outcroppings or other important visual amenities exist on the site. No native vegetation will be removed as a result of Droiect implementation. and Cultural Resources Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development. Require a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological /archaeological resources, require the paleontologist/archaeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological /archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recover and /or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural resources Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development sites. vvnere in situ preservation ano avoiaance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever The proposed project includes the redevelopment of an existing golf and tennis facilities, which have resulted in significant alteration of the existing site. Although it is not expected that significant cultural resources would be encountered on the site during grading and construction, a cultural resources monitor will be available during grading to ensure that should such resources be encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented to protect artifacts and related materials. In the event human remains, cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted until a qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor inspects the site to assess the significance of the find. A Native American representative shall be contacted if there is a likelihood that human remains could be of Native American origin. Native American organizations as mandated by SB18. Because the site has been altered by grading and development that has occurred in the past, it is unlikely that potential impacts to cultural resources would occur; however, monitoring during grading will be required. In the event important cultural resources are encountered, Consistent with this policy, any discovery of artifacts and /or resources, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, will be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. 4.5.1 -5 Where there is a otential to affect cultural or As indicated above, it is not anticipated that cultural P P paleontological resources require the submittal of an I resources would be encountered based on the level of 020 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 87 Policy No. CLUP.Polic ConsistencyAnalysis archaeological /cultural resources monitoring plan that disturbance that has taken place on the site. However, identifies monitoring methods and describes the should such resources be encountered during grading procedures for selecting archaeological and Native and construction, the archaeological /paleontological American monitors and procedures that will be followed if monitor will have the authority to halt or redirect grading additional or unexpected archaeological /cultural operations to avoid impacts and allow proper evaluation resources are encountered during development of the and disposition of the resources. site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing, additional investigation and mitigation. Environmental Review Require applications for new development, where applicable, to include a geologic/soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains A geological assessment has been prepared (refer to statements that the project site is suitable for the Section VI of this analysis, which describes the potential proposed development and that the development will be eotechnical constraints e. g ( g., settlement, ground safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For shaking, etc.) that affect site development. Several 4.6 -9 development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing recommendations have been identified to ensure that the Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall include slope proposed structures and project components are stability analyses and estimates of the long -term average adequately protected from potential soils, geologic and bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the seismic conditions. development. Reports are to be signed by an appropriately licensed professional and subject to review and approval by qualified city staff member(s) and /or contracted emplo ee(s). C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As previously indicated, the subject property is currently developed with private golf and tennis facilities. As a result, the project site does not support either sensitive habitat and /or species. Furthermore, the property is not subject to a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with private golf and tennis facilities. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Land Use Element and /or Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. 027 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 88 b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., new Golf Club clubhouse, residential and resort uses) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. There are several characteristic noise sources typically identified with general development such as proposed at the Newport Beach Country Club. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short -term noise increases near the project sites. Vehicular traffic volumes on area roadways around the proposed project will slightly decrease as a result of conversion of 17 tennis courts to less traffic - intrusive residential and hotel uses. This will result in a very small area -wide traffic noise reduction. However, vehicular noise impacts on proposed on -site residential uses were examined. Project activities will entail the continuation of long standing outdoor golf and tennis uses and limited indoor activities. Outdoor recreational activities at the Country Club represent a continuation of'existing activities, which are compatible with the nearby residential and non - residential development in the project environs. Although some noise is associated with tennis, in particular, it is not so intrusive that it would be disruptive or incompatible with the existing uses. No noise impact analysis was therefore conducted for outdoor recreation because golf activities will remain at the existing level and tennis activities will be reduced with the reduction in the number of tennis courts. The primary noise sources for off -site uses that would be of possible concern would be any changes in the parking lot activity noise. Additionally, any new HVAC equipment installed on the project site would be required to meet noise standards as outlined in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Noise impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project are discussed in greater detail in Section Xll.c., below. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities generate groundborne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground -borne vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the "soft' sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. Groundborne vibration attenuates quickly with distance. Vibration levels from the use of heavy equipment would be typical of that used for other projects; no blasting or other extraordinary grading techniques would be necessary to implementation the proposed project. Therefore, potential groundborne vibration would be expected to be imperceptible at the nearest off -site homes. Construction activity vibration impacts are judged as less than significant. 022 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 89 C) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing noise levels on the proposed project site derive mainly from vehicular sources on the adjacent arterial roadways. The proposed project site is currently a functioning Tennis and Golf Country Club. The surrounding area is developed with residential uses to the northeast and southwest. The site is bound by Newport Center Drive to the east, East Coast Highway to the south and Santa Barbara Drive to the north. Noise measurements were taken in order to document existing baseline levels in the area. On -site noise levels in the vicinity of the future on -site residential uses are in the 55 -60 dB range. Such levels are well within Newport Beach residential noise standards of 65 dB CNEL. The Villas and The Bungalows will be exposed to traffic along surrounding roadways. The projects residential component lies approximately 2,900 feet from the Jamboree Road centerline and 2,700 feet from the MacArthur Boulevard centerline. There are numerous intervening buildings separating the site from these roadways. Given the setback distance and noise attenuation provided by existing building structures, noise from these roadways was not considered to provide a significant impact upon the proposed project residential uses. East Coast Highway is approximately 450 feet from the closest proposed on- site residential use and as such provides the largest potential traffic noise impact. Although other roadways will add to the project noise exposure level, they will not dominate the noise environment. As discussed above, noise meters placed in the approximate location of the proposed on -site residential units demonstrated existing CNELs of 55 dB CNEL in the center of the proposed residential area and 60 dB CNEL at the approximate location of the closest residential unit. Existing office and Country Club buildings assist in shielding the proposed residential area from traffic noise emanating from East Coast Highway. Project - related traffic will not contribute significantly to the ambient noise levels in the area. In addition, the continuation of the tennis club would similarly not contribute significantly to the ambient noise levels and, therefore, would not adversely affect the nearby residential development because the number of tennis courts has been reduced and the noise levels would be expected to be the same or less than that currently associated with activities at the Tennis Club facility. As discussed earlier in this report, in year 2009, the section of PCH closest to the project site (between Jamboree Road and Newport Center Drive) had a traffic count of 35,660 vehicles per day equating to a noise level of 73.5 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline. At 450 from the centerline, at the approximate location of the closest proposed on -site residence, this noise level decays to 59 dB CNEL due to distance spreading losses utilizing soft -site conditions. Several intervening buildings afford a partial shielding accounting for approximately -3 dB CNEL. The predicted on -site CNEL is approximately 56 dB. The measured CNEL levels were 55 and 59 dB. CNEL levels as calculated from both modeling and measurements are similar. Newport Beach Traffic Engineering estimates a 1 percent growth rate per year for traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. Assuming area buildout occurs in 2020, there would be almost 40,000 vehicles along Pacific Coast Highway each day, resulting in a +0.4 dB increase over existing. Therefore, the future noise level for proposed on -site residential uses would be indistinguishable from existing CNEL levels in the upper 50 dB range. This noise level is well below the City of Newport Beach recommended exterior compatibility noise level of 65 dB CNEL for residential uses. Typical exterior to interior noise attenuation with open windows is at least -10 dB CNEL, and in modern construction, 20 -30 dB CNEL with closed windows. This translates into interior levels of less than 51 dB CNEL with open windows and less than 41 dB CNEL with closed windows. Interior levels will readily meet the 45 dB CNEL standard for habitable rooms. There is no siting conflict for planned residential uses within the project site. 0�9 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 90 The project's primary parking lot will remain along PCH and will accommodate 300 cars. Smaller lots are scattered in the tennis court area and accommodate 20 -38 cars each. On -site proposed parking will accommodate 398 vehicles. In addition, to 554 parking stalls are also available to accommodate parking for the project through a parking agreement with the adjacent Corporate Plaza West development. Parking lot activities are sporadic but with a morning and evening peak hour volume. Existing peak hour traffic volume is 129 vehicles per hour. Proposed peak hour traffic volume will be 94 vehicles per hour. Noise emanating from vehicles entering and exiting the proposed project site improvements will be less than from existing site operations and will be spread over several areas. Parking lot noise is not anticipated to be a noise nuisance. The uses planned for the NBCC are a continuation of existing uses and do not represent any significant new noise source and as such is not anticipated to generate noise that will affect off -site uses. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Temporary construction noise impacts will vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition of existing structures and large earth - moving sources, then by foundation and parking lot construction, and finally for finish construction. The demolition and earth - moving sources are the noisiest, with equipment noise typically ranging from 75 to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Point sources of noise emissions are typically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance through geometrical (spherical) spreading of sound waves. The quieter noise sources will drop to a 65 dBA exterior /45 dBA interior noise level by about 200 feet from the source. For typical construction scenario, the louder noise sources may require over 1,000 feet from the source to reduce the 90+ dBA source strength to a generally acceptable 65 dBA exterior exposure level. Grading involves recycling the 14,583 cubic yards of removed hardscape to implement the proposed project. This hardscape would be removed and then crushed on -site to be utilized as fill material rather than require importation of fill dirt. Analysis of this scenario involves quantifying noise from crushing equipment that would operate on site. Rock crusher noise depends upon the type of material processed. Hard rock with large individual pieces is noisier than recycled asphalt. Asphalt is very soft material with the bulk of the noise coming from the screens and not the crusher. Noise impacts from the crushing operations that would occur within the project site are associated with the processing of the mostly concrete and broken asphalt rubble as the bulk of the material processed by the on -site crusher. The debris crushed on -site is considered a "soft" material. Sound decays at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of source - receiver distance for propagation across a smooth, hard surface. The drop -off rate across irregular, vegetated surfaces are somewhat faster. If there are obstructions to the direct line -of- sight, the drop -off rate is much faster. Placement of a large barrier along the line -of -sight can reduce levels by 15 -20 dB from their unimpeded transmission. Audibility will also depend upon background conditions. The closest off -site residence to possible crusher operations is approximately 500 feet. The noise impact from the crusher therefore depends on a very large number of variables: Type of material crushed • Character of the underlying surface Source receiver distance Presence of any physical obstructions Masking effects of background levels OWN NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 91 The noise envelope for a prototype crusher as a function of various variables is reflected in Table 12. Table 12 Rock Crusher Noise Envelope Newport Country Club Source Receiver Distance feet Soft Rock Soft" Surface 50 85 100 78 200 70 400 63 500 60 800 57 'Unpaved, vegetated and irregular surface SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (July 2009 The Noise Code identifies a desirable L25 noise exposure of 55 dB and L25 nighttime of 50 dB. Under direct line of sight conditions, crusher noise could slightly exceed the City's noise standard at the closest residences. Interruption of the line of sight would reduce noise levels by 10 dB or more and would meet the City's noise standard. Therefore, use of a stockpile of rubble, or a temporary sound blanket as a barrier between the crusher and the closest home(s), is required if the on -site recycling is selected (see Mitigation Measure MM -8). The project will also comply with the noise ordinance relating to permissible hours of construction operations and will not start construction operations until 8:00am. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, permissible hours of construction are 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction is not permitted on any national holiday or on any Sunday. This exclusion from numerical standards ordinance compliance is presumed applicable to any mobile construction equipment, but not to a possible rock crusher. These hours are included as conditions on any project construction permits and these limits will serve to minimize any adverse construction noise impact potential. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. John Wayne Airport is located approximately 4.0 miles north of the subject property. As indicated in Section Vlll.e., a portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property is located within the AELUP Notification Area (i.e., FAR Part 77) for JWA. Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wayne Airport is below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, the proposed clubhouse will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. Nonetheless, the City is required to submit the proposed PC Amendment to the ALUC for a determination of consistency in accordance with Section 4.3 of the AELUP prior to adoption by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or other aviation facility that generates noise in the vicinity of the subject property. Development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. 031 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 92 Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, potentially significant short -tem, construction noise impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation in the event that a rock crushing operation is located on the subject property to utilize the on -site materials as fill. The following measures are recommended to ensure that potential construction noise impacts associated with the potential rock crushing operation are reduced to a less than significant level. Additional measures are also recommended to further reduce temporary construction noise levels. MM -3 During rock crushing operations, a sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight exists between the crusher and any off -site homes. MM -4 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. MM -5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels. MM -6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint, MM -7 Heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be shown by computation, based on the sound rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty (50) dBA or not to exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty -five (55) dBA. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation includes the development of five (5) single - family detached residential dwelling units. Based on the City's population per household average of 2.19,'5 the proposed project would generate a total of 11 residents. The residential development proposed with this project in Anomaly No. 46 (i.e., Tennis Clubhouse component) is permitted in accordance with the MU -H3 land use designation. As a result, the addition of the five single - family residential dwelling units is consistent with the General Plan. Consequently, development of these dwelling units would not result in either direct or indirect unanticipated growth in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As previously indicated, the project site is developed with the Newport Beach Country Club and former Balboa Bay Tennis Club; both are private recreational facilities. No residential development exists within the limits of the subject property. Project implementation, therefore, will not result in the displacement of any existing residential dwelling units that would necessitate replacement elsewhere in the City. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 'sNewport Beach Housing Element; Table H14. OS2 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 93 C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? No Impact. As indicated above, the subject property does not support existing residential uses; therefore, no displacement of occupants will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. Fire Station No. 3 - Fashion Island is the closest responding fire station to the subject property. The project includes all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure that adequate water pressure and related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the project complies with the CFC and related City codes. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Development of the subject site as proposed would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. The five single - family residential dwelling units (i.e., The Villas) included in the proposed project would not generate a significant number of new students in the District. The five dwelling units were included in the General Plan Update analysis. Based on the General Plan analysis of new dwelling units within the City, Update proposed project would generate approximately 2 students. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for the low number of school age children. However, as indicated above, the project applicant must pay the applicable school fee 16 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR; June 2006. o33 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 94 to the school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with one new residence. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other public facilities? No Impact. Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Xv. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the construction of only five single - family homes, known as the Villas, 27 short -term hotel units, known as The Bungalows, and a remodeled private Tennis Club, including the Tennis Clubhouse. The Bungalows will be available for use by Tennis Club and Golf Club members, as well as the general public. Although residents of the proposed Villas and visitors of the Bungalows would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future Villa residents and Bungalow guests would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The subject site is located in Service Area 9 (Newport Center), which currently supports 19 acres of existing parkland, which exceeds the 10.9 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's currently a requirements. Nonetheless, the applicant would be subject to the payment of in -lieu park fees (refer to XV.b) in accordance with Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. No significant impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. Development of the site as proposed would not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach. However, as indicated above, Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the developer to pay a fee for the proposed residential component of the project. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required (034 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 95 XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Short -term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., grading and site preparation) and construction activities. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, no other heavy truck traffic associated with hauling earth materials to or from the site will occur. During the construction phase, there will be periods of time when heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion on East Coast Highway. However, the number of heavy trucks entering and leaving the project area would be limited to those transporting equipment and materials to the site. Other construction - related traffic impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles could create a temporary /short -term impact to vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from potentially minor impacts resulting from the increase in traffic that will occur as a result of construction - related traffic (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), no significant short-term impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the construction traffic impacts would be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan for each phase of construction. Project implementation would result in a net decrease in vehicular trips. As indicated in Table 13, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,183 trips per day, including 69 a.m. peak hour trips and 94 p.m. peak hour trips. These figures are compared to the 1,572 daily trips and 72 a.m. peak hour and 129 p.m. peak hour trips currently generated by the existing golf and tennis facilities. The resulting decrease in daily and peak hour trips would, therefore, not adversely affect any of the operational levels of service of the intersections in the project environs. As indicated in Table 13, project implementation would result in the elimination of 17 tennis courts, which would be replaced by The Bungalows and five single - family residential dwelling units. As a result, traffic generated by the proposed project would decrease by 389 daily trips; a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips would also decrease by 3 and 35 trips, respectively. Since the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project would generate less daily and peak hour traffic than the existing development, a detailed traffic analysis was not conducted. No significant project - related or cumulative long -term traffic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. OS5 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 96 Table 13 Summary of Project Trip Generation Newport Beach Country Club Land Use Unit Tri . ; Generation Rates Daily AM°Peak11our In 7 Out Totai I PM Peak, Hour In out T-otaw, Golf Club Hole 35.74 1.76 0.47 2.23 1.23 1.51 2.74 Tennis Club Court 38.70 0.66 0.66 1.32 1.68 1.68 3.36 Bungalows Room 8.17 0.34 0.2 0.56 0.31 0.28 0.59 Single-Family Residential DU 9.57 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 Land Use Unit Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In out Total In Out Totali,' Existing Development Golf Club 18 Holes 643 32 8 40 22 49 Tennis Club 24 Courts 929 16 16 32 40 40 1 80 Total — Existing Uses 1,572 48 24 1 72 62 67 1 129 Proposed Development Golf Club 18 Holes 643 32 8 40 22 27 49 Tennis Clubhouse 7 Courts 271 5 5 10 12 12 24 Bungalows 27 Rooms 221 9 6 15 8 8 16 Single-Family Residential 5 DU 48 1 3 4 3 2 5 Total — Proposed Uses 1,183 47 22 69 45 49 94 Net New Trips -389 -1 -2 -3 -17 -18 -35 'Trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition). SOURCE: Kimle -Horn Associates, Inc. (June 2009 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and ravel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. As indicated in Table 3 in Section XVI.a, project implementation will result in a net decrease in vehicular trips. Neither the daily nor peak hour trips exceed those required to undertake a CMPAs a result, intersection analysis. Traffic operations in the project area would not be adversely affected by project - related traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would neither result in direct project - related impacts nor contribute to the cumulative degradation of any intersection in the project environs. Furthermore, project implementation would not conflict with either the County's CMP or other standard, including those adopted by the City of Newport Beach. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project result in a change in air traffic pattern, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately four miles from John Wayne Airport and is not located within an area that is affected by aircraft operations. The proposed Planned Community District regulations for the project allow for a maximum building height of 50 feet. The proposed structures would not necessitate any changes in the air traffic patterns because the project site is not Mi i NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 97 located within the airport environs and would not affect airport operations. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a number of medium and heavy trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through- traffic for short periods of time. Although potential conflicts are anticipated to be less than significant, implementation of a construction traffic management plan (refer to MM -10), which is required by the City of Newport Beach, would ensure that any conflicts resulting during the construction phase would be minimized. The project proposes changes to the main parking area in front of the Golf Clubhouse, including landscaping and beautification of the area and minor changes to on -site circulation; the project site access to the public street system at East Coast Highway (via Irvine Terrace) and at Granville Drive will remain unchanged. Irvine Terrace will be improved with a landscaped median and will be striped to delineate two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes. However, in order to accommodate left -turn movements, the left -turn pocket at the intersection with East Coast Highway should be lengthened to provide a minimum of 100 feet plus the transition. With the incorporation of this measure, no significant impacts are required. In addition, a new drive aisle with a drop -off area will also be added to the front of the Golf Clubhouse and a second entry point to the main parking lot will be added at the northwest corner of the lot. The parking rows in the main body of the parking lot will be reconfigured to an east -west orientation, with access aisles provided on both ends of the parking lot. Each of the drive aisles will be 26 feet wide, which provides adequate room for circulation, turning, and backing for 90- degree parking aisles. Pedestrian access from the Golf Club parking lot is improved by a pedestrian walkway with enhanced paving through the center of the parking lot, which connects directly to the Golf Clubhouse. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The primary access to the project site is provided via a drive aisle that connects to the end of Irvine Terrace, which in turn connects to East Coast Highway (i.e., State Highway 1). Irvine Terrace also provides access to the adjacent Corporate Plaza West development. The Irvine Terrace /East Coast Highway intersection is a signalized intersection. As indicated in Section XVIA, Irvine Terrace will be improved with two inbound and two outbound lanes. In addition to the project access from Irvine Terrace, the project proposes a new access and cul -de -sac, which will provide access to The Bungalows and The Villas. Indirect access is also available from Farallon via Newport Center Drive east of the site; however, access to The Tennis Club, The Bungalows, and The Villas would be from the proposed cul -de -sac. Adequate emergency access exists to serve both components of the proposed project. Nonetheless, the Newport Beach Fire Department will conduct a code compliance analysis with the City's Building Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Table 10, the proposed project is consistent with relevant policies articulated in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. In addition, public transportation would not be impacted by the proposed. The project is located in an area of the City that is served by public transportation (OCTA bus service) and public transit access is available in the project vicinity along Coast Highway. The project is located in proximity to existing retail and commercial development. The addition of five single - family residential dwelling units, 27 bungalows and spa would be adequately served by the existing public transportation available along PCH and in the project environs. Similarly, neither os:7 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 98 bicycle nor pedestrian facilities would be significantly altered as a result of the proposed project. Bicycle lanes along Coast Highway would not be affected. In addition, walkways within the proposed project would accommodate pedestrians. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM -8 Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. • This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during each phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational 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 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 until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods. • The approved Construction Staging, Parking and Traffic Control Plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. MM -9 The left -turn pocket on Irvine Terrace at the Coast Highway shall be increased in length to a minimum of 100 feet plus transition in order to adequately accommodate left -turn movements. XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.3 million people residing in central and northwest Orange County. Raw sewage generated in the City is treated at the OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, which has a treatment capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd). Treatment of raw sewage includes preliminary treatment, primary treatment, anaerobic digestion, secondary treatment, and solids handling. Treatment Plant No. 2 is operating at approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be the same as other similar developments in the City and would not contain hazardous waste or other pollutants. Based on sewage generation rates in the City's General Plan EIR, the five single - family residential dwelling units would generate up to less than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) of raw sewage. In addition, the 27 bungalows would generate an O32 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 99 additional, 4,050 gallons per day utilizing the visitor serving (i.e., hotel) generation factor. Because the Tennis Clubhouse and Golf Clubhouse and facilities currently exist, the increase in sewage generation from these two uses is anticipated to be approximately 3,300 gallons per day as a result of the increase in floor area associated with the Golf Clubhouse. The uses would generate approximately 7,750 gallons per day of raw sewage, compared to the 5,450 gallons per day estimated based on the existing floor areas. The additional sewage generated by the project would be incrementally insignificant when compared to the 4.1 mgd increase anticipated as a result of buildout of the City's General Plan. The raw sewage generated by the project would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would be transported to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2, which is adequate capacity to accommodate the City's buildout needs for waste treatment. As a result, project implementation would not exceed existing treatment infrastructure and expansion would not be required. Furthermore, the additional treatment needs would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly as a result of the development of the five single - family residential dwelling units and 27 bungalows on the site. Based on water demand rates, the proposed project would generate a demand for approximately 45,000 gallons per day for the five single - family dwelling units and the 27 bungalow units." In addition, the Golf Clubhouse and Tennis Clubhouse would create a demand for an additional 7,750 gallons per day compared to the existing demand of 3,300 gallons per day. The proposed project is within the land use projections of the City, which are the basis of future water demand demands and wastewater generation within Newport Beach. The project will connect to existing water and wastewater facilities in the project vicinity. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in additional impervious surface areas by the new buildings, streets, parking lots, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a small increase in runoff during storm periods. The site will be designed to ensure that surface runoff will be directed to existing facilities. As indicated in Section VIII, some of the existing storm drain facilities do not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing or future storm flows; however, deficient in -tract facilities will be upgraded to accommodate post - development flows. All storm flows generated on the subject property will be collected and conveyed to Newport Bay where it will be discharged. Therefore, the increase in project - related storm flows will not result in a potentially significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact. See response to XVll.b above. The City of Newport Beach provides water service within the project vicinity. The City's water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. The City currently maintains a total system capacity of approximately 100 million gallons in three facilities. According to the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water supplies can continue to meet the city's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. 17 Assumes 2.19 persons per dwelling unit and bungalow, based on the City's population per household. o39 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 100 However, during short -term periods of water supply reductions, the City would implement its water shortage contingency plan. As indicated in the City's General Plan EIR, additional development accommodated under the General Plan, including the proposed project would increase water use within the City, thus increasing the need for water treatment services. However, as indicated above, MWD has indicated that it can meet all of the City's imported water needs through 2030. In addition, Orange County Water District anticipates that there would also be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet projected future demand requirements in the City. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly with the addition of the proposed development. The demand created by the proposed project is consistent with the City's long -range projections for development that are the basis of water demands in Newport Beach. The General Plan has identified the minimization of water consumption as one of its goals in the Natural Resources Element. The proposed project would be subject to the policies that would achieve that goal, including limiting water usage, prohibitions on activities that waste water or cause runoff, and water efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with other water conserving devices and practices in new construction. Specifically, water conservation measures will be required on the proposed project as prescribed in Chapter 14.16 (Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations) and Chapter 14.17 (Water- Efficient Landscaping) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, no significant direct or cumulative impacts are anticipated based on the findings in the City's General Plan EIR; no mitigation measures are required. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. See response to XVll.b above. As indicated in that response, adequate sewer collection, conveyance and treatment facilities exist to accommodate the incremental increase in raw sewage resulting from the development of the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation will result in the generation of demolition debris and some refuse during the construction phase; however, it would be relatively small and would not adversely affect existing capacities at the County's sanitary landfills. The project includes recycling some of the demolition materials generated during the construction phase. Asphalt and concrete will be crushed on -site and utilized as fill material to accommodate the proposed project. As a result, the amount of demolition materials that would require transport to and placement in one of the County's landfills would be reduced by the recycling of the asphalt and concrete. Based on the City's General Plan EIR, it is anticipated that the Orange County landfill system will have adequate capacity to operate until 2035. Based on the solid waste generate rates presented in the General Plan EIR, the five single - family residential dwelling units and the 27 bungalows would generate less than 100 pounds per day of solid waste. Because the Golf Club and Tennis Club currently exist, no significant increase in refuse would be anticipated as a result of the reconstruction of those facilities. With the remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons, as well as a 16 -year Iifespan at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill (without the proposed expansion that would extend the life of this facility to 2053), the City -wide potential increase in solid waste due to General Plan buildout, including the proposed project, would not result in the exceedance of capacity of that landfill. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste. As a result, it is anticipated that at least a 50 percent reduction in refuse would be required. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the proposed project. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Muo NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 101 g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis conducted for the proposed project indicates that although the proposed project could have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures as prescribed in the preceding analysis. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The site is entirely developed with private recreational uses and has been altered from its natural state. As a result, it does not support sensitive habitat and /or sensitive plant or animal species. As a result, the proposed project would reduce the habitat of a wildlife species and /or threaten to eliminate one or more sensitive plant species. No historic structures or sites are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less than Significant Impact. Redevelopment of the site as proposed would result in a negligible difference in long -term environmental effects associated with use of the site. Project implementation would result in fewer vehicular trips and, therefore, a reduction in the pollutant emissions when compared to the existing use of the site. No significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, public health and safety, mineral resources, population and housing, agricultural resources or other environmental issues would occur. In addition, the proposed project would result in an overall reduction in the volume of storm runoff and an improvement in the quality of the water prior to its discharge when compared to the existing use of the site. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the cumulative degradation of the environment or exacerbate unacceptable environmental conditions (e.g., biological resources, etc.) when considered with other projects proposed in the project environs. 041 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 102 C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The preceding analysis conducted for the proposed project indicated that although project implementation could result in some potentially significant environmental effects (e.g., soils and geology, hazards and hazardous materials, etc.), with the implementation of mitigation measures prescribed in this analysis, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly. 042 NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY (PA2005 -140) INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 103 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Newport Beach General Plan; City of Newport Beach; adopted July 25, 2006. 2. Final Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. The following documents have been prepared specifically for this project, and are incorporated by reference within this initial study. The documents are available at the office of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. 1. Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15347, Newport Beach Country Club; GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; May 2, 2008. 2. Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Design Parameters for the NBCC Planned Community, Newport Beach Country Club; GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; April 25, 2008. 3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community; Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.; April 3, 2009. 4. Traffic and Parking Evaluation for the Proposed Newport Beach Country Club Project in the City of Newport Beach; Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.; June 2009. 5. NPDES Technical Study (Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan); Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; January 14, 2009 6. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15347; Adams - Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; July 13, 2009. 7. Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan; January 12, 2009. 8. Air Quality Analysis for the Newport Beach Country Club Project; Giroux & Associates; July 23, 2009. 9. Noise Assessment for the Newport Beach Country Club Project; Giroux & Associates; July 23, 2009. 10. Newport Beach Country Club Parking Supply Analysis; LSA Associates, Inc.; August 20, 2008. 043 Ma' RIESPONSIE TO PUBLIC CD1htl'MElB S N:EWPORT IEEACH !GO!VN-FRY CLUB­ Golf Realty E'uind (PA..2',005 -144) Gti9MGAIIEID NEGATIVE DECLARATION — SCIHI N01. 210100911052 NEWPORT E'EACFI, CA aFdTROD!UCT!ION The 30=day puttttc'rewiew period for [the (Mitigated Negab%e iDeclaratf 'on (MND) Iprepaned for the Flew ri Sea& Couinlry Glu'b (N18gC) Iprogeat ea{Seoded From deplem er 20 thrDU,66,!bcWh'er 19, 201!x: 7be Gtty of W wpofl dean, raDRIVed inine ornment leMi rs an the MND during lh2 kimal pu4lic reuie* anal' cornmartt. peiriod.. IReispmpses Itv 't'6e, c_o mrinants tncludedl in: eaeh of the tetters receiuem by tltie CjtV 'have bin prepared and.are indlucfed with the Finat'M14D. The commentle'I*rs were received frgrn: 11. Gallfoimla Department of Trensportatlon (SeOternter 22 20101) 2; Southern CaEfamia Gas COrnpa*y (SejytemttTer 21,'2010) 3. Caliromia Daparffim!entpl Toxic SvbatE[rtes Corgrrsl (Gdbtier i4„ 2010), d: fhs Iramihe C`&npany (October 15, 2010) CAA Planning (Odo'her 118,; 2f7[1 tAl 6: Cafifa'.mfe Coastal Gu mmisaivn (G&jtier 19, =2910) 7_ paln!bar0 & Fe terskeqn Pmparties (OatObe 1$, 2010) rkirpu6 Land Usa cornmissioni [(OctOber 19,E 201:0) 9_ C2llt M112'CUeturE1t Resource IPresen+Stian All Mca; Inc- (O±clafuer 19"120,10) ,p4wpm ;.Baech ou!tLrY GYtr2r.MAID (PA. 2005.14VJ ,R®s�ia+,�sris,Fn 1ga�MrGCammo�'n'S• �.sarsih.3a'�T' Pegg 9 045 WIM guahcLI 0-"PW DE.PARTKENT OVIIIANSPIDIRT AT-I ON DipicH.2. 1,327 fAfdbam pax:,&Vp) 724-2592 RKBIVED113 Y PLANNM T-)HPARTMERT IL ettef NO. I September 2%p t010= OCT IS 20MI Rmtinhuv 1!11lwJGTJCEQA c-ity"Of Nzwpoxt"136,41ch CM Of' NB PAR WRACH S�PdM2010001052 3S.&M-ew"P011 Wavud Log 11 :2,5'8'1' Newport RP-H' A t 92'658 R-1 Suk,feavNe-17PD171 Almitth country Iclulj Planned 05mnmbtliy (-FA,2005-140) DUTMS. U1196 11fuI ym rorlbe cppoftaifity, 10 meview and commem on the ftntive DecIm-kdau for lbe: Npviluort Abay.h c@1111-uryokub InaniltdE ComimmaAly (PA20105- ,J,46), Vlw-, pmiccIt - s to deonnords'll Eva exisUg lunnizand soir ciumin us es and to v oll-M-m4a new I cug di rkubhouse ('3j 735 woureree) and golf clubho, , (MAD00 s I un't t*vf),,Elnd 9461111* N611111190 (j- c, Pfgll bam) Tho,op5cmit ig also proposing t6 3 ("Rr rg4;" ,,Wbslrdu� 27, 91mut tum,Vkhor wift - LLERB011-OlVe.) ant 91 -s , PEJJRwA3 Mfli &Rd c0ncjr - n sraw divelling juplits e-vubu") 611 Ills S'tobjecE .L,esi meetlng facii,41cs', and, foye-si' 9W-flamily Kr. ,W, - meet pypp.tAy, The.TjQvqyt.SItmje mulp to the pmj6d iifte.,Js SUr 11 nrt ffea q, DISIdgi 12 is a OLI 11,11s, .b.mia Mphdocul(of TmA PaNtiOn (DcP 11 1 Ip t ku Catir ... no,commail st this filym.. flowgVef, ip tll�p wmitof any aitiv ty-1vi bin lht m3m,vand vm, ham it lu - & — -- I L guiwc ,of r U, coatErue to kpcp Lis L'Wrormcd jS pT.qjW mid any Onturp doyUbpfflPits; Which coteld mfittly impact. Slaw tramspodallon ftill WIGS. If YOU leave My qutsflong or nmd ED conlbcvd� 101000 2 JPPIDItase do not h6sitaL to call Dwrnu nDavis oil (949) 44M- 497. 5,4ft HS HaT; 1 ImIlichalier tioe-m-]iDcvL,I(Dplalon[)Jbi[OTovenuT'Cnt,"Il,RGVIFAV a rc[yy xdkrts, ofirica or PinwmiuL ww, rte8nuch 0 4:7 t. calk t imla IBepamtment of Transportet On Ipe (embler 22, 20110) Resrxsrtse rd C"MIDW NO. 9 This cOPI! M- entis acfknmiledgdd. Should an emcrO chment pennitbarequir!ed, Caltrtans will be ruohTiedl. Response to Carnme.ni No. 2. gig R Gity�af Ne pOrt Begat vei1ll r[!mtfnn I- coordinate any praajaot' Felated ,&.s �u estacl in NN�is coinrner�l„ the ect�rif�es that affect Step trans ortatten Wdililles and re "u1re Cattr�fl5 rt0l. r��iS Ref 1 Cc+r zt"Y CA45 MW irFA 2605-140) rV2ssA� S fwpuhk F�ern�gaas saw, zara Pogo 042 sulackril �alPParrnloi - , , Gds Celr�@ any a 5iempra- 2liergy uriuty° Sw,picn%ce 29, 20,10 iL,RY OrAI3 wport!s"CIS 33100 i *ypa 'Rouloajd P.D. Bim 069 Nc"ord cRa CA 02655 - Attorrdi;ow Rosaiinh.Umh. tfi1P3. Sda� 6erege atN:. .glifP.elm. CA 92W&&lt4 w Letter No. 2 (i�CIEf1�0�Y]i Pii* �$'if �Yt -- BWPr�i�'1'J<3.RACK subioci: P41#0(ed Ndgnt've Deciftrslooln fear Newport ueu¢h country- S;'lub Plllant ucd.Co mmmmity (VA -20 V - Il4Ld1) 7L1ais Ic'CUr 'i5 not to I fe Jntq pr!e1`ed: ps a aoAffidt>Qtul o aanidrt 60! 0, so m, t he p pied. l upjkert but urt!JI'y`aa ani.i:nrurmatiom $ viee. 'fls ipAc- tie. to notify pa that the Sauthc¢d. Cifi'eratia Gus ccunpav Isas faouliftes in ilia area where Muc above sassed projed: is,, pMasedl. c-as f,>ac' fi6cs within tha seryiee fli~CA. or U..1e, p¢uiccA cpnddl. ba,alicaad , ®r aiiauttoned ,asnv=wwry�4villwdanjj �tnifca liotupacE:bisOleIelsv'irmurnrdL FijikuTnIIP9UN r;pwi ft cens1rl ton particulm nnn& ally .costs assactated with inkia6ug rviu>e M ay be abPeiimj by contacting, the Plamninns, Mwdait€� :r'mr your.,- ma, save RaIdwim nr(a l4) 634 -3267. Vix-h aTuall St?peaai ii` ()range GataalRiegisaon= Amalteam D'IM -' nilUie du- 0 T9 2. Souther Califomia Gas cornpainy JSgptem:bar 28, 21010) RespdnSO Yb C{?rraMent NO. I As indica%d in lhls wrnm.eril the projW would be served Iby Soulthann Galikmia Gas Company (SC mprta' (Energy) Ihy facilirm that exist in th5 area that,ean bee :a tend or sbsndOnO vAftou any slg� ftant,im act ari the environment. This cornm Pill is acknourlefl jed; no ri;span`s4'is mecaeis wy. 1Respan to Comfnent Nb_ 2 As suggeSked in [his comment, s'houl'd information fa,92rding parkular AsOcts of I_he pr ©p€usedi onnstmaotisA be Heeded,; the applie_a_nt Will,cbnta`ct Mr. Ba.IdWin eit tht talephonn nunmbeu provided. Ki_-j,qffrf COrzrtky iOho NNNQI(PA'Zf7O15 -7;ad1 i?esAn+�°?�s.rp'pvbk Carte -rmtus " I ami ,=I papa 3, ME Nn S94rt,?�t'cN iqn En,imhgWa1M 0w4e -W Octqbibr 14, 21110 aeparttl eht''f TOxIC Siubstarfgeg'Control -- -- A7 i�u2i entrarrsaagM Acligig C1c WN 5796 torpaill_ @'.AWnUe (:Ypres-a. Eallfwmia 9000 _ Mt's, Rdsa nh iUmg City -of, ide-nfport Beach Planning Department 3ZO t e,wp ono 8;uulevard Nrewl)ra beach, CatufarFjiIr 8 w C� 1k a7Ora- lam S v/ Arlmirl� ScftwI.p bw'jwf LetterNia. -3 y`- �riinab CRAFT bliTGGATIEIU NEGATIVE OF- CILARATI,N (MHO) FAIR NEWPORT IB,EAG- ". COUNT TY GILUS (SCH# 201069 1 0 52) ip'pe S'_ 14-01 Door M& ung: The 10,e_ pairliment aif Taxle,Substances'Canirbl. (DT5,G) hpgf received you_rtutirnitlledl daeumemt.tur tpie abase- rn2irolianed p]rolect; stated in your decurneftit '' -TI a app lica'nl is Iproposing Ifte' demnrlition of the existing lanais and! golf`eltrt)hovses and the mistrudttan of a mew tetncn[. clwbhause,and_9c_Vclubhbuse end nncillaTyfacjlitks. The iprlicant`is also pr®posppi to cunsiruct,27 sham tenon vii iRoT seMng Iunils ( "Bung lbws ") ' and IBuungalew �palfilrtess area amd concierge anr9 gu 6gi, mteelinig facilifies', and �0rv® single tarmity residenllall,dwelfing unks on the s;tubjo!M propefty. ProjW im,plernent6tiion MIN nec-essitaRe tha apprOvait of the f'ol'IOWITig djscfeljorrsry aptiafas; 1, Vesli�n,g Tentifiive Tract iMapn: 2.Ocyc opirnant irrglmement, 3, A Prornal in Cancopi for a Coastal QuVeloPmbent Purrilt. d,: Trensfeir of Davelop Meomt Riglh'ts;`.and 6. P'lamad Community zest adoplbon ", BaK-d on the revisw of the �ujbrniU[ed docum artt DTSC has M tnllowviing comments: j1) The NO shmuld identify and delerm [hn Whe4tner cwrrerit or'Fiisiioric uses a[ [fie projbct aria May halve resullled lrri any release OF lha23rnaug wastes subs vices_ 2_i. The ducurrieni states That the NQ awGuld identify any knrywrn air padentialllyr (mntmnulmale.d sites within the prop lcsed p.Fbj, t are& FOr a;lt idnnJlI ed sites. 1150 2 N'i® s�hovld evoludte whether Owditionsi al the' slie fbiay Pose a Ifiu east [re hu',incaj I�efnlltn n?r 1190 cri+rire�i.n�ent. P461cswlnpy ar�e•thc dalall�ses��of sarme of'hhe reguiailory agericies iiYnLed'iin n•.twv PSI°.h'rt (0151- K 91 P.1s i{os linh U.IIn iyjv!al r 1W, %0o '.'.Si'>rh.11 I h':r._Ir li$ t ':n' IV;I L 9: A, lfvU r 5:1in�21llLnt C'!i !hga UI1.111 C Vii:" .:i1 `S' ERA "�5114llne.'„k• ll_P I:t• ° b5d:'o jell lvaril'y Wseiell Yn+ ULO cafforl04'.1 FDx.i:�ll`Ip 115'!11 a.o; h.CSC+,uo :."Coz:Sorvolioll'21r19 III[Crllrtllion syglcrn (RCRII'a' r`v kiingrtlms's; of K,RA 5:dkiea Illtitl Flryf U 5 FPA y, "L2r'lll i7ld l+ll�ur r4t i "- !ir4';Ip11611 9h r71 'I�l`.ti lAflk�l5l4�QJ "1111i�'YSS�la4TM1r8fld I_Itifa'lell;!: DI °a11Tu jlaoir,r'h4 }4;'1r +tea fS,E!RCl lS)' A -0-9W MS10 Of G- EIRCILA silo 'z;I lv?2 is, .x EPA Ilia 'tia3SUC Irla:rna7De9i'I ;,ya wrsl x'1111): iiid9,51X3 pn3ulrl (, }' Uue ��YfQh 1•n� I'inpYF1'arluy �,h °a�„ -� Y4'Ix515rs�l�lril3�tl: Ri»at 1wl till ecaaksPS� c_af I?o711 ptia' S e IU:� rak1 13 1 ; tli9 iinac:iva WW'wmsle i?I3CitMil F tl igii4e 3 ?n0. C'.c- ,oTr -ncF:t,,r A 1 I.1 I'.lal 11 rivahlAmed by RC-6101141 Water Cuift1oN coolIro. :ti4iloQl 6na4? r R"AIr11 i:_$ ifij 'I . Pi'minlNin IuM4; R•S.r 01�?'�r$If?l7$ tiltlltSlrul:C:t3� I.frs:11LL;"+ A''Lda of is Iedj iiplIo tln4.erzpj k V rG 5irkrn a :'mi i z ISr 1�:iu1 °41 i,'.➢I rd.'k. r111°y 4:uips or ffin. Imes, O'$3 VVIII IQQa {f C]Ird6tir. "lQ tS° Mr-11 ( '`''Q'J X7522 3n&% �iitaTnilaifi 11,,3!1 of ryes Fbpoi &d, tJ ;I im ris;� S6Li �FU'.I S) Ti_ : IVD sl:ixl`:41 IQI Nlly Mu olcc eai:rnsull to uliliE�Ic jDny rfetRkiked Ink,@a I art 'rl'11' If!¢.111tr0 lr ]iri'Ji1 lilt I4'y11l II I11la51'I';s a'flnll�l`:- 1u15stiEQl• 11i1G' illu�uwlirrlfl;Eglhl. ilY ?Ipti; i[ ?�yh1 {r- i�ran'FAlu,.rl:n IV I�ecLjuhu0Ify7:-jr'ISi {81!18 IQ III�„s-icQP�iu At ?4l�' �T6•jle -eI vat ad I *11r,, -P,. ,,lu°o "IilaCY 11�15Uc1U. r�Ugx.a'"AIA14' 1,9 sllr 'llUrl Ise ,_.r Ill 1 lti'il. l ,el +,.'nf91Yl °h° hl I fs'ii^ : 11a§ accuued if so. fuli110 911 '1, 15;i Should 114; ulq: lit ltli =liitf`.11 119r' ols'iI'.'Cru rrhl(8 Y?k',10;j[ o1 911it- can 4milfolion 1lul Iti1, "nI :v Ti'lnl 011rk_^:e1 .n i'DIIIJ!t l5r -o'lo 1 :111.arG= lI'ti, rm olP€Pnroi?14l Slarltll9l? rl , rlV.?:1ill�iiSQll ;;l as °lit• Cke rliW4ei a"�al-I to CalElr�l;ilac FIT afl'SI[&u f�551 }6a s : ocfloo iz. ry %jli.i 11ad ko r6r3ucL. ekimll`ayl a Polcnll61 01'r ?'as to iaublic humIFIII Of 1111:D' an'uirYa11re1 -ant If rah I`li rrl2 cFlFdC 119r60'I eaR14r �. Ilar, Taal rv`nl �QI`y 116LI.ItI ba urC1,;7:y1nekIlRet, I.I willpfit41 -I,- s•.�oti` 1 lkaio" 111196. a '; _17fi.irin s Z1110:Jali¢htic$ 0152 53 h1,s. Roeaalinh Ung Octdber 114, ,2010 Page 3 4), l'he proi,ect CnSifuCliiin 4anay requite &oil excavat nn and,soll Filling liri ce -; is vre�is, l4p;propna1.+ ,samyplangl is rggtai[ddl prior i¢a d gpsall of the e9cavatedi,sail. If the ,sail is Gonfarnlnated, properly dispuse olf ltlr;ather than plecong'itin: another focztisro Land 'Disposal Rer,11Ieumns {Llbi-45} may be appliicableAq these mils. Nso -, of Iha WII proposes ko� impolft soil to baa kfilll lfhe�ari .)s excavated . 011 tisarnpliing MI conducted 'lo nialk#9 sure that!Ihe lnnportod Soil is frc,6 of ;rani.' u`rro�e',I!i Crn„ .Fiurnan II and the environimuril of sensillkle he IProtec1'Co during the eonstrvctich ord?molMon acliuitles.. A, study of the silav overseen by tl,;a,eppropriate government agency might leave to be conduclect to deter rnI a ir° their. a,ne, have beam. or will b% any releases of haaardaus rnalle[bals that rnai'y pose a, risk to human heotth;nr me e.riuironment. Ci'y If.durlrlg corlotru-cltonddemollitiop olthi prgeI, eadngj &i rrurdvater .ceintannnEi ion is in tH@ area shaul'd cease,and �appropitw h"Ifli and safely (procedures should be implemented. if III ig determined that.contaminoted will andla!r glraund`vitaler csnuist, the NO, should fd;enilfy hruuv any requirb-d1 invesfigataoWand(pr reriediblion will be oDnductPd, and the appropriate govenrlm6 t �glercyr to plruvl€ O Tegulla[ary +aveirsighI. T) IIIwe6d aba'terbr�nll occurred. oTkz;ila aoi'Is nrtay coniuin herbid;ade reskl e. If sea; 7 proper invesligaflnn and rEmedial tVgani. if rec€ ssary, shault_I hie oorducted.dt the site pnor bo oonstruclidn of the project - M $j Ilrit is delennined that hazardous wastes.€are. gar wit be. rgenOlI by the prCiArsetl operations, the wastes must be rhanaged in a ccordance with the Gal4bmia Hazardous VVIaste Control Law ,(Callrrarnla Hie°a�l1h and �aifeky Code, Divislar`2%, Chapter 0.5) and the Hazardous 'Waste Control Regulations (Calufcarnia Code ref Regnnllations, 'Dille 22. Division 4.5). If it its deterrn.iried thiql. hazardous w<asles will be generated, the facifitya sFiouldl also obtain a, IJnitao Slates; Er viranme,nial Protectidn Agency Identt{ cation Number by ca,rtacting (800) 618 -6942. Certain hazardotoso -va- ie t €eatmeni processes or haZardelus malerials, hav lung, storage fir uses -aipay require autlhorl7allnn fnornrithr 1=411 Carlifiief iJ'nii6ed Plrogram A,goncy tGUIPA). InforrnllaliGnl eibout the requires on't for aoplhorazati ;olr can be obtained) by- t6ntaeling your focal C4PP,i'ii. gli b � G.aiti pnpride:- guridance, for cleanup, ovefsig.ftl throtigh °an Envirbnmentai "irsighi Agreement (E',GA) rear gpvRrnment gggiicies that one not responsible parties; or a Voluntary Cleenuo A.greehYiient iVCJAi Ilnr pruvele par9i.es: For idditonal informalipn (in the €OA.ar VCA, phase see 0153 Ms. Rosal'iinh : nlg October, 14, 2;010 Page-, 4 wrt ^rtw dRSO.ca c��rrJS BeCleanti p tr3uv�itlieltl5 Of cOntacR MR. hAaryann'T'asriita Ablbais1 OTSC s Volunlary Cleanup Gu,64x ataplr. it I(714) 4B44489 tlf yOu' finue arlly,gU0$110ns fargarding lillis "IeVler. please coMacl me al ( 714) 484-5.472 or 14 aR;,risltarni QTSC�ca tiov Sih cer'e9y, Fa nnr Brown;fi 1lds uric lEnvirnnm-antal Reslgrmian Rog ram cc: Gpvoruior's Offica,nF Planning andl ReSaarch °SutE aaren;g9 cruse 0.0, Box 3444 . Saaanrleretla Califforniia 9581- .2T3g44 si t :deai'hwP ,o-tise ,. 60r.c:a. iCEiOA4 T €aCking Center Departrrucrlll' of Toxiic,Subalan'c&,- s G0r71Ml . fric.e of EnviR oIromenRlal PUAInningi ?nd Ana�g sic 1',601 I S,lrO.etl 22nd !FIQor, US. 22_,2. Sa IfrMnkQ cndtl'uforpla 95814 ADe:l'sicr'1 dISv.C@,.t 41J CEQA -# 3009 054 3. Call'i'fornla: Department'of Toxic Saulxntalnces CBhitrnl (Oct&besr 14� 20171 @j RespWrss to Comment Ara, 7 !�eclEon "u7i -I,b of1he MIND summarizes, the hisl ftal Lise Of the site and the existence. of several features. 111al had e)jsted on the site, Including a 550tigallon underground stuag,e'tank (UST')„ the.eidslerl0e, Of wasC®,ail o9rumm, ponds and pale =maubled transforrners. AtthDughi dorrring,aemoval of the UST in 1957 it was dekerrrilnen that it. Ihad leaked frotrr a Srnall hole,; subsequent sampling and laboraloy" analysis determined that the levels of coubtuent unatefials were "trots = detect' and regullatory closure Was apprirwedl ry, tihe O,rangg County: IHeailth Authority. None of the other features on the site page ,@, health h�sard as diisrcussed' irn throtfghou't Secti+an Vllll. Ta'bl'e 5 in SecVDnF VIII:.d of the MINDS (refer to pages 05 and 66) pfovideS, a summary of tine 'Finding+s pr6sented in the Phase'l. Environmental °'Site.Assessmsint 'ESA) csnfluctid for the sUbled.projedlL Based on the, da abase spanch canducte l far the subjscd project and l clud6d in the Phase I ESA, (neither the sibject property nor other prpperites- identfied wiMiinj one mitt' of the Site ould expose the;5ite and'tirr fulure Lisers:to ern envifionrnenial concern or hazard. Therefore; the VINID ccriricluded fihat no+significanl Itmp .cts are antic paated'and na rnifigat➢on Measures are required. !Rasyfamse ilia �ara�riaanl' JVo, 3 IRefa r to IRespOnse, '90 Comment No, i. Bee ause Irnpl'entenkb iron ,iii the proposed project permitted pursuant to the NBCG-'plannt d Community! mistnot wou[dl requim the demolition of soveral stmdures o,n Uie,siia, thpe IMND discosses, the potential for asdesfas containing matibrlat (AGM) and least used paint (11-13P) ,to pose a p+otenliall health ns!k. However SC -714 and SC-15 address the requtiremeints prescribet7 by lfhe regrtial9ay, agencies (e.g.. SGAQMD) Ihat pertain to ACM1 and LDIP' ream diat'lon. As indicated in the MNDS compliance With thesag regulatoW requiremeriirs will etusbre'lhat no significant release of either ACt'e'1 or LBP VAN ocourasa msultofpm1ec inyplerneniation. Responqq to Corfu` erff ,W 4 Th s cornment.is acknowl'edgW, .As indicated In this cdmnrraent, sill esrcav26Dn and filling will comply with regulWary iegvirementS, Grad'ing requited W im;piemenl the proposed project Will be balanced onsIle, IrApleemenia ion of the proposed IpiVject domes: not rdq!ulre at her imptJdalion or exportat orutiiispos2l cf wails aff�sit�e, R"(onw, to"Ccimmew No. .5 Refer to Response to 0PAirrienl ND_3 As ilndicamed In Secpan V'IIII' ,(,'Hazards and Hazardous Materials), no sit�niFicant ptstenfal'i hazards Co Human health, tneludingi sensiilive n:r:eptoiis artist based on the findings presented Irp the Phase II and (Phase III enMlrtWimontat site asses rments of the subjdct ,property. Nonetheless, SC -14 and SC -15, which require that demolition; and construction acdwities comply ;with ap#Ii able'State and federal requilafions to ensure fhati potenlial' exposure,to t}a rdasus m�Eeriels;d4es not occur. RespDn5u to Cow-nmetnd Ak. ti Based an'the ;loor Phase and Phase It entinironnnen'tal rile assessments conducled for thel s4ei, no soil ar gnoundv+rater.contaminallon Is suspected (refer to'Secu'cn 1/111l.1b of (the MIND). However, as indicated In this cormfnenk should 5411 andf'or groundlaater contamination be suspectet iftriagAernolifion, ,gWing McMtrsnrr;80si lr Oxir,rry"rA6 MN &(RA 2dkr, AMP - d7, �;, punSr�sEP�wYib6c�C- `ar�rmo�sr.� 3t amb 20111 wqw -4 0155 andfgr cans €ruction., such ,aGiivide5 wraurd means and appro;P_nao! ;health and platy' prdoeclures imp'lemeAd, ge Qrade to ggmnu arnt NM 7 Rafer to Sec -bon VIIIA _01I tha MND. Laedseape, rphtenance ai the, profs see Ih s 4 "sere and Will continue to be pravided to ensure that the ;wolf coume" teoflta faallttes and relented orcject elements; incurilRg Owe proposed are adequately rnaintained: If determined necessary, appropriate. "ramediail acdoni ould he.conducte&pr or iA'initlal7pn oropns uctlon, as requested in This comment R spcose to Comment Nc¢ d This comment_ rs,aAnowledged. Should any haaafdous rwastea be saenerawed as a nesLlt td' Iproj ®cE implernenfadon, the wrasla v4l'be mahaiged in as. void nce +Minh ainpllcabl'e veglula'tOry regkArRF6ents as stipulated in the cOMMOMI, IR'espoise t "o� �Csv�r�ewrfi'N,ln. g: Tl is comm,ent,is;a trmowl,'edged_ Should quidanee Eoa.any cleanup oversight W desired, the City anftr project alpp'ltant will edhtaet ®TSC t4 datermine th;e, need for an ErWiron.mentel 0%mmiglht Agreement (City o (ldewpprt Bearch) ur brgiUritary maanup Agree ment (pgofq�ct applicant). Mwipah,8'each MrrWry, 'Mb 1S4"tD (PA,'3' 5;-??M �Ga�97]_/Iu03'lh I�dfJIPiG'l:UtllYiiO�t$ Mamb 2M 1 Page 5 050 I IRA JJJA JIE COA eANy Letter N, 1 14 Oucher 151 . 2010 pLKNIN, tafi..Roaalbih Ung act 1.9Z010 Cky �iNm"vt 33c2 ch CITY 0,1,7 NEwFORT BLZACH 53!7© "l` GWPbT(:HOW,1v&rf1 NcwporCBcaub. CA X2663 Sobjeo: NvvqoFtDm.o CoviniTy Club, (PA„ 2005440) Mitiptisd' IN upliveDpialarmlion Dw 9B. Ung.. pvin� oompany appm4ateg this opportunity, 'to pmvift rommaII on [the pkapo"d 1=QfkGtrucUWU*_rfl1&TDmjds Club and Go[f ClubhommAnd ocinsI1rucliall oUrcsidentiat emAyishor sern"g, acromnlodutions.evalua(Win ffilaabove-O"ked documant �P.A 2005-1140 %V) 'noto MIIMMT,�,e. 0brimpany Ito xUlow f our ravicxv oC boith sAemolia p4anv rL ifications and v! pre&mingry IpLxos 16nd WOrk1rppAmWirLgs,nnd,cpec j bigh of 'd upmeng prqpDsed is COMPICUItS On thrJIMIPPI In td cwnpo _y , I __ saj7jcrA to a SapaTtkpoom With the; lane[ a uaysr, it is imilpomVIthat we h"Gawrap' L PU TIM Y TO A P9 IhMt'WC- UAdUldlatud haver this dCM6pn161ff- m4Y ftffed ME mdjn`Gnt 0 kc op al' �jon& Wo1mv43 ydito reemive said 8LO Tui matic or, pmlimialary III evoil 11,111ugh Elio P, put" scheduled "for goview'by the NewpoTt Rcach,P)II Com 51 b mi an 1%410,;tm mr.18i 207.0, Dur oommyr,ent§ on ithe Qt ND) imt. ma IN towm. . pF.6 1 J9 ,rho i 917 coutgns quiI "7 $R3 cl*rhng, the djaiuiojffion oirlexiift faciIJI ond any oonstmiction ,Iat both thc '17cmis Chili and ColE CuImM Eubb NUI O)c IM16its"flM mot clearly b-.ed in, the �phAng n=vg jvc, TzWcs 2 an dl 3 ' in the - h4NDJcFfH out demolition as a broad com gory and' 11-10 MNID fails to Prbvid# a dMG01"1111,6n of speoigioaiity what 0M, be *_mol Is he d d1uriz .each ra r of A; phasilip, i is jj�haec,. Boom= the method used 91c; Pr, SciltitiOn - 111 36 Wx demolifibn dUM0 to follow, we (eqpC91, 11IRL 11ho' Uy clarify' project p0disfing aAd qcm potivill�,vith R written description, lo die MIND. f", addition, the LIMNII),should irlarify %YhOthur i thC (erfldg club. developyiI and the 2.9d clubhouse duvoLopment MIL nm W sequenfial consIbruOHOU phase& 'Vabla 2 or 11ho, MM 0-11 POP 8 ktc"Illfics aum mitiolpated tonmracdoLt-L stflTt date Of SeptI 201 J_ The buitcl-out. fOr 1.116,pivic0is lidlanii,rudd ft yeWM2,om jpago 47 of the ' MOM. If pl'OjPct construotim Isionfidpatcd to start in Sotbitirber MI I with 5.34 month schodu% Vv6w can b Ul"Lld. ow, be: compItfled 6y 20127 With an ftnj1iQ'*W mall 161P Of 94tunimr 2,1'1(7 a 36 molIdi eon nseb 6a pg Ojrzt vvailid, be completed bySbp1embcx201A Mic ail, qvullify analrisahm[I ff n ised ti adBtbc1cmcVbuiId-ou1Ar_ sso wampor t ceinter Drim. CEIII 92060-70 14 Drh 72MROPO 057 lvls. R00kulinh U- TI October 14,2010 Nige 2 of 2: Pvnjeetfi adfiig Thee, MND dom not quantify irl9pst0ts frmm side preParJ-' i_an am wma of Beading. in rirder to aceurat ly as&Egs lhn impacts frtrrn Prof gr, un& bra Vint, clw uileliCS miiusC lae:aliae7oscd in .the, MIN -D }. Thu ,NM conGhWes Ihni lho sdiml -lem 00n311w6on impacl3. in 1ho area of Aiir �QuaV ly will, bc.'9ess Il±ai� significant bu•l does 'not proAdu dac data that is (bb baSia fK T HAS Cando Si= "fable 1 on page -4G Iprovidcs antiasimm cskmakcs Ynd, mcailydgdag that 'air quality Ilae'sliolds' avahualadd im,the.URBFIMf!S med;el arencrdxeeee1sd. Wc d'umg r�naa tiffs in lho MND and ducriba tha way in awbidli ,paling, quanftn -us aro used in [he air gaaaDi modcl to rea b 6o conchmi-on that lher',pOjxt will Oct hm+re .a,si,gnifreffit lmlpac in.. tl1c.- area of a.i'rel,ualiCye. Piaa ikutg' flue prabjecl dcscclpiovn ihuoourertcly iP erwi es 4 pnelcl�$,sPsl4 ?� laeing a nai'IKb'Ec V) thq CD61f VslRil°+idouau thro nn n�sTile Y'sel€ing �gneeaSienE. "I,11i�ru�aftiouV �c dccuai�ent, inaccuaale a[atcments sec anw to Ilia't 534 p>trlting- sgsaces are a4ailiv>hCe'unrE ®r ®n, cu<sonacrat,ai. ttEe .ac[jaceoal Coaporrila pVaa;l4�c 9 peofcs Tonal odllieve develop ®enL MJcwI86i Iq cEandy Ilfrst slry,l�aeking amd f�rccss':!?aasmeaiR` Vwile�7t ?roeial;v Inr "'s nr.nrcwsl�siwc parOrirug,oasGrtnmri;..,om Sailiiday�a',. Sol ed yt8 and holidays E agmcsenonl'dan a.tVOE, sVOecily V'hc nuamber at patitio!g sPut a aElzltl¢'- tn'fl'tc goDEcVu6ti o4 rsu. ISielYlRlDslioiiltlkkG 'oanaecd.Ecrac ?cruaielyd 'eseeibellibpartsin�,al;alile ondcr IhO agrcenaCnl Tk-a uineluar howth c pwrtic_ilag alurmaai !'Maas caloalatcd Packlitg dlemanVl shau;Vtl tic; bare an the uuts 'ao_btaineii within each etinipoi el(R of Lke- p160DE, $ g3vevem;. khe project c4OWdiiptiorr ',is I ncl)lvlap, uses -in, thG ululAiouse are ataot�atr:.se�i rcd in uilcgoiate detaM t alllow•for ssn app 1w ia: parlang.snaJyais.�e evRgaest that the filly, prep_arc a prcjw d'eacacptiion Clam daelcaea all roses, paditoac{l by IDac prorjeal Specifiicallly llmc g,pIfc,ubliduso rflna0 be more clonrlyi ofipoa and tho nnaly&iL; must Vba roviacd'to daermanae whodic,; tho pwposc4 prajee provides ;,sulf eicut parking, Fw weekday use withont dbj mlianemen Elio C- ohpaeale pli m 9WEM paerking,l0L Wo TVg0est d%t Cge jNi l''be,m vise d Ii4 i aeeq estod eNavc; 5 ii�t'6l ➢Yi r�anTMdlc:aa Senior rJico+ IPe�3itleuti ;,' I oltiRlbrilc rot autd Pub] LC AiTdrim 0152 4. Thellrnrine Company (Oetober" 15,,2010) ilaWmse to Corr mo'ni No- f Tables 2 alnri 3 and IE4ijbits 5 Ithrawgh 16 iry the M9h D cJearlp depict "- phasing for the ,iNBCG'PCID, Farr example, in Tstk 2 (';Page B of MPII6),, 'Phase 1 08mol"rt(cnr is s' 4WI) In Exhibit 5 "Phase 1 - Denlolltion.' To ipr9wlde l'urther clari?6ibon, Tables 2 and 3 have n reViised as-shown below la incorporate the Exhilhlts thak' should be raferenc4d for aach Fine item- The tennis club,developmeni and 47e g!oli' elub, develbpmentMrill run in It dupendetlt oonstrudtiuin phases, Revised Table 2 (eefea to Page, 0, of 'M N D) Tetnniis Club De+vellopr 0611 Phusirug Reviwd Table 3 050ferto Page 14 at MN,D) Golf Clubhii'use 1Development (Phasing — D4Uraljj' n MNI© IEx-hilb -Ct, P'has,eescel ¢(loin _ lNlohths Reference,f Conmd Tem- kary Mrdiilar Gluibl vise' -- -- 11 4 1, bimolilfoni.oP 'Tcnds. Club (building. b tennis courts, portion of Tnnls CCub pia klrr9 lot 1(29 farklug spaoeoi lanalsgpairy¢ end 1I 5' eaii5hn 00 ueall ' 1. 13 Conm1rusl.Tlrt, @' illgg (3), iPdva&e StmMf; Raw Tennis Clubho ubl ` 8A 8; and, F"adcin Lc45 6vi'er to €a911hh.a 2 15_ 2 t]e?Ipgmkh at 1 Chsnis court, rema ning porliamof pirpvTous:Tennls - 14 T luti oar tut.qnd Tim modulm lrennis Clutnhau ti - - _ _ Censtruft °Cenlar C6urt and 6uut allow per[ 3 1 _ 8 3 @a;w itiom of'3tennis cowda: 1 9 4 1 Omstnuct Golf a6d Tenmis 4 1110 Tol.tif'ScKadullo' — 3e eim4icu,pamed State dale Is 3ep4emtnr 21111, �OURCE TihimTom letemPlramning,Gma 'Jul 'L20'1id - Reviwd Table 3 050ferto Page 14 at MN,D) Golf Clubhii'use 1Development (Phasing .Maw.�lie�� C�nipy I'aYfb r61R rU fa1a -+U'V, PS -a46j i�tr.�Gia�a's pu.�udk�c�Ca�rirrtears Admmr 2ol.a Aagv 8 0�9 Dlukatio# MIN®!'Exhibit Pha�s Desert elan Months) Reference, Damoletlodof East' Side Bali Clubhouse Barking Lot and 1 ti l I PCIH En CTo6sUuct East, Side: lParklim Lot and' PGH Emf 4 12. Qemolftian of West Side Golf iCltubhotuse Fairking (Lot' 1. 13 f�ttm5lruiet WNesd Side Parkin Last, and Tem gva_ Galf Cli b _61 I 14 Qennohfion of Gotf Clu'bhoese 2 15_ 3 Carustruct New Golf Clubhouse - 14 16 D'ernalifim af'prtirtiort of Greenskeeiper Area„ T- smp>:oqr medullar Gulf Clubhouse and nartherin portion of Golf 2 17 4, C'lubbouse Parking, Lot C'onstntcff'Groenskeeper tnrea and Golf Porte Uche,and 4 1s Perltir5 Total Sbhedlu'le - - 34 - Slarl slate to f z delarmbn adt rCi c wdles: car' %rash. SOUR C :I_TilieTerm leban',Pfannln .Group lull 2djb .Maw.�lie�� C�nipy I'aYfb r61R rU fa1a -+U'V, PS -a46j i�tr.�Gia�a's pu.�udk�c�Ca�rirrtears Admmr 2ol.a Aagv 8 0�9 Response to CZoM aenf N'o. 2 The commentar borrertly nntas_ Dial a start date of CgFterntier 2011 lollapWl by a 36 -month construction schedulle W0011d resuull in ,2r comp'etton date, of approximately Septeamber "29(19. This o mection does no4 however, alier Nice c+arclusions of the air quality analysis taecaulse Mat analysis has ex'Smind the "w t case" sDenadd fpr long,terrn' emMilbns. As wiled on Page 46 of the MIND, the proposed ,project WE -.generete fewer to 1_han existingi uses. Ttherefere, wdhelber using ,a 2012., or a 2 014 Ibuildovt daa, Ilan,gr term 4peratdnal emissionsv&I be less than sj�inrfic�rit. ktesp0as0 8o CD?U man If No'. 3 The,grejding plan for the IN BCC PC D balances on site and Vill not require the import or �xpark of mraterial, rrndinti q uantilies are -sect, forth in Table RTC-1 6elow'. The Ardjdcted type's and nurebers of equipme;n_t anal machinery to be rised for,gradingl are ldentffed "in Takla R- rc.2,lbelow. The information oonla nedf in these tables was used in the cajbvlation of air quality emissions' In Tal?l'e_. 1 on Pepe 46 of the MNQ„ resulting iru'llre ir1Nd's coincli siion itfiat co+nslnuction emissions associated wllh project, implernentatidn Y411 fat, nxcacd the SGAQMD signlfcar ce thresholds. Nbi�s &;t w Beach C�awT&y,,Ck+§ MND IPA ,2WS -14G) RI,sparis_as m, FAaft -004hr nisi Wch 2011 Pago P 000 Table WM4 NSCC POD Grading Quamtliti, n (Ifll Crab O yard's;( M,vpcvf SearA C41grif + CiWb JOND fPA.240,.440) Rris�is^a I� J'uaa4c:�vnmunrs air aa� N Raga B 001 4'Samo I I R04 Dam lb111 RG4 - '[ ?0!n'Ir9 oil RG-3 @3ase;i timni cy G ". y) QGY ) (CY ) Tennis clu uhgaq wEi and_SFR Pautcing Lot Remwai Qur nb 91,;53§ _ Tennis Courts Removal Quanuty �$5Q ', 4;Ovfi 547 83� trr S't (CY6 P e Gridln Cut GY 92 2;3591. (Proposed Grading Fill C _ - 110,288 -560, SMala9 IGY Values: GovExporl, 5,3115 -Tl 11 1,016 1 1;571 597 7 „9dp6 MOB $. Filiff.m o. b! ” 1 Rl' TOM CY'v*allu 5,3115 -2;584 -4,568 3 6k70 - 'd:40Q Curtlx on Pos AF11M rt(Me _ Estimated.SPof1s Footings; 1,400 Landsr� a Noilr I I ImpurgExport— Towle- Club P'a F &91'r. L4t Clrubb.a.use ftoeSSiiPfiioa IClama RG Carao 11 RU Gdlf C -Ourse lPar':in-1 ILct amidl,Clubhous'e POrking Lot .Removal Quantity 6,520 1;7410 Ijepth In (M Pro used "Gradiin GY CFIuII t 290 5,880 .G Po G x;75-8660 0 Subtotal — CY'Values: CuVExprt 6;5'20 -6.;53© 1,740 .2.780 (Pas_j � F�ilUlr�rp4rCENeg I Running Total — G-y Vatleas : ' 020 -1b 1,730 - 1.0610 cut/Ex rt IPOs 8 F Ilamport (lv E bmated Spoil's, Faa'Srrgs. 9,dt5CI Laindscap a Utility _ I'mp rdEx v,rL' Gel Cl r-bho,use 0' Demo —'Dor lilion 11'G — F2egradirgg "EaMwoHk bluainky Estimrates per Fiou6b Grading IPh "ase SOURCE Adams- Straeden Cit it �Iw ineers,, Februa?y:20d 1 M,vpcvf SearA C41grif + CiWb JOND fPA.240,.440) Rris�is^a I� J'uaa4c:�vnmunrs air aa� N Raga B 001 Table RTC -,2 De rnoiitio.n''E1q;uilpPxgeAt Phase -E yi'-amient. Diamotit on of Ewigdna Tennis CIA 2. Excavators 2 00mrs, -1 Waigr Trud4 _ — Asphalt Demolitian'and As ttal( CrrCrushing 1 Goncrew'saw 1 Crushing P uila.Fne rt 1 MMratbrSet 11 Grader 11.Srq ', er -- ASS uadina 11 Skid, Steer Loader' 11 Grader 11 DDier. T racfarft- s.derMOCKhoe 2 Scra em Fine Csradbrig 9 ►MaterTruck. 2, TrtaCtorJL- oader�e�h©es 9 �'an�in IE@ rpul` mem!C _ 1. om actor 1 Dozer leaning 1 if o er lfrUdk. 4 Cement, Mixers' 1 Paver Ca'nsilrwetian 1 R611arr 1 Trap tadLosderiBsckhoa 1iCrarse _ 2 iExczavalor& 4 Forklifts, - 1'Cerment Baum - 2�rz 2 TFactoriLoadef0l & ackhoe 4.Zoom Booms i espo ise do Cgl'h7rrridrptJ';ro. 4 The Comment correctly- states that the recorded ,perpetual Parking "arid Amss -E-asenient . Agreement prow des for ay nan- exdlualvr.parking eazce enl..bn S.aturdVs, Suadays •and! hokda's.' This A,,greement IbCRA is 11fe owner and. upon the o nnees'eleclinri, We owner's` tenants, andl Iie "sees and their respe,41ve_ members, qvest% and cu5toMl?rS and pertains to, 81111 parking Av Iiin orpporate. Plaza 'Vest Currently t'hefe are 55-4 parking spaces vxithin Cogpora to Ptaxa 'ifi(est, Therefore, 554 additianal and excess ,parking spaces are preserlty availalblenon a non- eniusive basis to ths: IProposed NECC POD on wveekehds and holidays., it mruisl bs ndlridl that these p�ai king spaces afire net faciL fired to rneet either tine parking clernand delernined by the IpaWng studies rerfereribed in Response to Comment IMa. 5 below,or the ntrioter requirements t5f Iite,prOpo2ed l NCO PCO re�gelatlons. 74uoon adach C6urndry Club M-ND (PA 5 f 4a? ta,4=ses.m 'pbm. cod menrs ' AA+rtl, -20f P 002 Rq;sponsa to Cvmn7&Af Aro, 15 Llnidar Section 20_35.0401 of the_Cit& Municlpall'Code, parking, Viand other) Ireglulations tar p planned cam mWty'disbict may be astablished as part of the ;planned cornmunily•d'eveloipment iregulatiOnS. If sppmvad': the property. owner's proposed( N'BCC- PCt3 develdpment regulations would) establish the parking tegulatcons for the proposed NOCC' PrD Therefor% pursgant kY Section 24.35:040 aPdl canlrary to, this, comment, Iparlkino irequinerheruts far the N BCC 'PCID witl 'be lgovamed by the proposed I+IR'CC PCIPI regu laOons and not on the-City's general properly development regulr 6Dns.. The proposed pa&frvg aegplalr4ns'were based on demand evpluated. by two' parking) sludtgs indUding'Newport 13eachl'C�ountryr Club, Parking Su, pply ,,A,tlalysis °.darted August 20, 2000 ,Prepared by 'LS and Traf c arid) Perkcgi Evaluation deter qu gjust 2004 ,prepared by ll rmloy -fiorm and ,AssdcWl Which d'etermini6d tine! perking requirernint,'within 1�BOC. 'PCD, Table A rot'L Ks O.Newpont 1134ach Country, Club, Parki?gl Siuppty Analysis' notes the. factors which were used.to deermiRe in TabEe'RTE-,1 T. a'.bleATC'4 Pairki'eig Daumn'nd Factors Land Use Pa4lm 1Ra `,utreraDe`n'I �p a City of INewport. again, Zoning Co $$,'Chapter 24(66' Off- Sliest Parking I Buingail'otvs 4an�l Loading 'R ulotions, 113eta and Breaklast Inns, City. of INewpo�t Beach Zoning (Coda Chapter 24.68' Off Shreel Parking VQIPaS a-nd Loadh '.R utstiuTnis, Sim ile F;amrl Residential.__ City of (Newport IEraach Zoning 1C4d_e. Cha;p'ter 2t7 08' Off Slreet Perking Tennis CCnit and Loodlin ,'Ric ufade�rks Tenrils Club., City of INeurppht Beach( Zoning Corte does nett contain parking Mtes For giolf' Wursas. Thereilbre the parking rate *as r ferenced ,from the Gmlf'Centrse,and Club'hous® Institute of Tram grrtaition €engineers 6ri'Ing G'eneralron, 3rd Edirmn (2003). Land U'sas,430— G❑ltGouir e, SOURCE: Newport Reach Counhy Club, P-,arkiim SuppIX Anal) SiS,_LSA Treble 3, .entitled `01eerall Perking,` on Page '1,2' of the INItiCC PCD text slates that the pr6p®sed Golf,Cfub parking s=mmodates, 3-00 ' Parhing'spaoeA which is 30 spaces more than tine total derma.nd of 270 detetrTLlned by,LSA's NBCC Parking lsupplyy A alysK The Tennis Club'IhO,'3fi park pgi spau3e5,; vublO is 10, spaces grrore than L`h'e I>oial demand of 28,determined by LSA in the INBCd Panking Sk4pply Amalysrs. The area designated for 'the iBungalcays has 5Q paMng,s,paoes, vrhich is 'MspaceS rfbre, Ulan the total', denrnand'.of 34.dletermined by the Parkingl Sulp'ply Analysis prepared by LSA. Cvnerali, th'e proposed l4BCC' PC'D regulatleorns provide am excess of 58 parrking Spaces.Chan parting delerrrulned necessary by the LSA parking( study. Ttuls figure does not reffeet the Zdd'ilional parking lhat uvould also Ibe aval1able based - on tlhe -perpe l!!al rLoo- axcllusive parking Egreemen't torCorporate Plaza West {refer ter I ;leslpOUG- to 1 eOM uent NoA awe). .N+ 5"PB" BeaO 0:o Y; TAW, -Gkrb .PUht40 �iF+Ei10M, r40) fEP�mnsas r!Oi AGrhiSe mmreiirs Im�Irj",_i� PO 00S 3 1 E rs CAA PLANNING Letter No. 5 October 18, 2010 City of Newport Beach Attn: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department 3340 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject. Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005 -140) Golf Reality Fund Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms, Ung: on behalf of International Bay Clubs, Inc. (IBC) and the Newport Beach Country Club, Inc (NBCC), CAA Planning, Inc_ (CAA) submits the following comments related to the proposed Golf Reality Fund (GRF) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) PA 2005 -140 released for public review on September 16, 2010. The NBCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of IBC, which has operated the golf course and related facilities for 25 years. E Misting Settle¢ The NBCC property is under a long-term lease which does not expire until December 31, 2067, The MND fails to disclose this Important detail. In 2008 NBCC submitted an application to the City of Newport Beach for the reconstruction of the golf clubhouse and ancillary structures as allowed under the lease. There is no mention of the NBCC proposal in the GRF MIND, nor is there any discussion of how the landowner can implement the golf clubhouse component of the GRF project when the lease for the property extends for more than 55 years. This is a significant constraint and the MND should be revised to reflect this existing setting. Project Description Under the heading "Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Car Wash" on page S of the MND, a statement is made relative to an existing access easement along Coast Highway that will be removed. This access easement Is intended to provide access from the intersection of East Coast Hlghwayjlrvine Terrace across the site, to the Armstrong Nursery. The project applicant is not a party to the easement, and no statement is made as to how the easement will be eliminated, or what will happen if the applicant is unable to eliminate the easement. While we would he pleased If the easement were in fact terminated, IBC has previously presented documentation to the City which demonstrates the existence of the easement_ A mitigation measure should be added to the MND to require the elimination of the access rS Atgw. aw. Sere 210 � A 1 Yirley G6Iwn 91W -41115 r 1949152"919 • Faz 1%91511 35" W01 H yJ f Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 18. 2010 Page 2 Ieasement before building permits can be issued. If a mitigation measure Is not added to the NINA, the project will result in a significant Impact, The project description and the description of each component found -on ;rage 5 of the MIST J lacks sufficient detail and should be revised to state the whole of the action contemplated by the applicant. for example, a reference to a swimming pool is found on page 41 of the MIND. The MND sperillcally states, "a swimming pool is proposed between the tennis Court and the residence._" CEQA requires that a project description be accurate and finite. Without disclosing the entirety of the action the reader is unable to determine whether the assessment of project Impacts on the environment Is adequate. The MND should be revised to include a thorough and detailed description of each project component. While the project description Identifies five distinct components including the Tennis Clubhouse and Center Court, the Bungalows, the villas, Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Car Wash, and Golf Clubhouse, the project description lacks detail, It is unclear how the golf clubhouse square 1'00tage will be allocated to specific uses. The site of the banquetlevent facilities should be detailed, What other uses will be included within the Clubhouse other than locker rooms? The project description should be revised to include an accurate and finite project description. Aesthetics The Aesthetics analysis on page 39 of the MND concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact on views from the Public View Point in Irvine Terrace Park and along Newport Center Drive (designated as a Coastal View Road). Without a view simulation or elevations, it Is difficult to concur with the conclusion that the Villas and Bungalows component of the project would not have significant view impacts. In addition, the proposed project promotes extensive landscaping material in the golf course parking lot, further impacting the existing views. We strongly encourage the preparation of a view simulation in order to fully assess the impacts of the proposed project. Table 1 on page 4 of the MND lists building height for the golf clubhouse as 50 feet. On page 41, the maximum building height is listed as 53.5 feet. Please clarify the building height limit for the go If clubhouse. Exhibit 19, Preliminary Landscape Plan identifies the California Pepper tree on the plant palette. The California Pepper tree is a known invasive plan species. Use of known Invasive plants will create an adverse impact In the area of Biological Resources, which is not specl[fed in the MND. The Biological Resources section of the mw should be revised to analyze this impact, or the landscape plan should be revised to remove invasive species. 005 r Ms. Rosalinh Ung October 18, 2010 Page 3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Villas and Bungalows have been sited immediately adjacent to the existing NBCC golf course. The siting of residential /overnight accommodations so near to the course may 8 present a potential hazardous condition. The potential occurrence of accidental golf ball strikes should be analyzed in the MND. Mitigation Measures should be added to the MND If necessary in order to reduce the hazard from golf balls on the residences /accommod3dCOS. 10 11 Land Use and Plannin Table 10 on page 79 provides a statement that required on -site parking is 398 spaces, with 244 spaces required for the golf clubhouse. The MIND does not provide any description of how that parking requirement was determined. Since the project description does not Identify uses within the golf clubhouse beyond banquet /event facilities and locker rooms, how was the required parking calculated? The MND should be revised to include a description of the golf clubhouse, and demonstrate whether sufficient parking will be provided. Transoartationf Traffic The GRF project proposes to realign Irvine Terrace /Clubhouse Drive at the NKC entry. We do not agree with this realignment and the MND falls to disclose the conflict between the GRF ,plan and the NBCC plan. The MNO should be revised to include an analysis of the current street alignment and a justificatlon for the realignment. A mitigation measure should be added to the MND to address the impact caused by the inconsistency proposed in the GRF design. Additional Comments The GRF golf clubhouse is proposed at 35,000 sq, ft. as contrasted to the NBCC proposal of 56,000 sq. ft. It should he noted that several local private gotf clubhouses are significantly larger than the Golf Realty Fund proposal including, Big Canyon Country Club 16O,000 sq. ft.) and shady Canyon Country Club (54,000 sq. ft,j. The golf clubhouse plan submitted by GRF Is for a significantly smaller golf clubhouse than the golf clubhouse application submitted by IBC. The GRF proposal does not attempt to meet the market demand for a private golf course nor the charitable and professional gaff championship events that the NBCC has become famous for, including the Toshiba Classic, a PGA Champions Tour Tournament. 1 2 I The accommodations proposed in the GRF proposal do not reflect the programmatic demands of a world class destination venue. These comments are based on a review of project plans which we requested of the applicant. This level of detail was not included in the 12 Ms. Rosallnh Ung October T$, 2410 Page 4 MIND, the MNO should be revised to Include a description of the features of each project component. SWIfically, the GRF proposal underestimates the need and, therefore, the appropflate size and /or number of the following' • Banquet facility • Main kitchen • Golf pro shop • Ladies and Men's locker rooms • Fitness Center • Administrative offices • Employee services • Golf carts In addition, the GRF proposal does not include perimeter fencing, does not include a guard house at the clubhouse entry and eliminates the existing access frontage road that provides 1 access to the Armstrong nursery. The OF proposal does not Include sufficient maintenance area, cart storage or an area for cart washing; there is insufficient area for golf cart staging for major golf tournaments. Therefore, the GRF MND underestimates the potential imparts due to the artificial constraints of the golf clubhouse analyzed. We appredate the opportunity to comment on the GRF fv{ND. The MIND must be revised to accurately describe the project and to provide a more ftrpugh analysis of the project's impacts on the environment. We look forward to reviewing the City's revised document. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. Shawna L Schaffner Chief €xecutive Officer cc: David C, Wooten, International Bay Clubs, Inc. Perry Dickey, Newport Beach Country Club, Inc 007 5 CAA Planning pOctol er 18, 30$!08 iResprnw to COMMON Ah j. The prop®rty ownerla,pplic- ant has indicated,tbat -onlf 'the golf, dub ,portion off he Ipr4,posed NBGG RCO IS, currenill under a long -terns lease. 'The ipnoposed 4KfBCC P.CD deuetopment f.erd`uPatians are `intended''S?i appgy Vie. thesubjvt' property irrespecHwe of issr�es af'Ecnancy, Eeas2 te?rifi,!.n. his of 1,3t refusal W%8cgULM I €aseh6id,-and pirpperty. owrnership. Tho:lease4bes nat Ipose a dslgn:rrant'conetraont' on plain ning. and has no lkrubavn ,envinnnmeratsl,sig,nificatpGe. Response to Cvmwent Mo. 2, Armstrong Mrsery has two a MSS poiin'SS "di_reatly off IRSORC COW Hiigh y. The City Traffic BirtgineeF has irrrloG�ted that the ers dng fronlage maid &sates .a h6wrAdJS �candiliom at its int¢rseck— with the entry and 6i it to the ppogO' eC NBCC PCt7_ Acdrfrdl the paidperty neriiappliaant; the frontage dl aasemcent +;'spas lerminated by' Terrmiinalion of Anoms Easement :eseeauted by the fee Qsynars of "tlye b an6riked "nurmiry properly` and :dated November 3'f7. 19138, Fewiterj4d December, 8, 1997, and +assigrfed lnslrurnent No. 1997063&399, the Titla IRepbrt submitted to the Cit3t for lhe'proposed NBC,C IPCD anal. dated .tune 1; 2010' h S na i lags road easement- peswnse is coMrinent':NO, .3 The prnaect des ptloo presented on PegeS 1 'ttlroutdlr 24 of theiMWID pfov d'es both graphic U4 nerrdtive descciptiQns aF $a6h of the pwojedt connlopnents propased by the a'i3�ilPeant ,5 pec'rf'icaCl}ii, Table 1! pm4ides a $vrn a-ry of the- p upose -d LisesL A dditional, detail' for each of the proposed components fs provided in the •li fBGG KwB ftgvIatfon and below. The project site encampasses approximately 1;42 acres, which Rre.dlVided into four Sub- -armas 118bili eld in Table RTC-5 betow, Eacbsulb4rea: ais Vid,111 as the.ha66 car wash l5 deSwibed.follarmng TaWe [I TC-4- Table 'RTC-4 Land lU'i_sa ,A llocation5 NewportiSoac.h Coumtry Club Plannod Gom'rnur btl Matnl'cdPlan Sub Area &pp oxiinalte -Ane? Avniu The Tennis club-Sub-Area 4.6 The Mlilas Sub -Area _ 1.25 Th6 Bran alaws Su'b -Amen 3 :44 - The 3 dlf;Cllub.9vb-Area 1i33.01 T 4 1- rinclddes Golf Clubhouse, Oolf'!ParKirng Lct and Hand CarWaish, ,5QlJl INia~wpait; Seach Counrxy Club Plan6e6 Cammunityr District Plan .full 12 2818 4b ]AND tr I ,1iJeae4v 207'1 .-Q!A' 7 P 002 Ge'IlI CII'ublInGuse The gokf clubhouse , floor plan h2e -a rnaximun off 35,000 gMSS' v.*re feed„ exclus.live of below grade cart storage. i'u'trowrd ;tongs, ihcludirig, afa;proximelety 19411DrD square feet on thie 'lfirs0.'Rr ariaf approx "mlatoty 10„9010 square feet on the,second,ffoor. The (lower floor' M11 aucornmodate the WIlo� Ing Wltureis: Grill, women's (lounge and WAermonn, meets Docker ropm, and pro shop. OMelr'features- lrc4udled on (the lrst floor Inclvde "a.eart barn and club storage, 71he send loon Y411 accammod2lie a banquet room, and Iki1 ;0en diningl, room, I'©unae. foyer, ofQM, prilwate meao'ng and dinirR g; iroems, 'and a "il9Ip Male." Ogler `future`s 4ibb cuineenlfy exist and Will continue to be Pa34,of the'cltbbpi)m facilities include a`5nack Stand (180 square feet) ,:exlsling golf course re$troo f facilities, and existing) greens tf�eper hurf.- i s and arebl. the rnaXimS;Lnrrn h"elght of tlhie'piroposedl golf clubhouse* is 53� feet 61hches, measured from fhe•existing,.grade tc d e miid- ppint.of the;sloped'roof'. Tennis eli',ybbifousa arict C'fau-rts The ,maximum Hoar aW of the tgwnls clubhouse is 3 „726 gjroSS squerq feet and! writl have a uruSximu ra building t eigYt of 311 feet (rnGSSUred from thre dwstfngi grade to the,pea , of YJie r2Qty- The tennis clubhouse Includes a lobby., gyro ^ hIvlp, offi6� and lockernoorras.- ,A total of seven temni2 courM, includ.imgl one stadium court..+;ifill reptar itnh 24=tennis Craurts that �tiirrently exist on the i,vtftect property. Soreeningl for the to nnl& c6urts.fnam The Villas E will also be provided in- the' rorriu of a five -foot 41odk uua[I that woiu`Id be desugned to baf.conrpiyble Wilh the propos Villa E, adjacent to the tennfs� courts_ in addition tta'e; exterior petnmeter of Me ten'rnls courts faring the G±ernwltle Condominiums, (Granville ID'dwe, and the Tennis Club pa.rkiftt _lot will also be sc-reeruedn udlizing the existing 10 -foot high Ghain, link fence cowered by ,o wib'dl,screen. Rumgai bve:s, 'The - Bung!oloyrs pTpgsed-' by the applicant, will COMM of 27 ' ” hoiei' omits that enownpatss appmxirYtat0y` 29 044 square feet -of "floor 2rea, A2,1176. square foot'CorrGiergle_ apd Guasl Genteir Is slsbf included in this de rewprternt cbrinpopeniC In ed'irld6n. ft Bungalow Spa which is art auxiliary use far and part'!ot the Bungalovws, enoompas&es 7,49D,square' feet, This'fa0iity %milt include a,'ltrneSS C@nt)er,:s_pa spa b'arand loudge. Other fealurres. include a Zen Garden, JacuzzF acid 5wvinnmlmg ",pool. The pdial andfor Spa equ_iprnngml wr711.be enclosed Ibyr fire ,fook block wall_ Thie maximum buMaiing ineight of be 'So ngalows is 31 raet, measi!tradJ from 161ie existing ;grade-to the puck of the roof. Villas The fiive Villlas are. proposod •within a 1.25;acre,sub -aroa_ Lot sizes of the single famill'yr detached residential dwelling lots vrfll wary fnarn 15,295 square' feet t.V IU A) 'td 117J51 (Vila D) square feet. Homes wIll Ira,n,tg;e in size frrarn 2,2011 square feet (Plan A) to 6,$" squarai.reet, (Plan? D). The rmauimurn building hae'.hts (measured'froarm ex tgng grade) permitted for the `d'illaS 009es from 23 feet (`+ilia A) to Wile-et (Viita D). Sw�imming pools are:aPso. permitted (fir each of the hewe:'Willas. Golf Ctub Parking, Lot and Private Hand !oar Wash' The Ipr®posed Giolf Club P'ar'king Lot has 3130 a"ite parking spares, to .addiction, as described in Rd.spbnse to Com7menh Na_. 4 of The'irwine Company, °above, an existing perpetual affsite Perking Ag,riemenit wilt conlnue'to provide as.irEynyr• as,554 nom ewdusivi parrk s'p3 a1 wefek)ands and holidays tb' i80f0010i fuent thei onslte Golf Cio$ parking: The ifontage road' ihzit axist�;adf`,ocenit, to East Cwst'HPghvrayt m ill Ipa.efinninated and':replacedl Wltf landscaping, In addit*,+a prfaate hand car wash er aa' is proposed .�;h In tlye parfslrgg 16t' in iha, vicinity of Crauntry Ciuh [ ?curs?_ The 1443m §�J 85acd4 Coi�:7'�3°��Vu13 �Idhu] (,P,4 "2d7f15�YV�i r59F�W!9P'S• iq'F11�A•C'�FfdIR9fJr5' AP�S:�r� 2n]il A po4a r2 o o9 area itlenlif9ed to eecomrnodate this :pro] Ct�L6-ature enenntigesses approxfinately 2401 square feet Qiue.,.1'2 feet wide and 20 feet lengj. Use ¢a� =ltne pFIV E1ar �1 -or cash is limbed to gp!IQ andl posslbty tennis club nnembers ;only. Response to Co-mmeof ft. 4 R6fer to. Response to Carnment No_ 1 A&5�5,r1=3"ri_,•fo' The p noramic view of the doeanf is available frOrru the' top ,of Alewport'Ce',nter ®iiwe>>eirrde Straight aneiid down Ndvapor# Centex Igloos Ito ardls Pacific' Gist MI)II'Mayr. Dnly "peek a boa" ocean view Over proposed - BCC PSO clocurs between the larA Orarrwille ;C,ondarniniuim Until •and the Irdlem©nWile Group use buildifg and aftel IYte Mt64unigle'�Group office building located at,the lintemadtion of New;rport Canter Driiwei and tie, private Granville road (refer In the a'tt'ached visual sinfuuMions from View Raimts'1; 2' and. The irnrnvemenlf,',prOp06Qd by the NBCC PCO, would- Oat result 'm any slgnilic2ni visual impact On the 'View at'. the ape6k 'a-bc e ocean view betWeeft the last. G-ranville COndminium and the.IM'cll 0igil®. Qmu,p office, building (rater b th.e.aitached °View f o mi Pgint 1 °)„ Only an unstgnif capt Impact. on the -,,pe ©4r a horo" vie-W �R' the', ocean from the 'sidewailk at' the intersection of Newport Center t dvd 'and GiranWil'e defer to tne.attaChad "View fromflPoErk3 °j The 1proposed NSCC IPCa woOId also_ r€tsult'ini less, than sigil impacts- On the: Public View Point i'n brine Terrace Parl',w because the .;significant , pubhG 4lew• from frwine'Terrace is •orlemt€'d "rdl NeS .Kh 18ay'Ehd the Faacillo Ocean, and tfie NBCC'll is located on th'e rdlan;d side of Pacific Coast Highway from Ilrv[ne:T.eeracei IPark. IFudillermore, the vralllbullering Urine Terrace Park from Pacifo OCiaSt Highway, ibeg'ether w?Itlui [he hi Idling in !Corporate PI'azl West and the existing landscapingl, makes the Gold Club IParking Lol the only area within MBC� PCIIIr visiblle "from Irvine Tentage Park' ('eefer'to, the attached MAW fmrrn Polirut 4) and the vteww of -the .l if Cl IS Parking Lot wwauld beArnp.rcl. aestneticalltly a 'S-a result €nrla large leni�sea;pad berm a[cl P2ciric Coast, Hilhw±ay and four rawrs of perpend'ICU.I'ar in Ilb e• Gdil Club Parking Lot.. ftsp0l 10 comment',rtifa. 6 As,indi6a6ed an Page 41 pf the- (MIND. the Ma imu€m building herght of Ill golf clubhouseL is,63 feet, 6 inches, measured iron the existing 1gradecto he rnia'� lint of the'slopedl roof. 'Table '1 of it e'liku thm . beeni nevlsedl to relfeat itti.e correct bulldding helght. Response to CQ'mme O Nb,,, a' The NIBCG PlJD is located in .air: tarban area and' does nut Encompass any natural habile't, 'InClA r,g environmentally sensifitlil habitat :areas WSHAQ. A though the subject - p7;mpert' is tocateell within this c9?gtal zone„ ineither'the Git;v"s•fsenertal IPlan {fdaturall IResources.Elie mtientr nor the Cgas-.lal Land Use Plan (QLUP) IncItYdEls policies that prohibit the use a[ non - routine species in uirben:1za11 areas. Rat_hdr' poliicies relevant to this' comment are directed at preserving the integn'ty Of naltu-ratereas and ESHAs. For example, Policy No, NR 1�.4 requires that new develo',prnent, Including, shall be designed. to p�Otect sensitive or miei resoirrt�s against any sfgnilitildiisrupllan of habit values. CLOP Policy No. 4.1.1 -12 ,prohibits the use of invasivirs plant species vMethin IESHAs and E'SHA buff or areas. As notad above. tKW.Ovor, neither il nor ESHA buffer arms exist'i n air in pr6 indity to ,.the subject property. Hone'lhelass, to avolpl airy potential impacts, which; arguablly' ul'd be assobiatelc[ ith the,califDrnia pepper trees .idwilif eld as one of'the atternall!s€s, inrthe Preilirminary, Landscape Plan for MBOG POD, th:ls species has-been removed by spollcant's landsclapa architect from the Prelirninar}i L•arlid% -Bpe Plan legend ; not be used o ri'tne sulbjaCt,property. AAin•,oW E"O C&UWy C1'W, MAU fr'a �vs pa6� firs to P"arcir��s.,.,ar�i_� Much W1 I pap" 13, 070 p1grAbOnSIR .L'��� cArtl!?te�!V'1 n,. The site plan within Me proposed NBCC PCOF eppliDation defnans rates ,thak prnposedl slruetures swill be no nearer to the golf cQurse than "sting structures and Me 'existing], tannis courts. The Iandm ner lndivi0s that over'Ihe course of several 'decades, there have t*en no reported, incidents of golf ba'lts .hitting Uhe existng struauras.ar landing,on tfte tennis• courts, The lack of historic', incidents likefyr is &fe re €uft of mature trees, liniingA the left side ef'the 0 fai'rwray and] acting as ai physical barrier to errant golf balls, as well as the distance between the ninth green and •the property , proposed for the Villas and Bungalosws,'Tlte nearest Villa will be lastedapprawirnetely 90 to 120 f6el (3At to 46 y2rds) Irom th€;'9_�° green. 4vgth 40 her Villas teealed from 1129 to 24D Feet {40 bo EIS yards] from the59�' fairway- The n€are'st Bungalgw is I'acalydl aI Paast 7© to 124 Feet (23, tb,4jC ordS) iftoMi ttje. 9 green, Name al 'the tiungaltatius are located aldnro the faihmayland 81111 are beyond The Idmits of a"mintapprosch shots 16 the ?, gFeern; aecaus+e elf the ]historic absence 6F errant golf balls entering the. subject, !property, the pnesenca of the maWre tnees acng the`$''' faimmy,whichi impede errant goll' 6 lls, and thexonsederabfe distance between the "V fiahweay« prfd.green and the proposed villas and Bungalobws;, here Is no potential signifdcan-t impact Which will re&ull frond er'rent golf ball strikes. N'onalheless, for puRCyz irreasorks,; ih2 Clay will regg re,lhat,tne nearby golf a;U %qty vd1l .he dlselased in the Bapertment 191 Rest €state disclosures issued for'ttte sale J61. each, of the VIII'asL Futuire dwrners *Fill be requdred'6 ,3,cknaM dq€? That lhe'1Neswpout beach Door 'y Chub sumuld not be table. for darnape'lhat, may occur ins a result of errantgalf shots. Rospopse td,,G rnent'l e. Q Please refer to the earlier Res rise to Comment No. -. 5 af'The. lrvine•Company. Response ror!Cerurrtent No. TO This c.4rnment ap "pears't,p confuse- ihel property owne.rraippric nt''s proposed' NBCC PCI] regulallarus with the raommaniaes development proposal for orilyr a pr©Tlipn ol'the'iNI13CC PCO. The propa�ed fdBCC BaCi7 rtulsbons are not interfd,ed tb pFGVWe icansistvney witln'lhe commie n koP S lr ➢r4',pQSal, but rather Ito 1pnrvide a oemrprehensive get .of ',POD rragu'lations 4or tike deueldpment Of the entitp N8-CC PGd- The. proposed reiiilibnment at iruina TErracdClubhausee !Drive at the IryBCG entry, will eliminate an eXist[fiigl 'ldaZard!aus 0 ndition caused ity, aw imlersEetibn of-tfte curr&il fronitage road•ar the exildentry, Ini*rsection, The design also proposes, elher, minor improvements requested by Ote.City„ Includf_ng.:ai change to the entry ,Curb radius: These deSigo (proposals are intennelly consistent awithl the designi for the entire pmiposed NRCC l C-D regul`ens, As -a result, there is no in'Consisteunvy dri the proposed NI€ir C P C'D regwlatE ]onr with res,ped !to the rr alig rumeuit, waFifoh Is tttie subjecl of this- oormmenk i'�a�jaarrsa Jo Go,nprnrauat:fwo. 'l1 This comment suggests ]fiat the MIND should' evaluate market d'eattlamds. 'Such an eyatuatton would be tieyond the;soope of the HIND as It wgould' ronstituI6 an 6ualuatfon of -a sUictly ntamis'Factor; As required by The .State CE,Qa Guidelines; life I- SWINID ev2luaies the (potential environmental Impacts antielpated tQ result from the Implementation n_ 4f Gh le'proppspd NBBCC P-CID regrulo ons- In this' case, ']hie applicant', it. proposing ',a 35,,1001 square foot golf cjubftouse as part of Ihei NBCC PCD,. The. rommenlor suggests that 'the proposed NIBCC :PCD regulations do `irw44 heel the market demand fora pri*atra gaff curse norZi chtarlta'lale and professional —9C -If chernp[ombip events = ,. °' Market dernaWl% however, are not, relevant to the evalualion of the potentiali €nwironme -ntol impacts of the proposed NBCC PCIO regiulalions. As Indicatod in thei MN D. flie proposed NKP PCID reglula'tions are oanslstent wadth tha rIt$nsity,,ol dave'lopmenl and the land use designation adBpfetll tar, the Ipra',perty,;and refiecleuil,in'tf e:City's. Gunerat flan. MwpMm SeftchCow?!yC!v t�€twn.fntr. ?aflS� +.rOJ R951 WS" 4re,rtdrs NO'JA 071- R06pon,sqlaicamrnenpfo. 1'.2 The anaWis,presented'in: the inSail study OwlUales ihei Wenfial:, ailyfronmental e4ecM of tha-Projact as proposed uy the projedt applkan't ardl does inapt involvba4tlerm—inagog of whetherThe project'Or000sal is ter u . s:not a venue.' hl' -pr,, as noted in Res e.lo Comment N6. 11 abdve; is, il the .1h P051t coffTffponanls listed In IhIS-60m'mient. role of e MHO to,de*rrnlne market deffancls; for each of the, projoX T l6aities as proposed swill datermirte the intenoity of Ubq, ll� Is nfA the role! of the SAND to-dVerrnino, if there. is a: commercial juOhmirion for a differenL more wtijegse pmppsz[,kr the property. Mw.p&i BaWy C�imUy Gfub APM krA 2005-14,q R92POnM10 PVhflbCCIMMCWS Much 2011 piSp is 07� Rspo,nse b CorrrMer>'f NO, 13' The G.ree,nskeepe , area (Maintenance ,area) en;an. apas approximately 30,004 SQUara feel; WhIGh is the same as [he, exisiun-g Greanslgeeper area. The iNBGC PCD cart'slorrap area Includes 5„834 square feet,- ufhliOh a�nmmodaies mole than 76 golf cartts, including suirIdlent,,arezq for golf cart swasltirrg and maintenance. The Tcumament'C�rl, Staging Plan Mus"lled below shows stag ng, for 72, 'golf carts to a mmadat -e a 'shall gum 3far1° 'Wiith (WO fOUMDMee in ;four golf, carts: on each nofe;, v NCIM ,is ad. egwst and 'typ ical: r I I� r �rfGli i�r - G2:F'- dlL01(L4.711' - mfr ,1, f, I Tr t ,, Tourna ent Carrt "Staging iPlia_n rvt Awnsns 14.imrid44e tbwMews I4Mfrh err f Mg. 07S View Key Maip and Viewr Poimt'Photographs meq* 2w1 Pao a T J IL GGGYYY p y sc W 3 ./Z if ti r 'a 1 �r v � U C F S ■/9� (075 r o.. 0 c� LL- LLJ 070 _ 4 y AAA br _f. �Il 1AAy A .0 L e 2 0 U L 2 S L U .G E H Y C C t q C L Q E e 4 L L A C LL LL w E 072 Q CL ►y 0 cc LL lw 079 4c't- I0P110 94:140 pm- C_alliaruro coastal *526A115_ovl 'T• ,U P a62i+ H '.F °6644 t-j yr ofINewrpoit aeeeh, F"tdrVing GA,eparfiMOM mklar: IRmaallmh K Ung: ,f saeclata plannor o3bo'tgewpa1t I3oulevord p'0* Eibx `i758 Newport 8Ei*L0.h"uA'm2(363 I 't i. euvpon.- Beach'Coun ry' lub & Tile Te�nni� Cl'ub� Peo'lnaR' Mltl9a,Wd NQUO live Declaration (SCI 20;11008.10'62�' Q!n%lr l B-. Ung, Thonk you IQ! ttua opporuunl tnl Nl po(rk Bj)aGh Codntn IVililgatod INteptiue uer.1race.i t>am s andgolfo'lul hIW OF- sglare i�t�;g'alt Icl;mdhlol ➢sa ThQ. aWc2dt_ 19 2151 gaop(H units. CjWngulg. w and By �a-C ii MAI live (6) ilingl6. ptapel'ty- M to re.,Aaw the MINLAW hi QuW and Toes Tennis Club on„ lho prakrosed p4j'061 is end th- atdhatrudtlon dFq ne to oaklowla Cu ;rats eeur h tt wn'5p aPfltnew area ind': @Or iii rep ®idahllal:dwulling units M'; M october 1 Oil 20110 ILettelr No. 6i ration pw)for irdingIn the p ofthe exigliq lodge R735 !ernrr arl�itor- g @rul_IA7,� on iho aubjllcm Tha ppaposed', pwayr�t rs:1oc26®dl>.Nithln they CoasW ZOO Ilnt NI Itllly Of IN61iii7oirt Bch. the ox��ia5sd'doaleaalapm ntv011 r�,wu9rc g ar? yst�l OeWoprtmenk T'clrr�vlrt Br sr?ti itnel a ulti rmla Cowel Cormmiusion: 6.ulDw pro the ccrnnvern p aamml nsi[Frp 6Aaiff nrt tmo?N1JiUptedl N gativ Derl ®retlalb. 1'. a The DAdtligeted 1' ®gat'i�rs Qerla�a$ionl 9hts7btld lmclulele a rtroplhlc tha'L.. h S III I� n6lev n el Lamti'ulsa Plan'MrAP idem*ing k'na'preieal ivlte and the 'aliowred' land use cateVRios_ The Mitigated Negative Daclaratlon - -;W*ri that'the Golf Co um, Is doaipatad dot a Qopem, pa ion lhc� Coastal Land U09 F-hm ru P. hica aver, ppir copy oY the 9a4' MO 04 i Hai 4'rsa=Cel I Ioriata Cm, baI MISS SON M191 PAWQD4 VAS3' MlrPga7m 9 hlb5 aWa E rcdBnbn for rare Nowpan e, Q a Cr]IRIAy +Cp 5'a I'm Wnr>9!! M SMON Coastat Lend Ilse. plan Iltinap identldris Ilhe 06g Ctwrsa pis Pfd (P'ar'ks and f drrr a'lfmn). 'Pteaue clarify t1118 discs- panty. The r ioposed p'ro),ecl nAfli Include e, smal9 boutique hotel cnrmprfsad Of ry . Seven (?7) g6litfrn'vlrsitor =serving units ("Surlg01-0w -'p, Tha hales for these new Mahar- serving units shmuid be lduilfifled The Mas Will Irldieate`rf then new units 41I,,be consid€mred °hi91118T coW'' or l &Aer deaf" ectommladatlio ns, L4 UPT Wat. @f=rnrri)daliorl would be Mpre affordalale is a larger Segment df Me general! poptalatlon. if iii in der err blind thrit Iha acoomr odotleras are °higher cost', an, In- tlo3u fee, irnlght lae,requir&i 'To prrorndale.on 9 ancourafle prmuiclom of Io'wl3f o of t' wisflor a�we.mlg7Yt aecornnn�atlr�rms ln� Ithe �aista'I'ecne, iru• ®serscla }tlraa� vntlhi Inq^,+r dovelopmedpf pith -e d facilrt¢es, tihm Commission has required payment of a fee to be nused1 for lower poet such +as h6sfefs, aabins' and u:anlp@Xouridsw jn ileu ofraotu!gt provision: ofloviOrrestunfit. Iplve (5)•s'ingle -faKly rasidfenflail dwre'lling units. ("The t1Mll r) ar prllpossd !c b© rnmstructed adjacant to T1101 "ennis Club. Nibs Villas" appeartto ire tootled rwrtMn the i14"ll (Mfwedl'U'sb lJoriz!omtalj MR (Parlks and Reerestfon) land use udeslgna;tedl area of 91hn Crsestal Lanai Ube Phan. MU-H doaa a'Igonv mldlti- ramlt,yr Eea9de,nflal. I owave_r, the prrgaaed lanita will he Rue (b) L9Ingte-farml'Jy rarsPdelioe; HOW ;s"lit'la pr6pt55a1 corasigtsttt wu_ith Me Cbsustdl LandUse Plan) designation? 'Wal r'-r yll The iMiligated Nagalto Deofwatlon NO) d acusees Walazr qualify in ts;rms of California_ 5NImmrmental Qurnllty pct r.00A) rnqulrerner,fs and IRr41'0m,I31 Board requ rota€ ants- In addlaon to r-ErA„ 8891 moral Bob d hind Lather reg;ularory ner�uPrem nts, liu3 proposed.projlsaat Will undergo roview8 based upon water quality Pvo'Aa'Idnv in the Coastal AO. Seclions 3WSO end 3,6251 arf Ithe California bpls,fbr proleo.fnq cots! w ters, habiM%, and Co2slei Eck Iirow8de is broad la p odiversiiy horn degradaltat4 orwater qualty a maciatted airilln new develofrme 1r and red!evelopraten#- Starsnd tqe{.ur quality managerreftt Eix0s a lee,pronSud approach; alt@ dogn, eource,- ntndl. nod,trea'lment control Beat Mgnsgement Proiclluos, , satccessful pr"rarn would fist fncorpefata shat design uttiauqure3 to minimize Impact #o the, hy4'roI!q c [Onddactaire and sauru control Best �1!anagern6rd Practice, (Bi4'lfM) l-r reduce day weather ttows,and the gonerraficn Arad inlroduciian of palkitarots into runoff. �V few exiarltpdeta 4f site desigma pact yea Iattdllaimi rvin +mlzPmp rmperwocus. .I6 %irfacos, uWag,lporous parking areas. pra rifmgi r,htive vcg,etadon and rOtal,systerrts, rtalrmtmmtzlft9 &aslan Find) sedimentagon, and rredlucingl ros;dwny & per*ing fol langth,. Sonne vnIMPles Of sourco control BMPG include plantlqgi inatiVe, drought tolerant, non-'IMOA re waageWtlon; rminllmlatng,pesticld§ and -feritt er use; ushIg afdfclui ATUlja,tioni ,ystermsl and in'Iplasnenffnff'Me King')W and a #rasa Frwreapioag programs, arnat7g. other'ineasums, {.'rq 021 rlct =It lid. G'' -0 :WFO Fr;N=W klamh contgl aErJ76995fi8€ NO tl',AC OU 'P A hSA 1=1 tta3a: M DodVS%M1rornis h"mtirprt Bcor94i auPaly *FM rvnrd`s CIL b Praciba Pdgcr3 of Ail-or s'iteidmshgrr and soup Control IOMN hevoilbeen deaa gnodl, irea'trnani C�inh'bl BmPs (Myrpw ally In a treatment train approach for an 6XIler aNuh develnpmenit]lke" Ihra and proPosady should Vii® designaC' for the a 'r vaslcptnaaeat TreWnwaat contrtol BMPa; should be d'asiaina_d to ir"l ft spet Ifc pOlManls geerate 1 on each p❑gion of'the sites. Ini:eddii!]an, Me pruposed mm"aaures Must he sized etad da(s]gned W mltlgetaa water WON liahrapadis generaied by the development. As a goa(Itm cdomirmissk)n has required peO000structlon 51Mtl turel 13MP (or sruhh'os or DMPs). should, be designed lo'tre64 Infiltrate nr fllterthe amount of°atormmWa3iter Wncfflpmducsd by ells Mims aap,to -ands Mclud ng the t61h pe- rcerrlild. 24-hour storm :oven# for vohurara -baap d gmPe, andki the Both perrzntl e,, 1-hour aiornn avant„ 441h an appraapnlatI - aaWW fAclor VR,. or wealer). for "jbv ba3ed 9MP8, l-mned on SuclH n 3023o and 30`Z�f of ihQ 0calalsl aicl„ 'Ehs Cdastal Carrmt&'6kan MUS11enraw ieiihat.a davblbpmeavtahminfmaiaes the ma asimvrrr ex4entfaasinka pahluled', runoff and Its Immpact to cuaslai, walelm. Even where Ilmarua iR exltf+rni- dQwslopmeniam - slte, a redavolopKent prbyec)t needs lb dernonsImte that hits mminimil2ing to Ithe maximum ®k4nt feasible me Ilmpect to cgaistal wo(br �quallty. fiherteffdra, the devolopmentetwuld inm a C N gaLlva . At Deeleral1on chould dleciuss, the sills da�ESltr1 s ©nirQe c�nSrut, end Reel ment co�tt0l 'Baal Mahaaernent,PraGlargs f€Nt )'th,el rYAH W kink in eersocle'tion with Me enure Mito. pamklgq Iloft, landswpad auras, iniding and[ umhoadIng docks,, dry vuooher fljovis, end Uvnh and dubgs are. ohmrruolh constituents In c©mrmGrC14ji `erad otide -nual areas. -and tiMP8 slto> W bd &Mglaed to address Iftese conetltu eta. t Inaily, comffn ss9on st�i fuggsrt use, of c wh basin Ineeds Utr�iaghaut lha dev bipment. use of filhretJoh 4'yG ems sear arbas withi,65roulta.11Y high risk a genea a use )ci polut� aa a f bio'fllt�tlloru Thank your for gtc app ®rlianity tc i�'msttsmt art 'Lhe fuSihl�ata� tJegaliNe 8]acleirallon Q�IIV!Q,) for the hlet�tpork Beach country equb and `Ibo Tannti Club PrAecl. GOMOSSIGn steflt r -cio"t ppllfl❑t ljon of 8ny RALI activity asaocWted .uvliba this prot'eW amr ro131aadl1prg'GcI5. #'lease name, the ccammmehts provIded ha.4ih era pr�llim'Ihsry lay nAture. ,,Addltlonal Land rmore� spactflc.commemio may Vr® p_prapr1O(8' as Ihrs PPOJOCE rfev OOS into i nat folnm and when an.aOpicdtiem is c'Ui rnittod fbf a coa ®Rat deheWVmenL ponmait, Piaeae fB *l ft- to cordeal me at 6s2-52o -'3671 with an qurastfonta: r, w. state Cd3er1ndi1mause 022 & California Coastal Commission (October 19, 2010) Rssoonse to Comment rho. i The Coastal Land Use Plan I,CLUP) land use designations for the subject property are found on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map of the City's CLUP; the relevant portion of that plan is illustrated below The Tennis Clubimixed use portion of the proposed NBCC PCD is designated MU -HIPR. As stated in Section 21.8 on Page 2 -18 of the CLUP. this designation 'is in recognition of the private recreational tennis courts and the potential development of short-tenor rental bungalows and a limited number of single family homes " As indicated in that map, only the golf club portion of the NBCC PCD is designated PR (Parks and Recreation) a 08 IF AA: FJ3 � a f n Response lo Comment No 2 f�I� The initial study misidentified the CLUP's land use designation for the golf course portion of the NBCC PCD. The correct designation for the golf course portion of the NBCC PCD is PR (Parks and Recreation), as illustrated above. Newport Beach Country C A MN D (PA 2005-140) Resporims to Nbfw ConNrgnrs March 20f l Page 22 02S Fa rr to �Cdnarraeat i 3 T'.he'Brengalruw5 proposedby 'th2 project 2Olkant M11 pir"Fes visitorsamng accoumyrmodatjon�s. Although I he rate�'fcr the Bungal -are fnot yet established, it'is anticipated ffnat they would' >P a ;hkhe!r cost," rte_ There are no existing lmver -cast accommod€ntions on the subject property. As, a iesul',t, 'the Bungalows Will in ot eliminate "Si loawe Bost accomrmodatians. 01 1 With Pollbyr- 21.3 -1 of the CILIIP, If At is detemiinedl that the Bungalows iimpact Ilowrer -cost, sruemight, visitor Z=Mrrmgdations in NeYta+,port Beach,, than, la, the extent permit[r dl by laati %. 3n in lieu, fig may be McSSed Ib be uSed by t"hp C'ety to proVide lower oos't. visitor Eftom modatibiis.. n4e rrrtisrr'tr� ft. 4 The CLUP allows For resembal deoelopmeht in ili MU- Millk4isiriirlk Allhpugh not,specificaily stated in TaNa 2.1.1 -1, Seclroh'2.1' 8 O1'theCtJUP espre'Wy pr6vi"de5 eS4O1lows? `2. C,tUb �Lb iad In M'aurpdrt Center ltme albraa, Say' Ileilai Club; i :e'e54nVed MU -H PR'. Thm is •M micosaalttut ot'IJra f?j1rrafe,wc- reatron&1 re arni5 courts, sad Ma potential de?refapraa ant of ssi farm MnIal bungalows and a J$MIL -d numberars ,frog ?e - 8mily'.p2rra»es." To support this iaipiiess. pmo4ion, Pclley 2_,1, &1 ©l @hs CL:UP prdvidiesthe ifdllCrwitig 11�l*,eojillii W th# "Balboa Bay TennisClub",sile: '9°alrcy 2: v. &7'. ,4fyaai Y the ledvrarantal rHjeFrrarzrafig of. -Sh4ft.-i rantjl l nft.and Singhwfrrrrjii lroMes with tiiib axpan dW-tgrrnrs)cAAb'Tectuftle.s., 13e616etl those parnrrfted aN the M i-?i' arni O +I>�goMie�• The proposed) I_NIBCC PC❑ risgulatinns are consistent. With the, CLQ ',because they prcnnda Fart 27 %ShouA- iorm rental lhurkp i and,a'llmiteo nu_mbee i GFsngle-family'hornes_ Resporr<e to Comment Na.. 15 The (proposed MOO PCII regulatfans,wuill be. stiNect to Sections 3Q230 and - 30231 of Ihe,iGaliim -nix Coastal Act to, censure that caa5tel wd-WS. hahilai and hiodiiiersily+ arts prolededl from dii resulting trOrrl rr�d @Seloprnent'QF the subject. property. has indicated fr Se41,Orn IX (i ydnalog,y•a'rid dealer Quality), a rag is ®l bast management practiip25 (Bl1PS) _aitd related tiw9ter quality featiumes will be Incorporated into fir pl'ernentatiom :af the piopcsed N180C PC'[u regulations, ensntr6 That waa'ter qua) ty impacts, assocciaitea wntm sues detnelopmant•are'redlu�d to an acceptable level aruo also meet the oibj6cliveS of the Caliinrnia Coast Act as,stipul'ated im Section 30234 and 3Q(221- Irnplarhentafia;rn of 13MPs ft.1'wull be refiner! and included' In, the Stdrmwwater Pollutions Prevention Plan (BWWlPPP) w19I1 ensure that construction impacts are minirnlx2iit Similarly', 13s 4w111 also be, refined and Inooriporfated into this praject. design tb au'crld OW—construction impacts to wai qualily. These wiatier qualityr 'faatures ,must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Respiceeew Coim mrenif No. 6 This comrneM. whicin Idpiatifies ex'ampl'es of potentiai site design masures to reduce psllut;anii Ingo li'hir sariac'e and groundwraiter'regimes, is aclarra'wledged. As indicated iin ResponSe to Gornrmeni INra: 5, B14 Ps ldah-ded in the NPIi technical study prepare8 for lniplermenlakrj. Of the Ipropase,d Pl$GC P mgu1atiems will-be refined itciicomply with IheairequireMemis Impgaed lay the °Galifdrnia Coastal c4rrrrii55il6ri lo-onsurae that,both groundwater one surface water quality are proi . uAC_ r!"susrn PU�c coier�rer�fb, 14+iruyWJ'_�AA} PaW23 024 Response to Ca3mrrrre,rnt Aro., 7 &a indieatrsd in this prtnea,t; treatmnent rxrrttrol BMPs will be designed to Treat ttl0 speeiFie':pOAtut nts generaM within the subject pro riy is'a resuit of project ImpJamentation. The sauree cantrot BI VIPs Inoorporated Into the ,project design 'shall comply with Ilte,standairds and requirements prescribed by the calitoimia Goa`s&i d;amimissicrri, R'6, p6n 1p Comment Pk.a Rdfdr to SBCNiara 14f 2Post- Construction Phase smp5 -or the, .NPIDIES;Technical Slud,y° Wed datnvary 14, 2049 pmmtaared by- AdamsrSlrinrter IbIvit IEQgmaers, inc.. A Ilsi af.site,ItlesiEn, source conirol and ireafina .tt. oorntroll water quality issnt-roll onteasures thart'.w'iil he inmprnrated jhto LhHi proposed project as reclufred by Stand -amd Qonidimion.s SC-17 and Sf,1 B"is, presented ta0aW. Site Desian9 Ttme: use at "porarrs paving rirrateriale,S+Jdh as ain4rotfterd' paP.rers or pemmeable esp'halL I+kaximi eiandsgaping using bioretemi on-arid biostiu lm, Atla,su sheet and patking,lolq;td flaw into vagetaitled planers and s�wales, Dinconhec:fing roof gtr4t fram collection systems. Meaning; aillaw, roof drains On disperse 166a Vegewted area. Pair? IHarvesting via the use 61` cistarns; cauared frash inAdosure areas: Sotamee lCantrcal Pian6ng drougiht laleranl and ita.'tive plants. Minimize :'the "use lfpesticides;and:ferlilizers Llso iaf?Vciont di6p i'rriga'tion s"temS. Fraquentstreatand parking-,!at saweep'img ;prk�arams, Sidewalk, Hardscape and Tennis court'Cleaning programs; Treatment.ntmal' The vise poi cateh tiasi n filter; inserts, The use of a treatment train, such as a commbinatoon of a Hvdrodynamoc ;uiepanator (Cdnitedh CIDS) aria d.Storrm Fllter (Contkh StormFill o. Tlue usa col" Roof Gutter Filters. The use of BiGreYanttnn areas,- nle4eated shat(oW depressions that provide Moraga aru9 infllrae)e m. (Per reWmXapproyal of son's eng, neer)_ brainageSyrsslafrn CNainteri2 ,c ; Response to Comment No. 9 All now catchi basin inserts throughout N!BCC PCD wilt iuSe fptrairlgn sys arras new areas wb especially high risk of 1pol9rulamt generaton (e.g„ parking Il S,.�etc.',) and blaLiltration,as recommended Iby the Coastal Comm,155lon Staff: 'Most srte'design ree mmmendations-Aill have to be rowiewed�ard approved 'by'thesoils engineer. ftw Hearb iCajuP1 f ClLnSi AMD, ePst 2005:140). F ^asmAv5,4c vmrremr�ts. ' �Aa�1ch`2A,9r- 0 24' 025 1.0/'19/20IL.e1 Eq!:14 131'1 Pry K/0i3 r,4IruBARG & FEU If PROPERTIS Letter No. 7 C, Q S, k0gOPERTiE4 ATMIMOM IR'VIN Ki, CHAS Atil. 91UUTL50N ST., SU I E TQp CAA MESA, CA 926V M- 723 -74001 M-722-3555 F= Y iWA MX t'9VISIL Reuu� omohe,r 18;, 29:10 ,Qty °ca<If�eNlfp>pFt Icgu P-Isniining':f kPa nt 33164 INewpo'rt ioulewar Newport.Buch, CA 9208 -13911S RE., Nt-vvparlt huh Coun Qub 0orrmer Balboa (gay Iasquat alu a Arrhst ng GaMen Center; 1500- Padfit Coast:Righ y To W" It MAY Qnla21T l 'kP a own the land upon which the Arrnsnng Gardan Center- IbZ.t is 14eatetll at 1509 Paclft Est Hl'ghway, Newport Beach,. Is hulft. WE! jihffve ground Ilea-wd th[s IPrM to Purnshro ng Garden CenW bn al ong temn basim An act a MehIL5ar' N!n t Of the AMstrong Garden ce."ter currently exists In .form of a frontage road than raps, from Nine. ire �; on the east to the ihrm g Gerrien Wter Pia b4urrdary on ki�e W,es[; f3i15 ads easement arras the full length of 115e frontage of the Newport, lBea6 C5unty dub, property that boarders the Padnc Gmmst HI hwa pp Ttle Pmt: of tfr� deer fe'tcr [mferm� ttr�. t;ftyr �h�t �+t� a easeir� ®rat exl9ts 3 J stud lis a property aght enjoyed by the Atdmsl" tordell Center undeR the wn N of tIwir fongi limn eound Gym h us, 6;m more that ran occesfon,, Armstrong Gardeni Centerps corporate management ItrrJd �� t}rat the n @lauued. race dP'tfae sCfiess e�t3r 01t Is trinppufiant apo neriemary for the benefit of tlhafr kuslnbess c ratl'.ens at ttuls "location and that they wIll iRutvalulntaft ruMquish use. cil"Wisaiccesi easement. 020 L6I19i2010 M-14 3'}1 @539 © "A'21 IF4k_3_iE_. E9'1'63 -- F We understand) arid' sutppvrt,Armtrorlgl C�amdern Mte rt wncerns regarding ,Oe' continued) eMence of the ancess, msernseet and thel'r use of the mcm' epsermeri €', We 'wlIII bei form-d to prr veq wth aar aleu�' I'�yal. pgwns at cur lSposal, r,Y ak��mpt tv deprive Arra'sborg Garden Deer's' usm of -the ae easiment by any ,public Or private endly„ we am- tote pw "rs of tt�- ptopeq -ad :m WA wrt»e ref the few prat we are a,;prarty lbt erlea� tH&t �ualrantees cerfm, n rights, to Armstrnng Gankn Ceaier, deaectdl Alrmstbng Garden Center's usei of thla a easemw nt it Is Irmpo att, fbr 'tree City to 'OnOwtand ftt any, Ire d"I'oprmerit of the Nmvport 19nxh ODumi ry iClub and or the farmk (Balboa gay Recquet Clkeb mus be mindful or bKe existence of �,ramstranq Gar& -ni Center $6mor@ase me nt and AmIsbrong Garreen nWrr4 r " u$e this ucx s ever irk. Thank you. F Inbar+g a d Fevers_ talrn propeafits Uw Irving! IMF Chase cep Alan F nburg Arn -bl'd O. feuerstein allot ?%er lrq Brett FeuuersWIn ityran Chan; DaVld Sc{reppers; 'CPA, I y` Na'kdron., !Esq. Davfd Wooten, Balbwo Say Club, interAeMonal 027 7_ Falb barg &'Seuerstein Prolpertips (Octolfer IS, 2010_) Responsa' Pe7 Commerf No, f This.cornrment.is acknowindg,ed. No response is-inecessary- Response to, cvmmeat Ndt 2 The fronteoe road eaeernenit Yvas lez"Inat6d by Tarminatlop,of,Access iEaseinent,emeccvted by Me fee owners of the. benefited %tursevey [ •repprty�" and dated '�f�'�o�n tuber -30, 19,36, recorded Decemhe.r,a, T997, and ig;ha fnstrurnant.No. i�970630359. The Tide 'Report Ipmvdes to tits pity for MPC'C'ptto and dated .tune i 2f79{7 shouvs no f'rontag'e road daseMenL Tine fee .snwr ers ®f 'Ihe nurser/ prapany emb€ W inter a teasel with ,�rmstreng Ga.rdetn Centers ;Ofter the Termina'ticn of Lher tmnMgO Food aoWrment. that lease provides access through hva' eudks,cuts dlirectly in f�e:nf of'1hon- ursery pro -pedty on East Coast Highyday. Response ro Cr3+?? ne if No. 3 See Response to Gornment No_ 2 immediately above,. Rospora.ss to,-Comment No-.4, TWs cowarnent.is° cknoydedgedl. No response is 6"essary. f sspcarrse fo Comment Alb. 5 Thos comet nt is ecknowEedged. No response is,necessa,ry. D eese to, Comm S nt No. 6 This comment is acknovotedgedl. Ne response is;necassary. ftwr4q air, "WnrN OW AND AND des 2005740) RsSNarneas'P5,PU{n1c' omwrents hLroh 2107'1 P6045 022 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION )RANGE COUNTY Folk ORANGE COUNTY �1 3160 AIrway Ayenire + Cosra Mesa, Call for nIa 92626+ 9492SZ5170 fax: 949.252.6012 Letter No. 8 1 October 19, 2410 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Plain= City of Newport Beach 3304 Newport Boulevard Ncwporl. Beach. CA 92658 Subjty: Newport Beach Country Club Project (PA 2045 -140) Dear Ms. Ung: `['hank you for the opportunity to review the initial study (IS) and mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the proposed Newport Beach Country Club Project located at 1640 - 1692 Gast Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California in the context of the Airport Land Ilse Commission's Airpnrr Fnvlrans Lama Use Plan for Jahn Wayne Airnnrt tlWAAFL I}P). We wish to offer the following cumm -tzts and request consideration of these czmmenEs as you proceed with preparation of your MND. As stated in the initial study a portion of the Newport Beach Country Club property is located within the P-cde cal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. We suggest that given the high ground elevation in this Aura, it should be determined whether the proposed project surpasses the 1411:1 notification surface for JWA. Feneiration of this surface requires that the project applicant file FAA Fors 7460- 1 with the FAA Regional Ofi'icc in order for that agency to detennine any potential impacts by the project upon navigable airspace surrounding JWA_ We recommend that the MND discuss the project's location within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA and state that if necessary, the FAA determination will be considered in developing the proposed project, In addition, the MND should also discuss if the devclopmcnt of heliports will be part of the proposed project. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction. proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and ectionpursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2€66 €.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the State permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or rrcammended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by CaltransfDivision of Aeronautics. ter• ALUC Comuvws Newpm Beach Coumryr Club Pvse 2 to'1910 A referral by the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the location of the proposal within an AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e. Planned Community Text Adoption) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Comailseion suggests such referrals be submittod and agendized by the AIUC staff between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC mats on the third Thursday uRcrnpon of each month, :submittals must be mc4ved in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for mviaw, analysis, tuui agendiaing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Please contact Lea Choum at 9441515123 or via email l�h auror4ocamcom if you require additional information. Sincerely, IGrri A. Rigoni Executive Officer M 8, Airpont Land lUse Commission (O rtober 19, 20,10) fts ponls 'to Ir.DA77ment No. I ,Akhougti a portion of tha•Meawpait Beach Coon" clue properCy is tecated witT iin [he FAA Nblifiicatl6n Am (r,e .- a)1DC10- teaofl.ir ctlu3 at 100,1 Slape) of John Wayne Airpor'R (JV! N)o all strUctures prOpoi5ed.toa the; project (arse, rewnsinicled golf club',hoese, Oxingalows, tenrnis- "nter and u'illas), sre, i s beyo'md Ode-. outside) the Ilimrts df No 11lotifiwition area. Tlher4f,p q. nq FA.A.Part 71 %tificaudni is rs=g,urred . I'�s�pbn la!!Gd�r7t7tleinJ'1`Wa:,,;Z The pmjact.;dvscAptlon dov6 pot identify a heliperrt asp oone of the p ct roje componerils_ A baliport does not cuimen l,y exist on Me spbject property andl`ope is nal pi�bposed.. Should a' heliport be prop'ased :tn Mg future, such a project would he ,suGfool to enivimnrnental, enaFyrsiis and rewibwr, as indkated in This ObOnnamIL This comment, w *h discusses the RLLIC revr;euw ,process; rs :ar*no wtedged. As suggeste.0 in this comirftan the 0ftyr will! ensure that, the referral will be su6mimed to the ALUr- in'iorder to have the ufee iced on 'late J4LUC rneetfng agenda an 'a date that occurs. fSelwee'ru the Newport Beach Planning Cothfnission t earfng and the City`goumil Bearing for'the.project. !Mw*nf'.5ent4 Cntnlry:CA& MND, (AA 200541Q Rrr�oa+sns M l�abJ'k'LnmrniemPS; malr�i`' 2MI !x[.-25 o9 j- I cc PA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P_U. Box S4132 An alliance of American Indian and wientiiic communities working for Lrvina, CA 92619 -4132 the preservation Of arc6Pealogicals11es and olhercul I ural resources. Letter Igo. 9 October 19, 2010 Rosalinh ling Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.0, Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Intention (NOT) to Adopt a Negative: Dt>claration for Newport Reach Country Club, Project PA 2045 -140, Section V. Cultural Resources, Mitigation Mcaswvs, Dear Ms. Ung, I have reviewed the cultural resource element of subject document and am replying on behalf of CCRPA, Inc. It appears that the proposed project am was not surveyed for archaeological significance prior to building the current facilities. {trading for panting lots and tennis courts would not have necessarily destroyed all archaeological remains if any were in fact prescnt. As noted in this document, the surrounding area has been subject to numerous studies which indicate that the project area may be culturally sensitive. As implied in the proposed mitigation measure SC -8, a qualified archaeologist should be on site to observe all grading and landfurrn alteration activitie& If cultural resources are revealed, the planned mitigation and protection provisions as described in SC -8 should include archaeological investigation of the area surrounding the lined, to determine the extent of the site. Data recovery excavation consistent with the archaeologist's recommendations and standard practice should be completed prior to resuming construction work. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. the 0:CRPA is pleased to work with the City of Newport Beach on cultural resource issues. Please let us know if we can be of further help. Sincerely. Virginia Bickford. MA Archaeologist Secretary CCRPA Phone. 562 493-5169 Sent by email 10119110 o92 % Gal ffornIa Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance Inc. (October 1'S, 20110) R orrzo to Comment No., T As notedl in this cornmen't, the requested steps to be,tak,'en if cultural resources are revealed, are Implied. io Mitigation, Measure, =8. T ®'further clafiffy, IMhrt SC -8, ire re lnmrentlaliur+s idertlified fn IhiWoor melt will be, added to MW 13 as Indicated lbelo w tamf& to underlined porlion)p With these modifications, the revised MM SC-13 will'tbg equivalent ar more etfedive in mRig@fing or avoiding time potential' significant papts it addresses sn!d uwiill rat itself cause any potentially signifi and effector the anvrarmstut. EaC 6 ,h. gvslii ed monitor shaill oe, retained by the PrPj;w applinanI who will yie 24. able d,iring the gradiin,g and land orrm'alteratibn phase•and snail be ooriiected. if cul,tura'I resources are encountered. hi the event culitu(W resources endircr rasstls .are p6cqumtered during construction actIVIfies, ;gnound- disturbing exovatianis in tite vicinity of tle'disoomy she1114e redirected) or haitap'by We monitor until'Une find', has dlurina gradfnty shall alsb be i6yestigated ib deteimiine Ihe, exicrt dt't ie,site My- arwact5 airrdtoP fossils discovered during prroiect cons"ctlern sh6111 be. prrepared. lo, a !point of iden%ca9�iom and stabilized for longi;ierrn swrage, Any discovery. almrto with suppcsri hu d'aeurmEr iaTAOn anrf an nremized ratatixgua shall` be accessioned into ithe catiecicons Of suitable reppsllary' Cuiration casts. to.accessfon any o&ledohs shall be the relso nsibirity 4f ttre pwie�-tapplicanll. VV6xagT�+T 1 ' In.^19 C''- nrti!}v L'tirdi. fl4llRDiP' , 2.Or}S-140j ROV&ts" tiM1.iPi!&tiL d 4VTIr7r�/IP5 M.=h 2d a'n �PuRj?'7 o9 3 Newport Beach CuuAiry Clulb, (PA 2005-14) Rmew ey kNdSp,5/,WeqEn d IMg&7m.0mkr&aY md-ArswaAO Pffepif6df Finr M�M Ninvpqr..Bvac.hTLC BACKGROUND AND UHID;EIRSTANDIINIG Golf Rmalcy Fund is proposingTedevg1opunctm: ol' the 1,4&%cre "wpom Belch cotlmuy Vub. Immad ME I= - M02 Ent- CoaL FLWrwm)9 ' iN—hvpott Beath- 006tnh., Aeto-t" to -:11i: jridal Swdy, che p-miec.L 1�1 Le Is dffvdap,;d vealau palf amd fcm4q F-.-LaiF;r.q- -Me golf duh posse„ of che EfteLadudEs mm '1@ -hale golf course- EL taro- mory, 2314G squaic kor dubbousv, and an additionat, 9,0110 square fkv in amcillax�j uaru- including cart; bmm� snack bar, resn-coms, Scorns Keeper- shop, and. smnew shqcL -Parking is pcovidcd fox 420 cams in cht: odfpcCnc ,panting lor- T13e ix;nTl5.% club ponEan oEffic nae includw 21 tennis comm wrid m 3.7Z selm m Com cLubhowst- ?,-Wn fve 04 Hein •" el ub w pLrovid-h-I in P, 1 25 -M P*A n I@IV. The pr psv cci watdO modiiyflmse uses by dcmolish4 EhQ MXL35*gL gaff dubhousc madEhr, v-,[sdag an--UM5 6ibEtause and Arm 2dag'17 or the 24 Ec:nuris courm. Skuf the cxis6mg mna[y courts, would it=%" ond a navy M%diUM CCELMr COUXIV00d be addLA fir a w:L;d-of swam tan=s caugm Thisu%6ghr V%zKoS 6paces would be pk,°idd4 Cow the: wxmm club. The dm-Sting t�RR16 CEI3b1 WW$t qT3d 86d r E]Ubb, -61JJ4 "Lild h-- Yephred wL* the. M -IsroLLC600a Oct house (35�WD Kunzt f-Lur '-Aza mis duhhomt: iof,ffic.same size as 3 m mind a anzw qtaE g WhDLISC (3,7.2" --,qmw rm)- The pm[= also int dues, new* usrt on Ehr pwiecL 6024 inr1v&T,,.g'2'7 'Short -mm vmcjdon imnadz Pe,BLraga1mv5). five wai0=v= (chi lah5). 9. 5p.15mm, cpnw/poA and bAvqwet o"clIevew spmce. I Thu Ck7 of NETpoim B=ch ha=y camdecwcd earwirommmiml. ze,,"ew Foi the prDicci umdu he Cs a=' Eavimfm6nud Qrbuk Ad dUZ-Qjl)6 An laidal.Studi (IS) ILS bm-n' pxcpliresi roar Ibmi, prp[cca, -tud thr Ci ly InIcin do 10 AdopE 7 Nfluipmd Nqpiivr Dachxa6ori qv-WD)� Tho poTpm, ores M% t.w OF the RSj:vvU- .Iad ti ocini d. wzk'mcal scud;ea and docufflftm is im daulyflainp One -adrquacy and comptc rmeas of dic LS/MINM. b2mcd an ilia 'la, PMP�kMUVU Of Eb&5 nTUrff, dIt f0H MS! &UMUCTIO Ildve. 1 i? rd-%'QGT%HPd' "eitudittmd, Ch4tchh'st Fomi fat i4ev.Tan. Bearb, C-dim my Oub F"rd &F T��,ewpovk r;-nv.d --- - COjM,UUJAfiT (p_�LZ D05-i4q,, 911'161'jo S. JD ZE Divmky PInn; %Emy5,2011 4: M11 QV4,T.y Nvwporg l3ermh CmmEm Club -Rogjm. Ow of NlcyrpoiE Reach,,. Califurux Gkoux 23,2M -5- Pielimu=7 f4y&m pgy Rqpiaft for .Vin* Tc;mmtiiv Tmrk Mqp I a3-117. iNGWPOrE BWCI;, CA; -Aalmmms- Sx eats Civil Em&mx-si Inc.. Judy 1-3, 2009 U. Tmkir, 1-nd inking Evallm=m Fft-rVewjwrl. -H�eh counlev Club clubboum / Ye ffl,s ImpmVeamow P xv vc; c in shlv Ci vo c} F N', ew. po Kc Ekmk r hS%7p nleg 14 a rin: an d- A ms. I'm -; A ugm 1200 9. Oub.pDoJeck City of- , IMenorl Be-9mb, Uiibw=-g Gieawv-& .AW 8dttq; July 2-51 2009, 9- -�JPDES Tecbnicul Snuiv 14DE N7Cwp*-rL flk:-Ah CbU�f T Ckib MM3131ed- C0102alUniky M UE Plaw Ad2nm- Sulmrm GAII l4k. Mw la Phmsfi�j Zrnitoftimeahnedsuire Asstssm"i3 'NcwPom Btkh Cuum ry OXE5 PlMalled MV9Ctdn 7o.Dd Apil 5, j 1. i3euvechnicahitc a For Ch coupul, out�, GM tj GCOEELkakal 1 �2ma 'PC AvqMt A. Mdl Rip I o94 E2 tenossmdums:'Retmcd Preln ®in9ry fiebueshn l T)e%rgaPu —m e:eec s for the NTBCC PlmnnedGaLmmun ;vj,. NwponRcach, CouturyClub , Gcmaechoic- A:Pnc.,Apa'IIr fi 0. City. OF vp0rl -BeaCGcmdrallIx!k.'jkd 23,NJOG W. City o7 F i 1vgpbst Bc! ;b P ,,R Coasa2t Pliogrtn Coasna l �rul lPr. PLhn Fehn ucv �, �9G?9 115. 0w o Mcwpon Beach Zoning Code, Title -Q 16. sty 012 - cwport Bench Poky K -3, Tmpkamen niou Prracedune3 Care tlsc Caliiocniu Eaivitcnrnrwml Qt ry mot 17. Ow ar, Nr-,-appoxi acurb. Manaing C:omiaLL -sea Staff R"c!T, dligunt 4, 2,011, Aw drh C428tt. ?' �NLAVPaaa Lcurh.C�unnyr Juh (d'AM -5-1 0) 18. C=irr ®C [v'ccapara Beach. Elannin 8 Gmrrorm 453io7s Sta's'i ".R €asorr, Augusc =4; ?>al l_, Agenda :l'tFina. Na' wpori: Beacb, Covnm Club (PA2DOS I5 ¢al,ird oLLli,;:° u , seal Ila The p:ojeci €iqe was coaducrcd on " =9 2M P. Elie am�lgses i� dhe 3a, is a7assc+d' im several aspesl^t. 'i4ie Ci2}° altou?d, scq'uerc olaat an �uiuiroarnenc�9, I:mpacr �teprrLt OUR) he psepated to ik-e un; ll` gs7ZU ate thg. FUR 'hrs Of pMjcec impacts, coaeCdV =1211, ,3e cuunrUlative efteets, nmxl c1aJuxte p3'.naf ¢t aluernat va& The gtaeel a.-xas of cmncemi am ntmanamaed bdo%%t and then shburucd oin or_k . oehes,sgeuoirs aFrhus Ic� ecpolm I.° fL"1?r:CQNRS '`` �T=:1UACCURACIESS W'THE P OJECr bRSCktJJ3'!l0:Lw The 1?sojecr ©pion i5, aot co aivftrt th -m goon It IS mad she rechaical stvs3er Wiid oUL a sensratent prejecsscegr5to° nh,i' a oo,;the a3n1} is is gmesimnohls. For aamfiPsl On psgit 2 of time 15, the p*uje4t itl+s--.npE*o ass se 2tes* thr spalflutes center with lbe Au ugaloawa, lmpl iug Lbnv the spf15- less eeaw Ess auAciElaag to ahe sacadoa bume uuv;ra, .Paltc 7 Of the TMfflhc RIMA, Raelrt ;E'.urriun,simn report (1 - ina9cy- 1-lrnan and - tisaneuartss Ilnu $ugus[ ryY7N) odep:€iiEius, a 9p't ssswintod: wish dhe.uentue dub. Vt-. PmaeEn 3LnA.v*j's (➢;2M :9% urns° Lne, Angwr 20, -21008) su MT has tEse ficoe a centrs uvuCsl Ls a4oilabfe ios „R.by member and guests of tlite'BungslowIs mad tcnrn ; dulb aaessaltem . s tii caas lctn of mposed,:liapma rruenos an page 2,of the IS Ptoiccr mcscdpdota iia.ci des. `Mw kw rarrra -id; rrr�A;r�(rurs3'.'fir"e ',. "nC p'ati�q,d' 'grs+s �tltrrti;Fte_s s 38034 srit:uue toot.duning room amid 3'56'7 squ-u Fetsc ®C bamyvet. apace ro be lrcamd an: elite guEi` ciabhoatsc Them Faaa�rtees would S{r�• Msdenm o'.I': Lh,e: Vi Is,s, ike $wleows, and members v'r tlzc tenims ch;ib Tkte'facehr"'xVO J ilser be m-.-Jileble ,foe !pt T Ww a vary *0rMMd h nSdf p: rMber.°° A su :h, I:be. brkrLg4 et `CVgnr,9pn s6? � a seFnr�aX. use Pa the $Ids and it us utnclv;ai "whrthvi: this u e iu the sarssz- m .11, °'m ae�w usag rho rtdng M4ru' Bhe �s5 L7 Yccltn t�9 5cudv TUfC easee5 .4p 4trn ci +t� `ur tv��a; rrauaasi t stvrag exd errohusur4urcN estwax Theme uses ate nos, addt°sasei Fn utke 15 Ptol'icr i5t°se;9po7n :and, thewlami, atrr coot: adcgrrauelly :cud nated':hi t ha .rnsp }`ySi.mt crsui.roaracnud cffccu. P'E.; SD aI the 1S : ndudtis: a ,tafriznoe rhwe rate project eequLw an amuendtaeni io the, ,Lanes Use 4, Y bkmtni, m:r' Li be.. G-eoata] 1?lulm. Flov.'r�rer rlsc plan aaaeadmen:t,.la.moc d'P,scviaeai in shy€: PrOjcsL s3ap2'o!u 4F the -CS,. 'nZ dct2i,13, 414 &tSC" psol,eo9' F[:In;7S1^�7e:arrA a9scanal. -in evalunfiRg Ilnl:]BG&': ionvam, paraculJLI_N'Lbuse .p4atgd to tr;tf<t:, paekiiag, autrJl aia•gualics- t kz t W- dao cemery _Guns UPA 2tons =i':1,1 F+:- -av��mdj'�SJ�rfK�:ti3'.�°oY -a.. d3r3tnmsa �# :9mc'sd'7',ra4ia':F�emL,lSrxd'v H'u5Imt S, MI I Pj7q ;2 o9 s 2 F! m Goff EBtalt^p rrrritl m nd 1»i 4 atit,a9 S3;rp Ousbs arr eat. p¢mpo uug p¢ajecrs E6¢ the !loon Bk-tch Cuun y Clnb'sim- - rheughl dw-m urt same. paakntisd 0311bcta'bcrveeo the proposed projeets,'bo;h pcojxcts toult! lie built NAdi tmiiiox ad"iatstt¢tettts. The it'9ND has Wed to smsdy the en€abfricd ertwi9lturMlenttal elTet:is of busldimyr both pso[ec?s: Elie MW1 - -4 ftlt ttbe pArbliir is.not imformEd nbous the terse re33u.3Q=xmmJ :impacts of ¢he ;:Nmvpam Beach Counray Club prgjrcf ated'thc x*++h�+L.J°' utmdcastnts'dtc 6mi pinla Eha ovamdl projecr. Numbly, ihc,smgr - Cparsvupports the City irtruaig mpp¢ovah d=c wmdd almm.,boa h C�flf _Byh9py;ptim¢'a rand imcernw:ti:alnaC.: &ag c'.1w6i''.peu_pmvd p.Qjmtit w':be bmAt; S'lccordimg Ito the stm¢i L.. G .,9�:rF taean rsv do z prvj st thm its larger than ehhe¢ Gaff Si;AEF S'andss i)fTnffgw,,E 6�i1.1�ay o =Pubs` p¢4z'pascd. prmkics nrd gSsmt on -Sat st them was�oa ed n'the \L 17. Coessidedng both ibe, G6W Siealmr p¢ojeccsmd . far Lr ema'doaal Barr Clubs' pffojmt.'the resufr.atouW he dtc aonstmscdoa of the ronowing elensen= + a'teamiscaawnx:,, 3'.7 -9� sy ,:ee root'. tennis citibbtiumc; a' , y' silla�e�aea�9�Famals :,�caid!m¢ts)I', e' �hung�floewl,(bo[el:nsnlrs} t bOeinsh. f+ ±ch a prajert' Ihns nor been Emditd 6i ehe l',ftW-f], nn:. az oot bT,, p.pnbvtd u:ndea dh exivgng e& Zyna ;f this � noa s:iaff's prcrmmi alttfmrive, the ovrnM projects (com pining. Golf Acsiltilr Srumd`s mnd tu,, memiovr- al.,Bay Clubs''propmsals) nv:cds to be studied togedhes'i¢s s sinjp4:. ETA :sa dat she p¢ojecc% tavice imvpacrs nae clearly disslavrtl to efac;p,s lie ;trvtl,nor undessitgred.. " ` ltk - # I5p,fd' 6ff.ff%lfl]Y ilT r:a' NA mr_ G2iaiJ;14. 9!Ch 1.1 4 ,SRS' "[¢GCia¢m.eilda ®mn t5 to adnlA'�fe' d11� d§r�P7 oT f1srP 1'ntlr EIR is ,mcquLcdl m a alu ng projcrt ahemvat vm mfgxcq.idie NIIND mnllot: be t!doptled fu+¢ the pTokc5. umd am 'Lm musr 6e pvepwred thnr C'eldumtes p¢mjecs 211'r �a� auch that she d+vAavion ®alpm Sias the amproprimte envrlmmtpmr� l dOmment oe witch 6o imse itsAts"ssian- md,deeigIoc ts: N11 1`v,C CUitfV;LATIVE 9iui -AC—Ea -AN AI- -S0S SI mlL- dy, Q9W MND has :no susalyses,, of rrialm ivc gn piety. 7ltri3 is a pn reculnrly egregious emt+c tsmd;ea CEQ-dL v hvAe, gas, he-M there we Ira"a proposed prajeces tsar nee puts or tae same ovmao pm, Qf'i'daems Asm tuff SMs36 e D evdopt elw of Bishop A= , v. Goun t' f7nm 9851 t r? cfbtpid 15, OGf a Mo¢eonec, thcite ue other &vdo,pmirnc pvspWms in p,rosdemih to *G&rRe.rlT,, Fwid's'pfroposedl pamjee2 �Gollf Leahy Fund's - jimpoiid project cmdd c.mnmbULe is emmuSurive gaup M.$ Wi0a clnese othst'n¢cpoge3 I?nal :ts, tv:r:a ie, r 3y3 xmi hav e it, awUr dr;rece: ut»nimtm n NN-13 dDes mot &c dte Ciq mid he pliillc ad a�tw Ca tit: oa�stiom to tress tatelF 9[csSay ue4s ptojeces COMMItUtion to ¢wrmulsmee r�sv;zt]tEev os'ina .nt{spects. ,hilt rite MU ND Frm,=; 2!ddmcs ItbeAvLwdmto¢y:Fiadhmgs of $IgtsiP,�ote s�a,rtkpyts to CEQ1e9 fl' daL check6t he-Eu X7ML. b) _ Mwa rtLrrt4na4a uaua:,rug5eatr thu8eue r. da ,fur tveu r1 &I rw rv12taaep 't rarrf,+raraka- �r�nmot he suppocacd ms die diseiisson. otr die 1�,oatadl SdsitX oc dte tecfmvcal r�eporis.. Their@ in _a rr3asfsnulifu 1ikdliliood that, when cuntuideriebl with dut cFf)"is of pass p':rnj.Wts+ Ihe_ c5cc s. jof cut i ptespos Ss„ m_n 1. the LlTecfff of Vldb blk famvrr p¢oj;eets Golf Rory Fund's propmud pnojecr Vim have l a Lmm ee OF .sig,,liema emnuin.ti:ve'impsets, Unfonunatelp, the Onr hJ4 am¢ pg@ -mAdW w$eq�iitrm iafosmmrigm Fos' apse pol4lir ID asstss th"r� Bus if is huh 4t cfy that. idle project carsld Imve sihnu!Ctcane cw ®ularifz impacts ichted to cm f 'v hid use loss of zecc�amtr�wl :Faris ocs. v sual impacas, warca qu2lli ty, smsl noiw- The C3iy vnuuf study iSuc'.Ptajcr['sctiubwlatiise irn:lracCe an ri1S,'.nr�,au¢ce a¢�s in.an cmd¢onrmr»ml..un +pat"?,;,��j.; F1urnatarl.0eaz iG'antdry L^Irb fPi MFa14) ALSR 4,1011 paw 5 o9 o w Na- uibly,, dhe Outs AT. qu'A'rp eoasmlLrart acatia;9s cEd find thait uh c pr_oket Enuses� n . siguLl =L carmt:dative i npnt xchtod to ais q= iir°, "Because of the 61:10 status of ibe air bns4 consmnaction mc6vity dusremLssions rsue eonsidered to bW%- .,m K,wmttelarstimly 5igTd'f1'r3rut,imgpse2°' Q1P. SD of-Aii QvAvy ;U,Ldyiis.] Omrtmo, thftL the prgecr. is known, to h Lvc sigm f c=- T cumvlaniva impacts fv r an qu ;lri W, IT 'Ls ;c1CU3ibem[ oo the CEry ita mWAlae the Pllt 3tCt f669 Other pOti2 ndnl rumuladV,e',immacts.. 4.- 'L1 iti1OF PRO] 'ECT ".i;+,TNA Techmk2l swdict prepared For sloe pToG r uuadepesairmare ahe prcaeces potemr61 trnp2crs, by iglnm�ug 4crmin ��aut_c of 6. p5F,wid. paojccr: P•ar es=pla<,iu rhexe.Oiii'ng•space dut could 'be used for 7 c rems a,:rd, thermrom,gi-netare LrufSc mad padurr, ncca'c,'t - saarap-en m Tmiffic, mad Parkntig Evnlumdou? HOW ° will the bamquet and c�jemr spates b,; ubd m th.cia ,un fic and paiitirlg needs mssaa�st�l u wwrm inenos, Kohl r lfimics, awk /or eilttea6oa stmiams imd m+mt cmFFc and pat_hing nr,p rend wtuud I. when all. i61cl des: are Used at the snmc timiel €C'IIFIC COMMENTS.- INITIAL STUDY r/' IT1GATED Ihd €DATIVE DECLARATION PRDJ T DF5CJ T,1w IC The P4c aeet Descdp6aaa Leeks suffiriemi dcmil to undmt —ind a1ie Gpto *'s design fgtusfes, sate flea; gm,. and aminirccm "�_ 1YJIdle dw- psrnjleen IDcscd -P-6p s emelarrfey paoject sradsiics-and phas4, it dbes twt irocllj' des*!optna,te,.'IilrCVto a�tphs. of xemoring on' nhr I`uneuc n�-trigs: In Fact,. the Only wflubir3. ML -lave ua pi,rmjemt dcSi iaiclmsdua 64 the ProjeGx Deezfipiou aae: those shvu6v[ 111e projeex pressing sped pmpa d. <eudiee'p'�6= ddieiaw ly, Elie dcxdpdom of ¢he prbpbecd praject is rrot. enarsstertr ¢hinnarghltrr rlae IS ant➢ in, rt reehaiesl stud". rar e_eamp]e„ a an page 1, csch? des Q�,c }, the m2m7mwm:lhr4ha cE drSaif clubhoesc presented In Avis pm.mGr2,vh is 53a feet: Havv=wcr, Table 0 `I,paF 4)'. dentiGes the max'irmtan Iteighu Y 30 iCeail; Tli2 7TSt}acst T��s�iQ}rx}a7 ��,r21'�es a spsf G;rszss area The f5 refers cim a geiesa aeiite�xeis�t~alie -ce„ �dv5. pywoecr e0po Bair sypcac+ to 6s descalaeri as a. spa, The Pm¢king Supply ,n4Wsalfyi3 m1ttS to m lusal°, hownTr , the Ploleei D dscaipdcn does not rmcwla"ou i, dial_ TFie. Land Rfsc :discussion (pagz 100 of di+; LS) eefeewxes a. POat .'dnncudmC1111; howvv'er, rhx Pini er Desct piion don, nm inalud'c a plum rk;mendunent as, one of r c pimim acttiorrs. ThAke Locansismadms wake it diffirli r are, review the TS and re< k nizal smdirs �mrl 'a�I,iraSi i�,�,d ruaidc°S�a,rtl p pje�r. iro.,pachs. famotrSi3cemaSeS�sliOil ISc:. mceeral 1llet7ptt00ur 6t. dI]�iao4Tl4t5r:, The mhadom of 'impacts relad vc, to America lazdm aim mnalvsis avo. the', pcoijeceii design Fc!Mmics maid mchibmmre. nvd ha:ee those wall. fit MM rite !sunr,oundirtg; mmmumiiyr and n.ia.iiriptrsnUe w dvar€tntne'. ( rlrjc pnij@c:,woullJ a6e cxl dazvisual ch cicc ®f the site zPd it sxnat wirtli gs Th fr,copowd pmelper ianeluazs s Ike hvrgding Cdmr, gaff ccaearg4 e_1.111httt- ihrrc. wRI 6z up ro 30lrcei tall sad, mpp*wrr nidy I I iOOisguare Fect :Lim lati inggaasd+?gibU l 61g Iz; 1 razlnd,s.?.r 11CWborz0 mains and iuvc amet<<suegle- Faaada housingmuLts. These u ;m;mO: siginficneadalissuors in a p�aj c 'sire with a lowd4ggrpw of develmpomemc Tibc yesrhemcs',ruf the prpjece site. aad �suraoundine,, eetnraiamity win $c. gtsb -q"11 all,p rd!tzrod. The pwwpoacd lm-n _L'smni eg cte110 rake riime co amine and to sofrer,'tEm ARie+ %. The ptl�e cr. Will rt:sulL in n, more &MstI y dsuplgp=d Cp umar i=hmb E.VbiCh'%VM reSoUA! an. rViuCt og in The xe"stlre®e lgvaky uEhhe mesa. Tcn8 n opc n9leiui c o io�c }pgmRs dsc ,_a. 9he zadEeux a in, e. ri at ncc nw.nbcr or to rrS counits aa0 ¢kereFsirc open splice, ull null° ftrad die as ak tics of st.z meet, �t m rJ'hermtnlm imn nilen should bt cv -Amid Oryc opens up Idi.c; wauss aril pQ6videa wi :tra c0&idarsr'rhmughrhe ppicei sirwhs to ihsg Which; occuts xnith the cir .zing t m6 eourpt ..i.0 EFR rg.,rcgvimd rm address PMn Mt .sit mm-n.,aessuch az ibis: Now aft Reath Cmiutiy0I 0A,M5 -tq.. 1�, �j,+aMf�tiprnrvrc,:&c1".ur••a samEwf anplxzuf Ai gac:l -d. = I NdgJ C 09/ 101 The NV ID floes our euc9ueie view iiamladcons %voth the inirihl, and .mantre bndsca;:ari& so Chic public and aLc C1¢v laak nderyuatg i:nram�:�.rida. eta ass¢S± the gmyten's ItAl ertic impacts rye pite tliia OF lint'ofaIndcn, the likelihood that the projerr ;m-i. black or obstrurm semsilive, vicws cmmcror be determtined. wiihi InFori a:don praacil in ibe IND. and iris liikely ihm the pim"ject WM h9 2 a si ' _&M it:e?lpast zun die V1r%vslred.. +iccrrsrl9ngh„ the Gq, muestprrpare an BI.R ftr' e�scais rully an=il,pgdm il p jgi;t'3 i.np k2ts afti nerhe�'tics.amd comauornemr cluaracter. Am Ql3AiIl:fT3c page 12 of ncc .Air Qumliw AnaCVSis,(G4oux & xlssxi:u:cs uk? 23, WM saaia! "cvr, mumieu Lv1dab4Wvt ar taaax an ,UiAf.'md to bars a h,;t "' Recmuise the 5oDul Call Au Olin 6 aon- 01MIArn010t 1olr ppd io' dye Her gu!ft smrur$y'eseayt<es else ".. n a n¢eaGect Las a sigi:Eicarei eunv,wbldve impsct: onm uu its I?htl!!D emisdaim dell bel'aw 5a mh Coasi .1ix Qmab:tyr 'Alnnrgzmeat¢ Lrisi&es emil d reshdrils. The - mro¢m, the piol has to ignificanc 'minubtisto rn;pct on Mil Akn1 n.'"411-01ea9 PM114 emiissiwms will m ®&x -ik=dy u=ccelalablc RN''110 This is me evim. Efuutigaaiom aerluceg t'l P?kf:lJU iv ssiow From im:he project, It is am ell ts,dv die i%-RNTl nor adopt rlse saafle earlclus on us tbz -aie qualiry-ymdy a n the 'It may be that rh2, .N4 R!lD lls� making a "de minim &AL— g, which, is mtueeegcsble Lands¢ CEQ & 'nt mr quality sntdy'sr condusimta dal Lhc ptanperi' fiaa al onrmmlStiive: impaace. rclaied ru PP ll) is rmbslt t dl eviden+x seeppor yni n au atgprm = !r' t€aet 014, pmjcct rnn,} Kl,vc Si ol6Ckavr: n.]l Kt '47aerel°n,rr� a)fe die }^ emws¢ pry: aze Mn enti iiPam ILA wn n,c[ Mpg 11 for die ,paeijecL. The YN€7 brwhw a'de impticrLs km sen�i;see rmeepr? ?rt.'1i is �� ilyar 4mntor temtns pits€as orlrtv�¢ p6eis tssc Am Caunu)- Club f uili a mdl 'would Fie LxWed to vadou+s aar polL'o=LS t%u>sa% ca7,nsrnvet lom IrpzCW eY 3emsipsre rompror3 alse o.W: thgc came, be in sn mvliv_natsell iimpnxi rasporL �4. >ig,rOLGGrilR€SOURCES In sonduci ml a. teviirw of uhe euvilummm Eir211 Owl a;;socilikd mabi lla rox thin Irewpal 13e h Catarrrry,' Club prpjeet, a.site v ^ t r s eanGlsaCrel Tbc ponipr;nyr pclvdes warl rtaarrene trresr'5,enme of whkL will fly be remtmrcpl Ea mWaw rot the el prc�l tvl9:rurm Frees p.sasaiel`c raesdag appornmulsies for miguumnry birds and ah6x ovid eardismba trc may cause a s nuicaot ameumeumenmr3 impacL"I"hicCity ouldmnalpzr'tl1Llll;pae ®.tW. imparts, mt ieravironnamwdmmpactrepo ¢: for iFieprma m. GREF —MMO 'SE GAS ENITS541ONS, Pyge Gll statese "'1lnttrse bcF Nra,� Pmfta oxFi'ge"mde�e"srr C,IJLG' eeeEjuel rdrun, a tv'&ffewed msder rtO&s g easy anexrtaral.mebtirrevi ... v.r tae be , J101tj S&P xa,ifr aV Wobal t f amaue ban�a j f� rr�o li aEr�� aau� de 6rt a:fir¢d G -,a4f 6f p,FrrawmjProw jvg'n f bmu a r�a?femP1' it�xc aaoW rfimaxe r5°xe,ryr: P1 7.his.staitermrnk mny nt'r lye mtr . zjj ¢toad baba,, dhe i %'D appvm to a —. yory. wjF:�6will; -indl unrnlauac 30.1mpdmas ith+amr the rnDUrxnls:>: ,a,r raps the eA#1 tanaaL coulu peodorim (td.gs. ge�tf, inv� a5�f the= patYjeer's g¢menboutse. gov_-s�. A move. amssesmmm OF traffic irlam, Ehou4 ibaa Ihc pmkui: el motc gteenhol psev ibam.`ihE ermsanq dwOopament. Siemil'adw, m narrcti'mgiSCEt illi&G-=033t a!'dot plropt>s d jpmr ece°s;t¢afEtc. may show uhe praym¢i's o'.tlo:et nit gtra9i'.tti imy acm are; worse ihm The iaill descm'}ies. pL5e5rr t1••I �p9�r> ,�@�0111d l Snapp. on on rWi(r9'.nRntmernl' iera�3!�SS -r 114i� Stage 62 ine@uc1es a &=ziop l 2pee'uladan: nid CEQk G ^uidtlines Section 1 .5145- The nse of ypecdbdoro as y vq do tta5an, nwayIG140 cal is.oetappropaalle_ Global t mull cLage is now _a +cvrzed as a. _rvAI y. nand tae man en in Gal'j.13— mras eoarrt-ihuue :rc'voomeming l ClEree s of timbal r limam chuape- P;"atta�arti 6`ear:h �Cdnul7jr nth 1PA 2LI@�3�1 Augpaq a, 20-o pme 5 o9 2 13 14 Tt7s b„sd. u� miisepskik i &_rates ahar ,ihx PC Msrurc- replittions *aril tlaatn mttnu �'hekhr W1WUum 5 -fCCL 11c, psojece is,aoconsismar tivmb Elie draft rcpal d n an that W rr of i`.RUrem kc�yltr, as% - Eesle ]tirrwx see, the 9Ss•ta ri crass whedurr rhu c ts¢c�snee ssi f« K1ta mer lgs 1, a. suefica�r 9anpza,rJs os z'i� End >ASz arc -jtsnca®cs.. - - 7he Ltud Usc diecu3sion slam reliFo on 'r-hls e€ttelumFtarir: Of 19112 YMOIC nerd l a ltin Lmaalmadom.an.d, the Uleupoin Bey . Cotanemjt r lsob park -11S Suppl# ,d,iukg s (SSA, A %-Us!: .EOr. 2008),. ks prz,,Onted be@6w, abesc Owd,y.9" ate ne:wed nod in vaced of trvisioas. 911: pwposed 'msunsFer a:%'developmmema iigli a.. wonM viol'aale. the OtVs 7aling Cade d-he. Cid's oning Code -Lot's -a melee a,F,desdsapmmm nt n btt.1l tr.,nW fe ufflr:rsted coadi®Inms afe MEL :timang Those cvddsa<ora.^, ass uhnt rlis awne t: ti the "c nsiecoe sire al use emtci i is a lags©}` bias a,grcz —m— c= thmmi is mev- aaalcd sg nuiSvits pffOpeap,°. Lnpl. dtissmances, A covenmetr Dr aahcn &amoebic, lt;Ol e binding agaemlerit shall, be eecoeded agpnttst alit deetcasod site assurdng; that mli:of the almlove aOrl±e[,rlt3nCnW 10W be rater by be canene and fpn ue pmpertp awae-m City of,Newpoan. $i'u'ath N-FuniciTH o� S 294U.60 (€tdnpaed Niov�ber' 1'998). � le$p:11� bia'd1,F, citnnw . be ;cODeded ngAnsa, die awskmft p,topexrg u�ithoua, iaat cousemt'. `IltiS aeaaaom -of *lie rmrm „g E — aegtdJ+°es - -- Gry zfl minks- ad4]iaiamnl, , Mffc. 5alp°ng befaata F?pu7uilsg m, a mrmsiec a deweDopanept dglir Sl,aail d-v.: t?t'o - pmoleea tcgvdms 9 Ge,negml. .Phil annentlmtmt mod, Tao iling C do am=dma t co re'.Flf2c6 the rMo ttOFarverop leiatisruensiry ham gruvmmk 43 46 Anornal ,l 'The ;4{L> D data .oa'.tanah -ze any, of ib9c agq,a 6p— "-mts.. 1C as .k appen . e.91e City is aria going to requime rarsaeao:.t pa0m11 ens oWMLT a tll3`e m,=� ns�,Fc su12,., is n,ot gaiaig io eetlydse -u G-C t,aall 'FI�a1 amemi`4L'rn�e'.n • and Zoning Coda: alraenidrmtene, Pied: `ms mt @t gang, to rnalke dIe mqtmired imadings, Ibis will base s- offidanm hrn1d mow. immpbotdorw. `Nfmt i oi.ad3mtrCy, rhssm oequim mmemas ash desigat -d to mimirni3e bad nee cbanRkii' &Orn ' —=SfkT at dC' clop•iHmcnt i9O3iE TF :dine 'City dcies nou Eelln`w may lawn prodedkire3° r the, Lmnslrer .LavoIN -0 'u-i ,. rhas pmaeposysd paalca caamld .halts h.nd Imes -Mpaso. Nil- 11INF5 MOT. ;.NL rrtina_ly, by. ppv w,ua this.pmimci. word irs proposed a s:udc of dCvphl pm nff Aghcsi,'dio Cie; would bt mtdug,m preredema. '1'The Cimy Wsrtdd be saJUS Lhot ant' lmmfe -r d- cMaprmeai lines -nsi: Y¢oma o¢hcr� landrovinsirs txdtlaamt Follawlung die Xquilm=CnEst a F tat' Geaeen9 I?lmn and Zoning Cjo& `Phis pressdeur would have rvidL.±na&& kegcly t one irnpsct_'`rhtatigbb ur she C.atco n plmmung'Ind Lend use Lap-Es. ladecd, them it no mrasna,, ror the Cetuio ta^?cm cupZc. in - nosrrmg if :nil. view paremmitml diw.rlropmeou. ii�uam=iay as "LlaM64, Ond able. 10'1512 rg nsrea ,,Ld .vIrl-,anvr ful0ocsriamg, the Gomtl'33'g Cade and General plea, 'M C ty ,slauorvld gtmsu'} ties a rsp_ae9s of IMF pnapwd, =sfer [Fom'rllmis 'pmepect,,md .For the pmsse-l.nvk' semi 6 un El1i_ d. NOME ,Issu. quu't-ron h) ad.A- messes she: paveasdal F©r' exceesivc gro rl nd vikvviar rile tna isc Ravrin, meal concludes ahai li=re wvudd he nn.sigruficsum: npuc€s Un&r the Nut gins zmsiaeip, dettoliaon &ad: 'raosmwc'dan wroadd acctmx 3vi.maarJm penn ,d. assvr%"g chat. ull. watk,ma horlm rlbe,&,a9f dub and itn,nis corursuVuld gccuc', concuatntiv. 6Sfarxt,e s l itic sour c end enost-ruemaa could rake 80 niod", Lf work is dorse Upars Ely pt lilt: ga9f equb ailed tceaals club, In addiaian, the pmjp ,. raiun]ves LU m= of a tv[Ir Crt,a9 )rI , svlikb: wal e-xulh 3splurlu I.Ral oihee'. atdr for m5e. in 'thv, ['.ivdl;4pmuemr oe the Omposed'..pmajecr_ iGnen aline plu,plece.s pxaptmsed demmoSdan and consurni aaou nch.vaia;s lamed dh@ it ilpn Olar rlpose acrividrg co dd acrid, it h gvcsdrnable Thar. impa,cis atrkklve to gmm Ond bourse w,ibmden avd :naese would be less iham s`.Wii=i�'und would auua. least; mequutg aui..tigwiiAlm. Tlr:L� O.oudd lit muihed in un,EM ':u'aurylola.8+2ocA,C [ xru9y Club SPA Xa&1 ;0 �m.yidzr= 7.$mx}i�P�tr}� i°�rrzre. dtudir�o 8.at.�red���f:.tr�in'dt�i' .ls4tau?l ^d..,?�t.1 pagn 6. Is RCCj7 )✓h'C9 C7l�x 11ac trntyiect 6 m,rcccamsisieuc etxmh'tlwe G:emer.�1 lblmw pacca�emaiaea �emaaett. :f9etc361?Frient ol'nke'BwaayaMlgv^s u t911eac1 ev due ;oc1Er dos! of nctive ilrcm' 0112) QW-4 apace through idle demoGtiom or h7 rearms coars. 1 he `i %?oct leach Ges eend plus 131 'psgc r anodes 3 ds3vapdom 4P dtc GLc 's reee�xsas+mal F;Latl d €s and. C3wap6 among those Xsxdfitie aC€ ,,ceeeaaoaeal u2K& 3cadav up?Eqare. Xst>�3ne� tnc3udea,g gacht cl'vf,s1 gpff.mumsts arad c4unaq clubsrt�mcalco E�rulitis - abnarseas c mesdettes of Ngkv yast 8e�c4 =" Fhe (eancad Plan at �p3ge g t l dixussas de aecacmd rnal ia.€taes and rueu's tc ahe ntiets•paprt Beach .rr M�muni.r =. `D'aae setaibat nptcs a$tLLg ,1(ulither idermadied facali¢} Paeds isiclude i6ft?= and pedcst¢ian trntls. Lhwd hmmus gt nnq dog patf, , mt l ©tsl`hl_ac c :3 , gawdovLhi onge, public ramie Wxeaailhmll and edtteamtond ic1&17309t 1i4 puh7ic wcsttoo tes ''The Czaemd Plan li�� idcadfied a xzmazP�ve3ml mecd 'wy he comaemrunity roc tcnr45 Comm, oa(d .00;les that Petuaue faglK&s li lP to aers e. tine mecxesuanal u,a:mdls or 7ewpom 5mch [mmijk& The project uQM mesu9camn s reduaceam in 9+s¢ lab €P Of 0-hens eonats mvn@ab[t at the could' Dub. The dem.olidan nrth�� co�ts� 3s Eii:ely ab ShiXt the detm�:�ad Eor ;,�xnonia ttuua><space (toa�. 16 Casam¢fi I,�sh im, dte alrndr Fpurdemed pu3il c oee �vo®al Fatil aca in the Cray'. 4 bete.[§ , rcltr• ptaircc ON mWT.nm r'urth€rhaa•denste yag Placed ©m pubU �iccrcg .an] nacilitTes uhacly. gs caa,mat,°'oa t3ue aL "rciea in this L' m meat of, d arm Gemer',0 Pula, in pAjdan, Gnicu3 Ploom policy '.R L7 i(pw- A "M dmjmT@cEs abe C'rr)r ita coordinate [nub cravmans of PtINmre pa2ka to teeceamoxa Pmgm ws on PnWimir Prtmla@Srad WMAN pcifiq7 Il'.3 l �Pag•` '°sd mYinects dhc City to, �l3'ulme ae,m-C;at� teemcavaala d SAM and ope � space (e.g., 'N4wTOn-'stkvi �L1miiBiewi. Selcaal. Dismts, �cmuntu ,aa�l smte rjtMiesaj to supplrmemr dar park and, m'- rrradttata4 ntet9s tad he ccleeeraranity�: % 3aiettaaa3 ills uze n,f esasmaag shamed Faeldi!% nd exp old ohs we of non 41Y faui7idcsYameaLLiics mho ?z de:suoihte m4 fwsil s? Appcor l..'uf ¢h€ NomjEct u6tdd un3aeay??re the, abdky of the 'City twy caord im1te puabGe asa of aPae vela a cameue at t3ae Couor,[uyr Club which wou_7d be conm. m tile, U mcm-T V'Lsa pm1ac6°- `€:he ilMmm33 fails to ;utadyiae Mhesher die projeces reE6ava:l, of te<1tuis loins, will owctbu rd� ohEx ealtr;ns rourrs in ilhe Cky Givn!s xh€ large redv.cetpa �.ifl a4ML61$ wvae+ (17 csaras) it i5 P kr11� t3aac or�her nmasda cuaces widvin dite r:.ctP W11IJ face r,euch rrilctosd Vasa whi €h crould lead au th6r,martgr out act" neeslQ m lye erpayl emy or pressum fort additional, ¢enr+,u cotuas Sty be 1aalt ekmvbe Tut !Ciq =should imatpc ebc,pemjee?s i1mp ict'tca'rer.&A6raaa3 fncd3®m"m ran mL1VLDd asyom::ral iuslp:aes mpm .. q. 7'ld_&N�,SVO.L'Cs1nao \rm' FFLG 116 &5eumion 01, ca6Es im,pzcvs assadarad wuyh the ptxnject melp rim the €o.noht3i t rams the p.miesL,FoWd t �3t in less 1cps dwn ale jpn4mmd. b sx9smm,g dgVrjopuafmon tha peolecv.sitc. dial at>lp R. m st b3so •.iAuda w, ec,h@mmonn of the icaapsCV the pmoject"a: ©ps.hanp . au the s+aeaoun4'tg:rmu1m6aa aeswMlTala., TLL; mcas,€B "�y uv xms Xc,s haa€l trips amd m4ji 5 for MM17u drib. asell ,wag be vevY difXet um and cctsmc dt twtrz tit &minds on tfL, et eULj_us`o�i srstenar. buitil a deuikd �iEtt nyw3Fses it ornuplegcd, thtce ?s loot enough inlraaaaauon in the acg U*&d an which is 1rnaEa3ta:canclusifrn. 16' eaers�lata ,u rain t a manual. m e:LLhlish the aurabdr of u p5 'the �Slame9VCe, tier lG:, \7] ¢e1Lea B'n en@ �ffi. ver[1703 eaumrs cuetemdy,R ms, TIC WD did not 1e_eeasuae doe rips ge.ncmied Xaoau (be. Ecuu:13Ei Ouras,: mmn thot4i k YOU hwe 'been dray ao don and is Upkaf!'.. (how esrstteg tanke enmidue+„s•nre. earahtiuhei _ 'Given dma: he uenm s c,m5nu arm np'�[iasedill }1 anrulsxntediae�' (aid, tHu�1e nee 16eruag, �mlitsuneteta oC ssem like} that the tamp genematian Tam us d au esmiamate tLC Mmax genemi ;gd by thin rcaaias.cdans cyliegeratel she fds ithz ee meffi ac9aallF genetnte. Le tef.k: Il_vom site actvnas coumrs its 0vtres¢nrod, then the proyec& auaM d>i?pacts would be encicrssaud I dug jk4. D.. i irh.fR� DariniCmu.nv0.l (PIA 2 •141, r° Pez:- 1' Si> J' ;ti(+- �•�•+�rT"19reaalelLuSmsi Jr:SatLr'nlSl:..nr ti�ugust #_ Zq'7': Fogs Y 7 DD 17 'ills€ C.n}a n5:•ou t prm aagr nom EIR 16r the p¢b+( in, wLcb.,it shensures the enristiug uaffie Ihs_Riliac and tm.as shmr so tm iyTe eha; pwoj4;ges grn ac impacti- 'kifcrhmcrr su'•ch;aa adcquaEr base -q, tic prcjcces aemgsl impsucm an u niffie ire oiruknowa snd unkn.ownblc. Felat,xe' to ;he'. dns� 1�4OIOSt ou --- srzckl -3 ?fie uorl =. 'ragOM, yujndoo d), ¢he ;projects consumed rn srtiedmibM is emm indy long — 3f rmondts-ns- hese Ema n.nd,'$0 rrm -pnT6- ns WOTS 4we. %vah such a:l®n& ennnucmom.sclhcdalu,'.ir.'would seem dlami lo=rd mif c csritl.,'bt..enceurup'a'td foT-an cuended period .oftime. This should be addressed auder. Lhi: d:isctnsseoe: r_sr`unerm5ed lmaasds, - kLANOATORit D-- D.1'tGS- 47FSIGNTER•Cr!NICE As peereaue.2k tit 1 k , ki,c rSbc Lmompaiaueocecs. and lac, of amlysis la rhe. 15, wlikW.tcflueam rlae dercematia6an in alas APuldmopc: FsdinpoFSiWSUfic==. Fut cK nple, t adu issue question (j,. the 1jri: r:has tht 15 dfocs not address Tht ltmiIfirl' W dug: rttmrtere_. Ems provide- rressaayQ;ae+ems for r1mignumv laissls; leach to a concEmsion oa " Less dire ptai a -ear' ¢ is. auoe sup fsr e;crl,• .i:r the same dmue uhrct dse ',Proposed NlnVou,': Bu. -ich• C mkn rp' Club pco,jeci is bti% nmfumtrd for env mnm.c-aml eftieam. ? icnenperng, pwicce :. is rLlw being propo5edJ 4M a dlfiert:er mpplicm for thr golf. ritil., pr riidm of tla.e Priajecr site- Ths,r projter RMPpl 401[1gpl OO or tht a4sknkg onlf rhilihouisk and coosifocimm of a view; 8,011 dulbltaus.r' mdi air iMacv fineilimes:- ,rasuldng', : n 7L7,Q38 guar$- fees — more Ifoaim . IM4 id re a ref rdn yew 9Eelt hoitsr PmPpeaed br Golf EEealtx l umd:.Am LISRsEtopld'Is-p; -,-, id. char. .coeuidcas rhm a=am- alm:dve cif €cis b;am 2,E Wd rcn&' &uLJd. The Ciro �pproice j serrandomd 'Eby Clubs'r aomPCdDg'poq'Isd :Fqr' p 70&3$ $gM!yra fcwc;galf clubh owcnnd Golf Realty IFund's prcpostd,'ro eslsmad •ether uses aa. Else pm' jeci sires S PIECI:KC iCOh'ME9 3 — TECHNICAL S`fgJl[IES 1. .G?;;ge 5, Table: 2 — Pmj=- Nq GtuTCrsiuion =7afi1c 3 incipdss a tluautcefncadoe of uudite if,�oc-lnmd utirh the,ptojesc, bmsitd oa the,peopostd ekes. Hlowdvce.. A usLzo ltr@p+•4*W lot ehc pigl6m: are inor included in Ta11Pk1 Z Fcr esaenpk, tht,Projecu includes a r3moms warn mad -:.spa, (find 3u• -hups a pool). Fore; IE'E1- uu.tla re "n rkc0lpuT &c U)c-sc,3dpuieu to the 1S if'thcsc nee thee= scpnraae:•mscs,or oae Der my-) .y'„41,kl�pjdaa�llg,,.. 181 doe: pools s iaclswJt:s bmqucraat3 cvcinr spare and perhaps.a dieing emmm Tnmcmsociamd cut[h [lies= usas:k ri@I ,, °urtcludrA'in the Dvcmfl tmafSte aswmsmeaL Them uses -ace semumW fern orhOr a prCg b rl: fmr :the pfjcar and eou3dl gendrgis ,? aildiRon to the taps shvmu m ,m Tdble 2. A un FrEr rwmlgs'is shoild hs prtporred chat ar•eu aeela n illuaa s elk tirfiic r:ss=l-ned u ali, fiche' pmpo;sit pm,jrrt. 2- f!agrs 3 siaws,, "'Sl�;Sie,e,&vrd Nrxfery Bn74h Cawwrrw CA. rd"FTVfff, Aifi gumsrrr aiir 641 IMF e °ruff ynak 4Fv.fr tr r:tRan ;.dr =vin ng rdrar+k, .?ear rrF a15r'•attr, +n§ ar:ai t-ru of I& p .e,' a' ire" ir'�r €r va � &� :rNrra 'NAPS r,"r w rgu1au if [TWWWVs " Wifheua. an.,mmAysls Or imf°uc naipacoa bayed On thu t<[i9tlneffi, tKr�ndati6ms todiv fr.e.; n h5selinr ' I dcLifzd fuam: o,mdic- ground obscrvwdom). Li is mpogobkc ro alenermeeiv=if ex ru ge ECTRMd kir rhW',ps¢jrrr "Mum rmp.ese SUMC-,,~s51 igpmemcs and/or imv,r cmoos: If thrre; is elat ponEnmis1 Fme ramie Fsoru €tae P_aC+jse4 tie iimptLa already cleii emd apAw.a m, ward /o¢ :i m- TScrdans, sigrmrl' nca iii impmercr omwPd resom,- dssp_'ae tht proj.0 a =l9.tMd'Ir S 29 conUffbm®on. -A. ^LmE,aa mnal,ysis is .rtgLked Poe tF prajmL to de'tcrmnicerite,p ijec' yo maptluOntrriiEl- iesuusulmionisthc,PUU-FErarea,. 01 1 Pngp 7, lahlz s — °Ph6k: 3 den ifies ij+ g mqialrexpq nlr fQa alit pqo*, a', H&% - &eee Tablr 3 d'oe's iupc iocl`vo1r pas osB ferguiard: fmv Lanquc'ts tad oLtor t a3rn. b'aur Ft mare the amouunr of ' g rceluistid For the , 1Bmogalowrs 0 space per 'ueth, Plus the pmajecen IInJa eg needs. `T'Imr Mre Is aflCri,4k Fe3m 6'lut r51Irvuj on Bemr -h Covmrrca Buh'.Pnrs�,r -"rag Sup ply Aiml.vmk prmisWed by OA a+ugmt 20, i0mr A3se pn_rkieg StuE(ypl) °,;;ma -zis siares,'T'.lrrgrc(iiv aiia-fxm W—,W BriA� &1W kv- �i pirri( d F? vaaaeh -g emir&$' rn, idwreja "r fi G n r.ld s r tbw p:.n. ' ' j'f.w r." sic cgpallp li}t y sgrattip hs ukeriprtui: €s=a=ri _camay� cram � i. _n,z�3.i�1„ iRe��gTP�Sr�1�HWry,•iif aye �.i.`?,rrka: ?'�S:drma-�.2d S.�+fmf.Eias=mef3.�1m� P!a8i�l' 4,'.Fp�9 9 Page $ 701- that Camilics: or gmups %vo ld eons a ewo-bytltxv otn 'hy¢mocl mad aelu`ce in separame 'yehIclex, Mquiring 310010 aha,j orate pinJ¢'aa,, spice psE uFnit, AddikionalLv, itht Pmd'¢i6 S:ypfllp'StYLdy 1"um €s - Il the.'spa (fiRD €ss eec,Se4 aard.,pool owe. ra,ngnNoo COT Cie 10gggala vhv 3, who -AU al-o lK lac palkcd in snmccs to serve the Buetgrdvvvs. In rmlilr,,, t'bot - %h, ass stated to Litz Pi&miS Svppty --1 am Zr AQPaV-4 IIls]d ty t7mjwbm :avd Pima V -F & 0my1mr, bxd ,w n& be aft- 'Q7 membm uj dal Tele l Calk" a- INEr 9 mddri;8scs n pF,.drtng S'.!9ESO;e4P -�i7°at]s. El`ui? lAill'olll CoTram a Vh2i 4G'tl detivelry osa- Fiau.mll dhcmc nn di3o¢asSka of dic delays aa6 thna Im ng— mesas, How is dse pads°sng gwacaneeed? MdidoosTly, the reafr 24d d'V Evaluua!uau gams. that "for aJv qpt a Mal d far gefrYv,g,>yj emlrr dMmg r.l br'&rrra 4100 r; SLAM UVRE'd ra °aae Vdr,sarEn.g del Lb esll r5rPmh+* saw* a>T av �,)yfrsf perel y is 21 ArOvmlt Puvl_1tfmt{. meraPP&P sup YFmtegwirnr fa ¢n "dzrrra §af &,ALnUi ueea?e This irn p5m that chew, is ibc psi emtiaN fo¢ m ag¢niGcancpaakiag: mpact ¢}ntic u o dd be ¢n tea¢ ted tltrouzgh m Pq l4a¢yg limnagptnent Phan, HouaaLee, the IIS d'aes not indm& such a mit gmmion m Hatlme, ILmd 'there iR no ct so¢aevion. rebvve to the ; %litmenta of dho TMd„anap Morggemetit Mal 'Tbeavfo e. �6 impac - -rg hml the polml ta be sigviEcwr and aamuidgA el., 1, I sg$ sraros t9a6e '�aFY4fypr rYZxa r@ sf xr set sY or,dw COZN17 C&A vivo grorl exao, 6v by ,Ilarnk 4dAvo fl. ru, prxvralrJ rar. �v ,'a(an`±'e^,+Pftr�R�¢..�rwav�v; i��aaht��Pa •erd�ur;sd,r,�v�rrajGai rxwrdira 'ra?fs�aw'dsc.�raxeze�an ". �?d'hilkic 22 mmv he m¢ - tha.t mccrcad'Dnal activides assooamEd avida the pt apamed p®ojeca mm low' kes-, 64 tiry Ws Report should.indude -an evalumiiou nad. conzLason. ys� fm'. .Whctb:Ge'l lt¢`r.&s.cP��� tie8 g_ ea .caety:,5ig_mitlie�;rr�.r.risis€ kola '.iau itheau,:amst¢ti9iol;'. �ratvuonrntco't. 1.- f'mg€ t s,.d 3 �t aamwa t, sal parJdag itNuLtd fmm iba: ) angaloava (L space per tool p1Jtea raj ��ga 'uadcr ts,aiates the p aIleces pm rl.2nog :needs Thar El is 1563+,x911 On. Che��AAh�� vuan3Paan '4913 -r '°�Y ,fir r llf: ; .. 23 GV,I4�r8R.� .'agtAgfP'q --r X07 At imEYJiOtdalr 0 Ofi-T. Pbr �IXMUy �yefi IF /y�+frFRY PArI'?v- +¢' /a :4 hg' flxf D)T3W �' KF.gfi m ,rrt* li:dmAv" An egivally likely eoaaado is CFa¢ rrLM C9 Qa gn;oups Would t l m to Et-bedmoam •bunguto%l" n, nd -cdvl : in tq-trp re V'sh ideg ,'sr {;il mate titi35 o,tc pmk°¢ag, space per unit., - Ilu Pig Supply :4malf,<z, nssuanem nhdt "die, AP6i �FsCne:ss' rofitcrr) find P001 nife rrmCIliduS fas• 195e Bungalow ;guests, who a%I ahcatlly be pl�!cictl i i spabts i , lir :c the Butae, o%5. ' u Milky. dmugh,as, _ stated in tho Psckmg'Supplyr4n9Yy'zi;;, i° N -filmm --m i }rays enva uad 5j jvmmb a emijgnarrr mf sb. r 94,.d ar, ,dam LOU c"Ct±t eh OW It' en-rl tf & Tr,WW 25. 3, "P'Li.e Farkiz.&Sutpply7 r'4 L*J sis adtil csses �mhcm ra3ea that tine , dai`bed in *m''ps ]fciptiun oF't11€ IS. Yoe ciza page 3 of the Niking StWly iy rck- cG wPage z of Rho, snedy,att, s that dtc firml il unavld, be a:'flibic Ciaa nose byv n¢Lt-e km and g¢¢r -3m of dvfN Huang,,€+;, sand mentii3 club trieenbeisu and Cd'ailONS a 3,Q3 4 •sgo2tc .Coon, diming morn and 256-3 srynru€ ECee of lmmgue :.sl Dco Pp he jocimird a¢ the gol[clubhoul `pheme :rsicN8ag. �4A stimc: feWAtnn 0I1.dic 5l cbe �aEow.s ax-id eml of flit ilm-cl club: °She ru -Dudes vmll also he anrmhbCr, For ` r 'v ffera i?a�A°�? = �p'6����eralmr." 'Yhe C�YPd7�E5'Sesiem+,�V Setads .Pefs�€ass3'��m'F,rrr�" ansE "ra urupr,l'�reFte�,`�,? sarrr} rg. enafl`tarre"uaxh'aruf rerresvx" Oi' as unclear if tIse IT kLag Supply ina➢yr-s13 anPac p5¢es 179 o aE c se3 Adl tiooally; theom is no cl3scut3s brn a, 6 the ypatnadai padaua• locods if all PcopngePl Yaeeilea eli are in use at. One �e.m]d/0_r tP }u1'mLL't[ 111(5) a a9sn deZU.Ul 9, page axhiag, Supply Anallyal5 addvesues a ' amlaiaCg; oasemenr' wish cbe adjttl at Or-7pran m 1?Ir?A. _ ll ?esa•devclopasenr, which would pcowide 554, patKgg spaces qo be ua of on v+Qmftg aax,L= er"tlrP. led SR lr�r 2f and mxfemmaces Ye.,W ill and {r g rrirr k. Therm is no aaal.v2 as aa) tl the IdILI;[ oval 334' spaces umopl'�l..ada_r�uae�n7 ll: Y e nmv addudomd pnckiog ndi3tl�s 'fpc alit ptajecc, ±Sddtua�haMy. ¢he= 2m no +:fit =ir aCa,;,pmtc Q,Mir#.v cat„my ct�, t�.Ft �B9s'im1 Rene -arcf 7u�•.P52�f�!�- a5- 1,�5 "r,�,¢i`.a Tcr�inoi.+a :e? �9naarlr� � r�`�Y.l� ?e�",q Pa1g-I, [st i. 2491 (Page 9i 702 eltmc eveibu, ae the Nci wp . g Ticaeh Caumq Clumb *bush -rnagh r UUr addinoaal parJdag'uranaK In .E r% be kum ocd co erosamuytr awktark,,, artd lkrfii Vx Nelrlhcr mba Nikia Supply r'emrdgsis woe the IS c'epLma hpa, Lhe parking un=kgcmcLu tiAth CorpomeR :Piva West is Implemented for die prtgpecr and v. ut My ire talc <;ement ahese �s is the Least 1eeogeralt,10$ 11-hcxf4ms, it is Limppsalrritdte IV assunk than adequaic p c-k ng•'tinul lot vrvuilshle, sad z paimnizily si mAcaac hmpaer-asiq4Eed wah pu 9 wvufdl mae,lt faorua flip Paojccl., Pf-L1413a'; SNRFT ON-.�l 7- — S;IT.C_l^afiE -MM f:l` ple?ge I,' Fn%im- mmen9all Sue Asscssmeor is "hawed Ofl ',6r.' }7h�aped radfinef4 earn. ar rl s1'�reon..I?' I. Ii?d ccndudes, eenw fmahrr +naesg, ran 66 w-v mnir..4 or ddri !amp" However, ehe 'project ',pm,1Msed as ,f uiltc ¢adon of uses, on rho pepjeee aide- iP slue¢eiacal]} stMted iru the Phase I L'micrnaanmamap Suac Ian •caci�ati+yn, "''Strd raavp q 4mm,.Y 6a. :iia+prsaw&.j&dpFipr as rurr rarfriv %,{MCmf of &,ru6fe €pnpgav' Thererole,. Wit' MMis,g,:sfumuld be caomlurmdi, s new PhssL.1. hum Awarunr!rcnar shou<)d be prypased, EEnd alt `f `sh j-lel! L* iu -iscd ea dacumtnr else iundings Of Ohe rsew Phase: 'I €al5D nxci„ nr1 Sits As!am ucsii': }h7dt'. Q.L1A-LiTY_5?.rs'rB_YS L5 29 lmdudeS imE riz anccisried 7,vuh the dtinaltdma word cnusheeug aeduidLs. The Al e. Cat ml,'.k AruAyAs �hotelid include nia qj uliq a npx'e=s ®.... acimk -d, wkh dkmuhda n rind, taxd u 511ing aercnnaies, 25 W4 y,;t CCrtSnnxCes4n, a "L}ayae 03-acknowledgei d aa oedy vat ¢aev5txacceria.sdaed de ;fist Llet uenEeL dub pomon of the pMeet ivai, availa'h'lets aead thmt the Alf Qual[iq Aii3ksls mg m 4avilua crsBrseeytcirtnn shed le Ewsr. rbY golE rJuh neLGa,€�( i f c piojmL The Air Qugalag hmsa'lysis' slsould bt i a-&scd "ro doo4y ddllcsss !li bl co®aMC-0 -on 3efudulcs, Ica rCE"ICw[lig milt IS and Pcoject TJeictLpU''Or4 4 is puck -sa; if comWtmi;tiou Ear the project mOVedaps {}.%43 3L �mandas) ar. accutts Eau auasec-udve - .TArq{4eP ( 0� a -e anrltg'u, l.ie{,f�i4�ru61u49 aK daps,,'.impacr�'to cc �gwabee eteueli3 a9c'St�'Fggegre�. Lconstmtiucuon is crsaseeadva, uaspaets.�uld lie'.Iaau�'{.mzr'a5 oin evarrrz, �be.+u ; +vch rho shaaamt oNwniistmt don su:hFdules (54 'eo 36 mnadns), :coasEruz'.timn irnpuers mji�Ln. opeur E4v,_ u- "teuutisd periad of ame'- 3 Pmgge i's suates "earrra,�r as t ��rRnxa wr�eRr r a -ae �mr d i%rr arg3 ao-a ,raxspm+ "„ letthc',[S 30 € 2acts dhat theme urotald be, ao sigilEufcant ate rgraliew ercupacns. tr cn irvtt ®serial e®pmuz rcpur ;sho old he pecPur>g4 tb9rureal}fcsahas.sr eiErtsnteaenuJmdue '.'npaemarprl.tlnrtouen'pnrylece F4. Page 15;5rames; "T,krrs urf pr?, 8e¢rif;a rXr ra a4f�iq ' Tra' I "fhv� par rars,6i�xr.a:a,a'�tiaaa,�xu," 1',MA m11A CS tltar where ace same Sdoauuvc ime'cprors il3sr rwOW 1x ad*e+sc0y- a2Tceted by fiirec pamvcolmtes.. IF ffiac is ;daa'. 1 , I t: 3e ,woe cV glviumtrn of Prna dal heal:ih mshs r© d'hose "re",' s 'Idvc teeelueirs' If-hodd bg 1;ottd.1-1ctc& ni mse PorenitLd "�l>„ser � atld.hs' ;loosed m on MTL h pilge 16 The [able ineludedl on page '14 npplgcs +t4 the rcnn sdu'b pdivon-of flit Ipiopeen Is 3u:'rpasoirahle 321 std assume that slaadu a guupimucrut would � m4w,i,eil Ear the V11F. clula pnrtion of the'paojecr) If M-T, wins uddi &nal.mpaers could he 6ypeeeed fmras die Vlllelub poxsroia of L64 P- Mi4ce_7- 33 6. :Page 38 idduEles un nnsutppamned, analysis 4f pa lcnd:al heuldi uz6 ua &sacatedi wlnh &4s 0 cxhaust pauicula,sea, ,Idea ing; umpacas by smdag "'Mr ee-as.s7� gfdarre!'c Arvex ti•r w nranA efivri dv r a24-&or-�x Ag-L., TiiTr,. 76/.�mnr mam}r^re r'tpoyrrn, rPcv"xdr rrrm An;lk =Yid? )tm;r,,r' eaevra'aer.awry,4e nr xx rmr,�+amr 1 [ff9rd e�(" txe ,n x.e ANV e-iremprn?an . . Paz Ph •?oak arrwrafee� orb peT&II&.z' re$ &4 reija'OMrw gvva6m t nw lr Mxvef M mN gzkvr..7fCO, 54 If die, public health Ask is "not quaol6gnb1e ", hO-w .an in he wneluded 'io be "'ammo IM ?' Addiniair Hy,,. of cataapucuaa occur; ak sr sn. 36 -uamm 2 pt�g*d ("t: Ma 8�uath Carwlr+l Club irA'MrMall, Am"a �� a of �clrrfe. Amg =4.24111 6sg_a 10 70S 34 e?mf 3ee„nsi6) §,,• ;ku 80- aw"rt. pe&a 1. �+wrzrsr §case scemarioj, expam e. to dimel p ird' sea -woad gnesur avar m :I'amg psnod of 'brie. Givem. ulna. I.d,igrhy eamb9 ccibai ipe6od, -mmdr lad. of cdmclvios,e eAdeAee ej sadimg:iraltlfu 6,k from dnesd pr- iculmees, the :'lee Quali -Am b. be rssiaem to ioaOade health risk mssemmemt amdl.sm F_'llt shouldl'k ptcps nail dea t LxIud9W-e this amah ?aim. 7. Nos 19 and 0 ;iddlymm jwenAal op mea Final ea,parrm ui the projete That aaa0vaa's i3 bdU4 on hire imfuuna&n, provided in the TmEric mnd - lhddag Evaticadou pmTmtrd Ear ihc prda-FW-m p -0'owu—u em, 3s cis- ussed, mboyw, Liar ev%lraatiom is flawed mid ujndcrosunmtes mffiuc mmm -clued ,WLrh Ac pscojecr. `ll'hOmFa¢e,, tbe a,^.lmA§n of optMr ualp Impnema dn= 'be .mevviced to account For mMnournl rrips �5`4�imc[rd rc�,eEro Via: si ?s, �Pn�ess�axahsec. barrquer dmcilitie3,, s*?ent aja:,9s:, a;3uifm� a�demp?olaesmmTeat play, ,half avaics, assoc adon mec", anri edumdunal acttvG& S. Nge 20 and 'Fable S — The UR- BF m©d.8 used cc calMate area $OrrcYe surd upcmcimm�l cmissi mic ab2mld be ur_p Atcd wo •tcfkeet :denL9. ptrsjees completion dares, 4C�'.iai e. mIjAmum� 34- imalmah �5 t atpserig5oop geher�ula' Eho Paejecrwill n6a be carmpl'cte by 220 M. a�ddirip,jat7g, dge tesulrcoutaimed Ln. T;cble 5 51cou d noc use eaolmEttl against sbe eaumtim{g,pa�jece lrestaad,;, ib tieseamvinasanrs sborilei ibe ommr]s as pQ U.he'tj?.r cmi4sWu3 levelt mmcecd SCAQND,obnethmldm R GIRLEINllOUSE, Gr1IS EMISSIONS 1. l;sge 5 smW3. °tU GFf r�;arlsars max mar4drarrd lv dmrr r, r>rdWtlfG7iee 5 tifailtin Ct f wa tcrF:m gP �2ta??_S1j memk suwtwaf',mopmaaa ir fBaA.a4mendrd... A,V?H(L l�s.•r,rndarre .ire rirl an arc '.airr{r -r i; a rn."sda +re! t nJ up xan'egr r.,n<rnar#otrctrais, a na�+vj -r .r :en, crrif .� rtrrta rYuy aavagra• aerrru}• ommitra.?r.ac �ev1} u a 4'VAsf?+. t as B ,rnd�•,�x G F.C; twts"dc�w." 71,a :iliseu5n?4:? floes .aa aa> tecomraend t9smoe GH,G nc merircan snessvtrea; :Cbmsa%mL =w conuft6xeml buaklinag to LUED spaselficatiion. 'PrtOmoee'scp id.,w sm mircimsiza:uvm acrd recyc5n: & Lacorpomte fast- gm%iag, Ilmv wl w Luc Laautstap-, in a ihznce r-3 rbom seguessradou and mduce wamr ll 'Z The CHO atamlysas datis.rwt pms ile Sass camc6va ^ ^ -on m e, ls ba s gztiLrrtsmr ri3sp?ets- Gt is_- vssel'esa ii:'uhe Project i�isupBer�stuaias�, xsyresrrhese measures. Addumanahly� [hewn jm no it+Ecros'coet 135 the r Qa;i ryJG- G AWVa L9 ue im she is m9q'ffd aag PrOjcr:C d "Ss rinc B chit. Promote gmmlaablk; dwelopiemenr_ Such fcamcesi coldd bdp sgrdurg else pszgetrt' C�l 'C rti- nssoorns. For rhesc mmsvut, ir is tinelkna uAu hues Lice : Pra+ect Tim 3uce&.s$ulhc ming m3 ors eu;muhuuaxla sipini omt [GI=G irt.pc:aa• The City shaudd 4tvd4 ;the projEees G14G em" sinmx in Im, mvi m.nm ffnu l.irmpsOc report. T'8?,l;Li 'DNA ;A hl`a' 1-B' DL' O LOGY REPORT Tlae.504m.mg potential impacts aboWd he tnallmed Lm a¢,1EIF- I I Pngc 4 — The P'mE miccaq H; dralogy .p cpw.L MmiiFres &r need bar rasps ziimg -ao mve®sgg Mom d r m 3 Lanes [be pmjecr 'L ldt 'tL,v_exing the saamn drain? gf [par swotdd, y iimpacat on dr Ange {:suet+ as [ Eloademgj remailpP I2. Finae Y — The. prokcn ¢oqutres oiusrkmcdon of a new 30-uachr RCP OrT as? 2dlaceut psa;pertt,. Has 6e V3d}3cemr Plop= ®wun 3l reed:' ;Inane, is ah= n. poicnital Fsa imipac td ?, :kacapoit.SiGich a±aft[*,q'CUM T,4- amp -tidy �r, grV�f'. S. ar�d `h�ax+n�3'ar�o,�P:�ctarr�,v[ ...��rt+Fr ,YUrgt�ua,'axna age 11 704 m The i?evapro r @fe 1, 4rt >m±.q Qaab laid mSnmdv l?es, suGauit aera ana uof7rnna6©ne Eus ro e,glmxre, pxoa impacr.9 ag`au-Dsr the i=iatnmyg eaoieoamcno0.:ooaq�dams„ undemstimmms the patentid ioc jpmjzcl kip En 1-4, ogpnoriag paojcev km=Cs Which mmy geuneaare mn fic aad psrkig tuid eortui at Ra .� 9� „]itf baiparis uad G6#;t emni a2ns, ®napes esaomous Condwicin5. diAt fim in coaolrci• with gar cma,mor be st ppor% by Tarht6cA axudicm, `rgp4fts a o rMemts. nF Ehc Mg -a7Is R;rd Acr4 ttridl ]me&s ¢a -adegmm earalumdon of Wes bcdc mndl cammunntg el��urRec ;ai p Go— Ohs• My, shotild poepaue 'Ut ErR to ikiftV 9nilxZe uhe projeer's p ©¢e»®fd eolpmas. Lhorarugblp 1113 *xc. rkg pbbent j for CUML rlm in paclim, and c%mlrare prolee¢ silnxtmarAres dvyn comfil rcd- a* tic. pomid2fly sagaaEsac art eovir��eabsl �npac . e:osmmrt BoarhC mamg arch IPA 20135,U) R€ rrc* +ftmezts�d!J�tyiv'yrr11§'�� rte' -: =� _. _rliesi�aa�F'nm4�8dh-ma�suA3h0.• J Ullyar. 4, F141 rrsga'i 2 7L)5 ReAwmeJbPuhghaC- Nr1r— oMeH -'j xLw,.r?V'urane w. NBWMI J3.RR61'1 GUrMhk'�rirlq= rr�p2QP; Q1Jl� Response'ta Public Comments Ndwpoft Beach Country Club - Goll" Realty Fund tb; Rllarrnin 3( Surmfed with L- atbam 8 Watkins ®r 9er raateof August 4, 2011, Rnippr?se 10 Comment No. 1 The l3ungakwds propowd by the a,ppllcant mplll consist of 27 'hoteJ' units that enc-ornpass a-pproxErnakeiy' 2g.0+tr7,sg,ua're teat of':floa�r area. �.'2.°i7dF �:,greare igc+t canc %ergs edd Gu;e3tCenleris;iilsio lnriuda[1 in ECn�. dav,lopment canmpcneryt. in addition, the ''Bungalow Spa;, which is an aliwitiaryf use for and part of the' E3ungalawvs, encompagsgs 7;490 square'feet, This faciility sw illl ifnclVd',e a fibiess center; ,spa, 'siFra bar and lounge, Other I'Mu;res include ai Zen ;Garden, Jacu`7Z amd swimming pool. The pool anwolr spa egwigrnemt will be on-closed by five-fioot block wall. Tfie n ie- xtiirhrurn buildufig hi eight of the Bungal)awstiis 131 feet„ rnaaa'ured from ILh.e. exfstfAg grade to tlhe;peair of the noa , As stated in the parkFrrt analysis prepared by LSk access to i r'ftriess?p ;1Cer, which is iterated within the A3!trrygaWwr Spa, Mwll:l be "avaflable 10 tennis, club r eis rrermb dma'lirbited bast';, Response fe Comment No. 2 The golf clubhouse floor plane has a maxirnfjm�af ",,0 1p "grdss-sguare. feet; exclusive ref below grade t are sl ®gage, in tw0' sRad'es, ibet'rrrdngi,apprvcximateiy 18,9;!00 square, lesLan the first ioor and aipp7roxirnatety 1E;;9t4 square feat on the wcwd Boor. The lovfer floor will accdmrn6dafe the foltovringl Fealurefih" Grill,. w6M00e s lounge and ilocker roam, tmenN aCker room, and pro shop. 1711ter Pealures included on the first. flaps lj,411de, � can barn and clubi storage. Tfto second floar wail) acc$mimodate a bandrrel nt+m and kitchen:, dining roorn, icrunge, foyer, offices,, private meeiing and dining rodrns, and a '19' ile,' . indicaled in R'ps,pornso ter Corrmeni No. I, the 'Ginoieirge and west Center is a compandn't of Ike prolodsec Btingalows..and is nol- associated with the G-olf flClubhouse. Response to Comment No. 3 1061f!cilnics, mieetings,',andro;r educaliDnal reireais are same of rrnaepy ac11.VIIEes rhat',My !Oka 1plaoe at tire . h onport §eacti couin" Clubs (NOCC). These activities,are iyrpiral of gdll''elubs generally -and, thar6tore. are ndt se.paralte -uses. Response 10 i0om5'ment IN o,.4 The discussion of project compliance with [the 613 t8;megruire.ftem (I.e. Native Arrnericam consultalbn} was required for a prior submiltai of the proposed iprojecl thafdrci necfssitaip ;an amendment to fhe: !Land Use Elem@nf- af'the Newport Beams Gemerai 01-e i. Afthoug :h ; B 96 eonsuitalEon did occult, the,pro*1 was subsequently rewised to elil miinate the neerj for the general plane a rnendment; 'howevgjir„ the reference, to Ithat discrelioinmy action wins fnadverdently lettiii the dcpufnenit. An err'�ttai wail U.e praVareed Ihsit:deletes iha reteaenoe to the geheraI plan arnendment noted ui [this owrimenC Res,ponsa to Comment. Di6-5 The prapoised Geidl IRea'lly Fund pr>aject' and th'e proj?o intermahorial Bay Clubs project' have ;teed submitted as separate appfcatioins, EnvironinentOl review has been condlre4ed for each appiicatian. At KIS point it'. is speculative 10 Wsurme what: decrsnans will; to .made by the Planning Comm' 'lsslan and, ulfrrnately, by the city' Couuicil wiElr nespe+ct'tfl eitherappl5ca ion_ Hcwever, as vlith and land developrnant proposal naargfcancnns may no m Ade la the project 500Wsals by 'the mviewing body and final apprenra may 4e g ven to a project which eiSffers tram tltie atip iQ as oignal rrpa Tl a ed4quBGel frelic ufns Aesponze, ib Cammoms •, Hilt, r?lp!�,ft IV¢si+r;pH'.6GRatil �G4u.�frw �`lub f��i2rA45�f4q� 700 Rego MS& 10 Fab& Corraftwi F- Kt-R Aamuv fVB1,2004 .S.EVA GWYf1YP!SQ PIy TAZXi1:UDL- revievw for 'tharapproved;pr6ject will be j edged against the environmental review in thei recordl oblapprovaI. T'hi ak record May 1110"ralte approved andlor cartifed environmenta'I docunrlents other thane the one specifically prepared 'fair the (project application. The validity of'flia QEQA review will depend upon the env[[rGin mental dacumenis reloW upon by the :rJ'ecuscon -n i bodies as the lime of pro*! approval, Heree there. area (number, of possible wa>iat W1 of either airidYar a combinaitiori of both proposed prcjeas uvhteh could be approved or, potentially, both projects could :be denim. Sfmould ai %Vbnm of the;3,;,.project proparsals ueme'rge and uttln;ately be approved by the Lily Council as a single 1prrsject; the City 'Council must determine if the icom6ined environmental analysis For 'both projects, ad€quiately and -accurately assesses We potential IiitpaCs,,.of the 'hybrid° project. The exlen,t; if any, to Which Wrier environmental rav ew is required will li based, upon (hat delamilnetion. (Response to Comment No, ff Several Ipnpjpcis are proposed or have been approved wiffitni proximity to the proposed proj€a frncl�rWng the Furth Newport Center Planned C+Smniunity. a 17401 r'esidenlial�develgpment, at 919'Eayside Dnive, Aerie (9 condioii idruurms That would mplooe a `14 -wnll' apartment }„ the Hyatt (Regency Expansion project, Pte }wporl' °Beach City Hall and park development. ![he Santa 21i Condominiums (79 condornincufn vine [&). khe Megoralgal. :residence j`1 singlePfar ily residernq%al' dwelling unity; and! the ISC proposal" for the, Newpoft Beach Country Clubs In addition, '1,750 square. fret of newt. office space and 6 re;sicierniliail dwelling pnits are. proposed for Plaza iCorona del'far, With ire exce'p'libin of the I'laaa Corona, del Mar project, eaa •oi th,e.appioved projects,ldentih ad. above has been 5upj(3at'to environmental analy.sis,ane most have e`Oaduat d We potential cumulative eMoaicts, of the; proposed Newport t!affh counT y+ Club, project in the curri impact analysis ;,presented inj Me respedluve_ envirnnmenlal dbc- umeii Fuj iherrrlore, -Ah only j* o e9ceptions (Aerie and the'tt3G proposa'I for the N'BCC, eeCl1 aS'v+hu h Inc6uded General Plan amendrnents), these projects Were - determined to he coriGastent with the iCity's edo',pted General Rtan.ana each, including the jpro,po d projaCt, wnefe adeialraCeiy eketuaiedl in the EIIf1, preiparsd fear llhe general Plain UJp Me. That' EIR analysed ,potential curYiulaimr . impachs (e:g,F trsffrc, noise; air quality, etc,) and identffied' poticies andlor' rnitsgaUbn inneasuras to address, p itential iqurF uNtiv irinpaclis, resulting Frp ro tluildoul' of'the Ge.nerall plan. In ac1€Iltjon;,, where `such ccihnula4ae Imnpa is we a pdent tic -d fn subs .quentenvironmental analysis prepared for each project, the environmental, analysis.ineorpoiated' project desl�p lealpres andfar rni1 ion imeasures to' addms_s broth poyect- related and p+otei ern oilaSlve fe?p'acls anl'rcipated to occt,lr ssaa'resultof plrofect imlpllementaiion. As indicated fn'Ihe tralfic and (parking assessn rent, the prujpow li would itssulll fn a net cdeerease In peek hour Rai?ic and v+~oufd not, therefore„ cpninbute signffcantly to cWmu'lalive :trafdie iMpactst As 9`. revlt 'the pmppsed. (project files. not have any 'adverse ineremt~ntat tradfc impacts anal' doe gnat . ct7nitribute'm curn0altiv�e � effic, impacts. - Similarly, Oost=d'evet'bpTent.'Bir "land nolse impa:Gls`woruld atso!be reduced) when;compreied to exis_tingl. and' future conditions vAthnut ft project aF?d. therefore. will snot 44? ADUte to OUMUlaBV'e air and noisle impacts Although poten'tfa'lly significanit c_onstiur klan- eel2lk�d impacts rnpy occur, rt� �galtlon measures have boon ilderitified to md,uce the noise, Urn land air quality impacts to a lless than 'significant level. 'VVilh that rrri ftgelion, the inordmenlai ooristrutdon- rela,ted' noise impacts• will. not be crumutahvelp considerable when vie ! in mnjuricttan with the .other °cumulate- prbjecls idenflUed above. Because the. projeoi sit® is- not destgnaled as pin innpodai1'k visual resource and, furihermgre, site dR >vatopmen1t would not adversely affect important vfewts from designated iImportant view locations; th.e proposed profeot dim not have any inorermentat adverse airsual impiCts. Thus. the project: vall not edntrfbrite rncan create) ito any (ioterutfa!I cumulative, v1su2'I i!pects. lR,§�arJ�',ro �QFJTr�WJ%I$'.. �nyP�Filrgi: rlru 'wryWraEricd6,GarJnf+}%Gfrita �Pl,�UQ�'t�1�li '2 707 J??sp2tisa -to pubivrc cmmews -.KLR mw wng R+rT7rP.ailil oueme �GILh=,IAA2095 -140 The r3enefal Clan SIR alSO concldded Ihat build.dut not result, in Signlfttant eurmulall drainage impacts, Fmjeckelated ilncrel In rtiricK are addressed Mir I.mprctvernients to the dean drain Sysl*rn, which is a requirement of eech paoAect proposed'n the City. Although there Mill !be a net reduction ini the number of'tennis courts on the subject piroperiy, mo significant impracrs to rerr?a3tion'aee anticipated as indieatsd in Rcsp ©nse'totornnmen`l No. 115-because tfie revised court confOgulIon wiU g intfnue to meet the - demnandsi of'the club. .As a result, th2u'e', IS no expectation that there is any Incremental ailiverse impact on public reeleatibnal us+e, Because no •agncultUraf soils, Forestry andfor nlinerall resources exist, on the subleoi property, frnr*mantartion of the p1glect would not centrlbute cumiulatlMly la any Joss of these me3ouurc�es', M, 'Ife minute landscaping IJ ;at douid support nesting of auian species; no habitat andlor serrsitive species occur on the presendy- developed property. that iandscagrig is not impacted 17y the proposed project. Thefafore, the prajeclvr E not ContH it incre mentally to any polGri ial cumutative foss to these resources., With the exceptlon of asbestos c p.talininq materialls,and lea &bLi d Ipalnit', Which ;must lne reinediated in awordanoe With culneril, regulatory requirement€;, IMil silt qo" inol contain hazardous malerial's_ TherefoF €„ eon &IStent- Ntiilln If1e ?moral Plan 8 1fi; these nralem is would rant p4 'a patenti. My siginifictnt cumulative impact vAlhiin the fifty' 'and, Itiereforil 'would net odritributo iincrementally to potential cuM u Isliae'amyaeidts. Rtciect 'fmp_'leiTnent Lion would result in neither the Boss ,pr axistingl housing nor the dfspWwment of, existing; irersisl'enis and, therefore, would'. lot Gonlribule, incrementally to potenliall cunt laGue IM padtS hoiusfng anti population_ All of the Ipubfiie services and uUIrties currenfliy exist in ilha project' area and are ad'�trat� to'Serae'the, eAsiing andl future d!eue'lop pent veitlhout a signEfIca —M numull impact, Potdir l aunnulahwe ilripacts to schools `wrouldl Lie cuffset by the payment of lh+a slatutoral+ school fees Imposed by the Neuwport- Mes'a- UniEred Sclvol' DIsfrfct. Therefore 'based on prior environmentall an?lys €s cgriduciled :for several projecls which 'have.considered the proposed project in'ihe cumulative analysis canducted For catch, rneludirig dla Ne ti Leach 6eirl !?Ilan iOlpdalo. Ella, il',poll ritid4ljt significant cumulative Imypacts: acre anticipated to occur as a,l Of pra�ect impi®m,enialion. Response to Comment. No. 7 As tnditlaRed in the Traffic and Parking E,vail prepared by ftirnrey Horn and •Assrrclales;, the trip; ;qerferatloini rakes are basted on the Ilnstilule ol`pra ispodaivan Engineers (IiE) Trip Grenexaflon puulMan (6th Edut on)," +r/416n Is thee' rdoogril- ed by the Ill Hof New port Beach IPubllc '1!S{o,rles @eparirrl as the Industry s'tandardf for de_ terrrl trip,gt3neraiioo in the City, '13ased on tlhol;o rgeognised tripe gemelaticn rate%, ImnpleMenlatioir of the Iprto,posed prayed swould result frli a fret reductl6a of uelhicUlar tirps- wihetn compared to the exssting land uses occupying the sile. Parlling requirements r€fiecte-d in hhe initisl alz!rtlfy thlatapply Ild,'the pr&pps� pnojelet are based' on pmking rages reflected' in Qhe City "s. Muntcfpsnl lCmtlp as, well as the proposed IP.fanni €cil ;Commrnuniity mis_trict,Regulalions, Ill is irnpolarut to noje IM the :ITE trail; generation rate, used to esamate. project- relaited Irlp>fs (I "e,.; ITE #436) reflects than for golf courses: Land Use category. 4430 i if Course,) is used for golf' courses. including 9 -, lt3 -. 2, 7-, arid' 36-hole golf courses, will rrray; also have drMirig riinges ante clubhouses with a ',pre shop; resteurent• Ilol and banquet facilities. Aocordfrl to the IT€ descripl�orl, most of the tac7itias induded in this rategory wero I tee in suhurtban aWlil With a few also located in s+cerfic, rural RA. l anae to Cw menrs -. XLRPkytring uvexrPW Bil43y kb (#e6F&MQj 3 7L-)g Respanse'tor�ei8fic Crurar�emrs�- F(Y.'F �iBaACf�CbinMt!a`L�urG- fVaN�9flSad'a91' areas. Asa result, the vehicular trips anticipated to occur as a: result of, these uses, which arwalso far[ of the proposed project, have been assessed in the initial Vtvdyt'. response Ito Gomumeni,No, 8 The project description presente€ an Pages 1: of the MIND pro ides''bolfi graphic and naraaflye destriprions of eae'h or Me projeCt.00niponents proposed by the applicant_ SIpecirmilly, Table i prcMdos a summary of the propos€# uses. Additional detsH for each of lKe pmposejd,componenis is provided in the 14113= POD, Regulation andilbelowr. The projeetsite encompasses 2ppROZ!maitelilr 1,42, acres; which are divided into Four,subareas lde!ntified below Each sub=2mea as will as Ilbre hand Gar wasm es d'esGriro f611owu'rng i6te itabfE. Land U a Allocations Rlewpart Beach Country Clues plann ;ed'Dcamrduvuiry Dislcict (Plan Go It Re'afty'Fundl _ 'Sub Area Approximate! Area- The Tennis Club Sul b -A'rea 4,62, The V'i &lamSub -Area — -- 1.25 The Saboalows Sao -AMa 144 The Golf C'IC b Surma' iM.01 701aii' 142.32 I 'Includes Golf"Clubhouse, Goll Parking 0_otand Ha'.nd'Carwash SOURGE; Neurport Beach Country Ciuh (Planned CoanrnOn,ity'D sl fctAlan (July 12 '201 tl Rolf Clubhouse The got clubhouse floor plant has a rnia_ximurn of 35,000 gro.5s'square feel,'excfuslue of !below grade cart st4u gp. in st0i esc iFmctuding', 'a,pproxil ma*lf 18,9100' square; feat On Ille first tl rand apg3rptciut ately ifi 1900 quare (Feet on the &ecdnd floor. lire Iowert thou will accommodate the folldwRigl features: Grili,. wa meat s. lou'n'ge and locker rpomi, rnpnrsi lQckeri coorn, and pro shop. Qllher features included ¢r. Ehe Ilrst. Moor Include a sari Wrin and club s90iage. The sewed flour vAll accormrmodate -a b!2n' l mrsoan arld kltc,hean dinirtgi iroom, ioiirnge foyer, office's, prnrq &e meeting and dining, roo'.msi and ai "99f" h01e'- Offier features which cxfrrenlly' exiat'amid will, conlinue to tae paft of the dlubbouse.lacitities [arAude a zaack slanid (186 square Feet). gAgfing golf course wslitoom Fadilibes, arid:e'xlstingi 9reeriis keeper bL1lldirWs :wd RM& The maximum height or the proposed golf' clubhouse its 53 feel15,inchas„ measured) from khe 8x[$11fto grede to the mid -pgimt of'Ilhe s1uped roof. Me referande t0 a McAnnumm 50400t'height limit re fk�ct6d In Table 1 on page 4 of the iinitlal study refere Ged fun Rluis+'COMMent its 1 !,reel and -Will 6WreviSed 6 reflect. the 53 fgdt,6 -ihch ma'xrrrtiurnlhpigbt notecll in, this mescrlptimxn,ai Tcnnls O['uhh'ou&e and Courts. Thee maximum floor area of the feitn'is' 'elubftmause. is '3;,725„ gross square feet and !!frill have a mamirnurn' building height of 30 feel (me:Dsvred from the e0tidg grade tb the peak of 'the, robQ. Tfte tenhie kp-Wi* fa 00tFwrttrrl,IS -,Kw PhKelie NO-P n' ebluuh "r+rjy IS QiFA2bOF5 "1�S.P' 1 .4. 709 l wn.,�rroPy'$l;:eC4rirr 6w,1N-XLR'RanrrlW iA1IM rwa7l'r_�m cluabhouse includes a fobby, pro shop, office and Itickar'roorm$, A Itratal of Seven Itennf5 courts;, including She eladium rtcourt will re;pl''m the 24 tennis >courts that currIa rluy ex st on 'the subject property. Screening for 'lihe tennis,,courts from The. Villas E will al5d be provided iln ihe'lirrin ol`a Fttve -foot b,tock wall that 'Wou'l'd be dg51gned to be compafibW1 avflh the proposed Villa E, adjacent to the tennis Covild. In addition, the exierior (perimeter of the'farinls eourfS fasin:g fhg CtanuilEe Condpmralurtus, ranvfllm If]riwe and'.'llyg Tcvi:nis Club parking-lol .vwill also be screened, utilizing lfre,ekisgrig 1('l -foot high chain link fence cowered by a wind &Creep. Bu ri gallows. Thee Bungalows (proposed by the a;ppliea.ntwill eonsisl' 4f 27 "holel° ilrib, that encompass appiraoAnateGyt 29.044 square foet of flout! rea, A.2,17fl.sgivare font Correferge and Guest, Center is also Induced in this development compone'n't'. In :addition, the Bungalo -w Sp@- :. kwhirrli is an aunhary use 1(Qr and part iof 'the Bungalow s..,encomPessEa.. 7 -490 square Sect, This facility vwflf include A- fitness center, spat spa bar and Lounge. 01her Watures include a Zen Garden, JacuZZI and Wenmine Pool, The. Pool aridror spec equipment crrill be acne o p gy drve <f 3t 4loCk'vjalL Tha tmaximurn building hafght:of;tive Bungalovtrs is 31' rbet','rmeatawted (torn the ^exlsan•g, grade io the peak'ofik We iro :., Villas The Ne Villas are 'proposed wiithin, a ,25 -3rM. subarea: lot sizes of the single- fanfly, d'etaolied resiaientfai'i dw- 411irng cats vein vary from 5.295; square feel (Villa A) to 1.7',151 (Ville 0) square reel Homes. swill range iin.size Iron,r,2 2011 Squarelfeet (Plan Aj to "6„38# sguari».:faaet (P]a I]), The mt kirnirrrt fi oiECing Wghrts (measured from :eyast ng grade) pe:rrral'IW far 'tire Villas: ranges from 23 (Feet �Ifa p �:• fa, 39 fiat (Villa 6ji. S�;nmming pools are also 1penmitted far each of Ehe five MIN5. Golf 'Cl''ub Parking Lot a:nd Private Barad Car Warh The proposed Goff Club Parking !Lot has WO, on-si� part ing &Maces. In addition„ as descnibedl'in Response. to Comment Nor A df the Irvine �C6rripany. move:, an existing perpetual offsile !Parking a greement w if continue lca provide as mtany as 654 nora-eydl'trsiNe! parkintg spaoes'on weekend& and holidays io sup&M, errtthe onsfte Colf'Club parking, 'Tho fraur ta ge fdp€I tflat ezcfsis. atl)ac nk'tgi East Gaast, > i5hway ww71 be "eliminated and rep9 ced,wi:t'h:land'scapiing. In aaditi6n, a pri aato h2trd Car WaePif A" Is Piropdsed whin the ,pOkingil pt fn the vlclatJty of Downtrij Club (Dive: The area Ed'anlifie¢II t4 a=2anmod'ate this prpject: feature eaaodimjpasses'approxirriataly 24ffsqu"rre feet,V.e., 12 fe6tvmdeand 20 leat.iongj, Lll' e ,of tha private hand car wash is 11mited bo golf and'poss'ibiy tennis club rnembers,nn'ly^. ,AS Ir7d'iGated in Response to Commeni Na. 4,.'1he reference'to the r,eed'i for'ai General Plan Amendment Land Llsg Ellsrnent) was inadvertently left in the documeri aitlar the projiect was revised, eliminating the need for ltie amendment to the (Land Lase Element. A,lG6rLPWI PI.ani AmendmoiLt.1s, no7t required for 'the proPdsWiprelecl'- IRosporase�la Comment INo, 'h The character of the pnogiosed prcjject is il:lusfrated in i6veral elevadorns. A5 indicated -an- E(11 ifC 9 'and IExl iE)st 2, 'ffje Pr®Parsed gplf course clubhouse raft; a Gafifornia Ihkedita3rran.ean 2rcf➢ikecluaal styrl'e. Ali esldnar plaster on the structure are proposed Ilhe smooth, stgel howelad and burned, and applW over mmonryr hlock.to obtain a higher quality-and more dufaltAle Ltsish. lR4ois acre Proposed' too be red.file and ef?el wend v s. Yhe.stiwaiiure "fs complemeniadl by stone uer ear si ll &: The proWet Tennis Clubhouse and Bunga[mu Sfra.anef,� illas "N+nralA retlta sfmil'ardli'auaoter afidl &tot's as illkvslaatl ir1 2lerations`sfaosa�l in IExhibdt•3 (Tennis Gltulltibpuse'.and Su;ngal'' Spa) anal E'xbibfl,4 arvd Ekhrbit 5 (dais -Plans A and B), resrvllfrig in a fully 111'"ratpdi chafactar of each of tfge tandi iusie coin oder Hs'. �tgs}rarass> rir Grxmwaan.is. kP'✓nra'irx�. rrr++rrapaPVP:BOO' CaurWYCk+Y IPAW05 -14q 5 710 o J i V o J Q 3r p 1 1 t c � e ' E GF = d r r [d .. G a o r is x > W ?` w m m 4 L S7 3 m Q V La 0 A 711 W }} y LL o `� g I II 1 1� Y 1n �1 r i I lip • • W S s m 4J m LU 9) 0 m s a E 8 f7 4 C7 722 « . }| » � � .[. � � , | � � § ) � | ■ | ■; } |E % I& k u2 § } LU CD \ \ 7 ±3 -: | \ ■ dj \ § f� } } f « . }| » � � .[. � � , | � � § ) � | ■ | ■; } |E % I& k u2 § } LU CD \ \ 7 ±3 l { r. mil^ c C i L L �t r� 6 y v ® R T a c r � s � L } x n LLJ W d c fo CL LO R L 714 S � l { r. mil^ c C i L L �t r� 6 y v ® R T a c r � s � L } x n LLJ W d c fo CL LO R L 714 0 a W w a i? ao a.c z 9 W C n A Y7 C .. p m to W C i e ° d ! m ail su -S A Y7 C .. p m to W YA 1 f+ 5 r r • r y r L � m x L r I -�j g x � _ I� 1_ L - -- 725 C r e ° d s a u m r x0. � F YA 1 f+ 5 r r • r y r L � m x L r I -�j g x � _ I� 1_ L - -- 725 ro The,panprarnio view mf Ehe ocaan Ins available from ith.e,top of Newport Center (Mve dribre straight ahead: ,down, iMeWpgd Center DrWe [towards Padigd Goast Highway. Only a "pe€'k a -boo' ocean viev over the . existing site. now occurs between the Ma's't GranyFlle - C ©ndb.minrum Unit and the BIfPJY.tIonlgle Group allies building and after the MiWonrigle Group_cifrce building kxated at °the intersection of Newport Genter Urwe and the Ipriiva'te Granvflle Road, (refar to Exhibits 6, 2, 8 and 9), The Improvemenis proposed by the NBCC PCD would not result in any siglniflcant Wwall impact on: the view all 1he'peek- a4boo" ocean =view wwreen ihp'tast Granville Condpnninium and :the McMonigle Group office b rullding (refer 'to Exhibit b`, VieW Imam Point V), OnIly a barely disceenible impact an the "pee'k -a -boo" view pf the ocean from, lhjo sidepewalk at the ihtersecNon of Newport Gu rftea Qi ive and Granville (refer iA Bihibit 8, 'View frown Point F) The proposed) NSOC PC',D, would, not impact. Me Pubr d view Point tin Irvine Terrace (Park. because the significant: public view from Irvine. Terrace its oriented tmvwxd! Nlewpart Bay and' the Pacific Ocean_ The MBCC.PGO. on the other hand, is localid on the rnile ad'side or iPadiFc "Cbast Highway from Irvine Terrace Park, FulrtherTmore, the wail bruffemngl ilrvine Tempe Park from Pacific Coast HIglyway„ together with the, . building in D- orpprate Plaza West and the exisijriq Bands,'Uping, makes Itha toff Club Parking Lot the ninlY area within NB'GG POD wisiMe from Irvine Terrace Park 4refgr to Erin .jbit.'% "Virfiiw fr�orn IP'01nt'41y and) t'l'@ uierur of the•Goll Cluhi Pairkihgt Lot ,would ould! be ilmfproved aesltuelicalfYas'a resultzif a large #andseaped' berm alongi IPaciim Coast Highway and four rows of paup€ndicular in the Csolf'Ciiuh'Parkirrg Lot Rosponse to comment No. to 1Nhith Me usi of € AC-Idsl dally P141:rvemissions,durtn4 ailt.gradingi (axclusfva of deplolition ac&itlas) w©u'ld be ?'pounds par day ('0,7 X 10.01 ° 7 Ibldley)s The Sr4AQMID .slign Fcaurce threshold of 1150,pounds Oar day would not be ex ceded, With the use of HdstAvaflab9e „Cant al 1�1'1asurev `BACR0 ), daily PM, ;❑ emissions can be funfier riducedr Secaiase of the PMrp nano - attainment status 6f the air It SW, oDrstruclon a"uity dust eumfssionS a-e tonsrdered to have a cumulatsvely aignincanl' inner tfsa of Beall availatilt=. Control, . 1 el $sures” (B CM;) is thus repuirdd event if KCAQ,ME) indlividua( CIEQA thresholds dra not ezoeeded 'by iuse of €treasonably Avairabfe Control Measures (R BVISI. Although the parlit+teto emissions esllniated to occur as a result of eanstnuetion &MVIdes nary to Implement the proposed project would ,not. exce6d South Coast Air Quafity, Managenasrtr. Q'istraet (9AQiM.l))';ignul<sanee threshxrlds on orb )ndoUidual tna4a; these short-term womfd Have a eumulatively+ signiricant irrlpacl, ag lndirated In this'connmerit, because Ilia 5orrlh Coast lair Basis in des' gpAipd bi enran adain.menl area." Hovwe'veir, pause these impacts aro shorn term in nature and would ibe adequately addr*sSed through. the frmpoalkoin bf'ihe menu or measures pCeseritbedl In the:'iautisl stu5ly and by !the SfsA MDA [he short -terns, cumuulRtj�e AMj:R emissions would he,recfueed to a less than significant lelvel. Current, research. in uin!t�. €xpas_uns health Suggests: thatIh®i inost adveirse effeeits:d?riwe Prom ultra. Small diameter ,particulate matter comprised of: chemiully reaclive pollutants such as sulfatets nf, tes or akganic materiall A n2bonal clean aifr slandard• for partly mate mdtder of 2.5 imp=nsl!or sumaller In d'oamre[ar (called lN�s') was stippled in 199 ', A limited amount df cdn Irw4tion activity particolat? Ma8ier IS in the PMa s range P:�l' � enii 5tons are. estimated lay the SC-ACM15 to, annprise 21p 5 percent of PlMlrp. other sludtes have Shmun thal the firgilive dust fraction or PMU A rs clbser to 10 pu foefst Ipafly PM!ky eriuissigns dudh9i o.gns'truytion swill to approximately 2 pounds parr 'day compared [to the SC,g0luilb CECA, sig,niiftanp2 threshold Of 55 pounds,per day.. Ras &Em ra s Dmr e.nr � -, taua:plan+N. V I 710 z 0 a- 7- 0 ll W W r L Lu kp- O C k y� F C) LL 75 CD m LL Lu J A ti 9 e r 0. u 3 a E a m 0 71- 0 0 0 P P U N C C A H C t 4 A u _b b A X _O G a1 •a cn y� G Cl LL W 5 cz� ae r W i Q C] C1C Lu m� r a W � 7 j 20 F, r Q C] C1C Lu m� r a W � 7 j 20 RessetoFkh'r; jamrmenrs- jtY:lq.,pda�ary,-.�r1 ,Ptai4trrsri aaua,��s;:.WCh - aaaa211sF roar RAMofto 'to 'Cormmmerit NO., vi °ls Indicaledl in this canvment, the site supports several Areas that could .occupied by nesting birds during the nesting,, and breeding s+eas'on, As such, as with any pmject that supports Itrees used fart tiestinrtg by avian species „cansteucdorr aefiviies are regulated ita'y ft Migra,” gtmd' Treaty Act iMS A). In order to Mid potential Impacts, to nastihg bird's, constructioni is typically proKbiled duffing the bleeding season (Le.. February 16 aural July wq i ri" it is determcned fhirough a pre-construction sumrey (andl su!bsequerat weekly surreys during the oonstrucli6n phase] 'that nesting does not occur in any of ihe,vaggdtion potentially affected by the constinq tlon acltuities, Construction may also occur during the breeding season Yrfihin 3001 feet of nesting species If the noise.l'mwml al`3IJ0 feel;fram the sbUree'to the affected Vegetation does not Meed 150 dDiL rihese standard cond6ticinshrequirements viau'lld,bar irnplemented'to ermure that potenEal impacts to breedimgiries'ting avian species are avoided. Respose to Comm, enl-No -"t2 A Thorough disrcuss!ion of global clirmale change within the conteart'cf C'EQA is presented in the initial study It' is. limportant to nole that the disgvIssion and analysis of gueeftrPouse gas ernrssiansklimaFte criamge rneittti -r suggests. nor implies that tkie phenpmsnan mf globhll dlimatm change is s,KoulalIJ4." Rattier, the analysis ac%nowledges, the eecurrence of the glbbal w Arming: The canclusion presented in: that discuss on ;outs. the felelianshfp andfor Ipotential dfLew of a. s;Ingto projec't's emnissions inlet perspective ,based on the :global nalure of the phefnoiinenori. A;s,Indicated in Iiltat assessment; G1H,G eritiia9lo i, in Califon ia, ". . de not specifically produce. g)oba!I climate eha:ngle fmmpacts In talifornia, heel ra,'lha ±r ¢tulbkly cerri m Ingle vAth GHG ennissiioms oo m a- round! the +trorld to influehoe glbball dfii mate'ch@n;gb patterns thiiuugihout the world. "' As a result of this. "ter mrninaglliitg „” it is fnfe!asibP,e to assess the rafatiue; coinWbofien of any one pnajleors Irntpaet Jo wurfifiMde eflnissioms° evlthaut undue srrecula fon_ An further explained, it fs equally .speca lalve,'to dot r-mi Lhe inalure'e ld estent.rif potential mthgsteon requited for a siingle- proWs.pplentialfy srrq;eiiftea'itt irnpacl, were it posaible'to rinake,ieuGh a determination in llfgihl mof the absence ,of, a iregional or statmtwida plan regulating gllohall v aan-nIng andl by which it Could ba ul5laafrnred, The analy ig apprppriately concludes that, therefore, fit is not fea'sib'le to erialuale the potentiai cwcniglative hmppm of fli a pr possd project w ithoLrl specMfation. As''a resul't', tme WO tgilows th'e directive o `$ecbdn 15145 of tiie"CEt:iA Guidelines which statas :i `ff, after thorough n'vestig!atEon, is lead agency'lginds'(hats parplillar' impact is too speculative fair evaluation, bme.agency should note its cocelusiian aiiril terrri7nate, discossir}n 6F' the iinipeW As'staled aboVe;' the lr1Nt)'s conclusion we'ry s,pecifacally, uvas riot that 'the concapt of global allmate charnge4o l %Marrmmg 'i5 'speculatbv e. Out rather than; the a7aitity taI evaltrate . c riulainue renpe t5 resulting from GHG emissions cannot, bm accomplished using, any of 'the melhodclogies.r uiretl by CEO, without tyre use of'specuratian. Response to Comment No. 4.3 As prewlousq;y tndleateet (Wer tta the description of the �goft course cliubhouse in (Response to Comment No. 8t, the maximum Iheigbt of the golf'catrrse, iclubhou se Is 53 f�kW f6,irligbest the refer enoe to 64 kot, III Mehanged to r6eu (he 53 feet 8'inches acre ; proposed in Ithe 9Gl)f'_ Peneral Plan _Land l lUs+? Policy LU4.3 '6s'ts a number of rdteria for traansfer, of devl'iap,menl raghts.•In parfibulamr, trat fer of deual'opmenit rights in Newport CenterrEashfan 4sEhnd (5tatis'tical Area 6It 'Is governed' by Policy LU6,14.3: According to this Policy„ development rights, may, be transferred witbir fha fle rit Cge�teNFashf�rr Its acrid, subject io the approval by the Cnty ICooanicll wiilh the finding that the: transfer is consistmni, with [the intent of the; Genferal',Platu a6flMal the transfer W.11 not resull in; amny';adueme- traffic impects',. ReA punw.iu.iaw+rmer�is- JrrR;Plnnmi '. �wJsa?C eeaGCGOunsy .S!us'l!jOA24QSa�?'laJ� 721- d?s rse fD F*k C4iMr4ws -M pkmmhTg lrrerMAOra�49F.'AGe�C071nrJY Elli_!2— [�+��Z'r�%�� $�1 Me Applficanirs request to Transfer d:evelopii rights for '27 hotel rooms from Anornaiy' Area 43 to Anomaly Area,46,is po¢isislent tismftr the rntenl,.of the Gene a! Klan in Iliat j1', it relocates a pa:mnil#aad less within Newport Cerilelr, r fainitaining the intended balance of uses ��oc��at forth in the General Pl'8R'FOF hle-vupart Center and. (2') the General Rlan speci icallly idenlifledt nap to 165 hotel nmo ms for the MU -1i3, land use category within Newport CernSer,,, making hotel- uss.,a permitted use wugth[it the Ihllixed iUse =a'i!e and rmalntaining,laofel use vrilhin the llevel @f I'nterusity set forth fn the Genera'I Plan. Policy LU 16.14.3 provides Mat development inghts irney lie liansfarred wijh'lm Newport Center, subileet'to the 'approval of th',a'C[ty and with Hie finding that: the'!iransfer is consistent:uwjth the intent of the General Man aad the transfer-will not result, In any adwers'e lraffae Impacts_ Because there IS na wnvembn of use, the trafficgenaratlani For thii hotel unils trarisfeered will ir>esiult in no net'change in veKk1e Owiips fmirrii a ,Caenural IPlcani perspective Addifionalty, as set Forth in the MiNio and iits'' supporting ;traffic analysis, the proposed project will acEUelfiy reduce danly vehicle Iri'jas, a rn, ui k hour trips, and p.m. peak hourbips flue, to the redo¢ lion of tennis couds. Thus, the transfer its€ll' will nol result in,anW advraise'traflio irni i5. With raspeet "to wrlsistency With Via in[ent.of Me'Genera'I P2in, 'the analysis of relevant land use polides, piresenlad in the' luiltlia'I study indFcatedl that the proposed projecti, arid therefore the lrarnsfer o-r devetopnienl. riljluts; tificonsistentwilth the anerd�l Plana. IHm>we�+aer. such -a di terminatidn 0 pon6isteney mush bei imade'k�y the Newport IBeachh City Council pdor to approval of Ih,e TO applicat on. Response to, Comment Nip, 14 A;ocardiAg. lot the General Plan ii eonslrrict nn ai gtbv ties wFll Occur at discrete VXatiplis in the City'. Including Ifhe subjii property, and' +ribFaSon'fromr,s'trCh activity irnay iirrrpaet WdStin91 Wildblgs andl their 4ccuipanis if'they are loc'fed close enpuglh to [he riairiuctidn sites. As suggested 'in phis eprntmentand in the General Plan f=1t', vibration lewels,,,assacmated with . the rpCK Mishing',ecdauthes, anitclpaled to o0eair' dur'n,g tflte ,d'enno[loimn phas es of tfi proposed project; could be: priiWeal5etic if sens'ilrre uses are locale'd wriRtin about 1-00 feet, of serisiii aeoeptors ( ;e.g, residents. schodi olajlidmni would ex-periennee Wbralti6n. Q;ve 6 Rrat exceed the IFTA-s vlbratlon in r:.f threshold of'. 72 VdIB. However. impacts related to canslnuctigru vibrat pn are event and fecalnon specific. Th orefora lit +.will . be necessary to-ensure a'dfsla'nce oEapjAraxrrnalely 150. leeVis maintained, between rack crushing Activates and existing sensllive receptors, R espornise 't'o'CoM meat lNo. 115 a440or?dingl to thei propdrlya owner„ the Ijagti ge uf'Ghe exislang pii�aate tennis club miscr pperat w other Iren'Ais alVbs. The Toluca lake Tennis,Clubi rnalnlains i tennis Oourls lha'l support a membership ci ' 350 member a, resru'll"rng'in an aua:rage,orf 501 members for e_aohi ienrds pour In BddiY stt, IPafsrades :Te'n'nis. Club iin Newport Beach, .8160 with 7 oourtsh has a m ernbarship ,of 224 and a per COUA IrBtiol Of' 32 m6mbe'rsdcourl_ The Applicant's rumnis.coraSultaint has suggested thal,am rado-of one tennis cour1s'Eor each 35 maambi?r5 is "ideal:` 'The current membarshlp olf' the a xislirlq Ion — ClUb oDmbiined With thM 7 'fenii courts that ar®• proposed W remain (!.a,., inet reduction of 17' tcnnis.eottst) vvo`u, dl ,yrel'id in r@60 of 31 memibers pet court. IBaWd on the recornm- 6n'ded merhbers *nns Doirrts rauo (35.1 ), Ilha "proposed` lenne6 ciu4.c4uld support -46 additional members., The irevlsed courn cionfiguration:wrill ii the'de_mands of 60 cluib, slthorug'h li adjusted'schedulfRg Will tediure peak i idur Playa (because fewer courts will be anrailalnle at peak hours) •ands spread play' more evenlg throughout the day. This w3l regect the typical private club ploy patti i Which res4lt from the ane Courtf�5:'mermbers Irjule of thumb.- Asia result, ittrere Is : no expeelatipni thal.there is any lmpael on publio a creall nal'use. As.iindicated In the pro;jeetdleacriplion and'alowe, implementation df the r'rcrposed Pra ?ct geld resull rn the eliminatfon of 13 of the 24 tennis, courls that curremgy.,extst on the subject properly, leaving only seven l?nnis courts ;, Erkoudng one new "center court" lit is imporlanQlo note that', as a;pri,vate club, thie existing) tennis coufls area ,not, generall ;y ovaiiable f*r, public play. 'vilhFl [he club has a:llisvred the Campa d'el Ivleir Aevarli�l h} air WJIr7 ft - XXR a'arr+`�why MewTA'ur @r'uCAn Cbur+rri FA2006440f 11.7 722 t?asdmriw i6 Fkil4Ac Llo-rrme�Ss... fc.GMr r'dr.aMrrdg ftw9duGLkiBAC'ii earl'ra<Ch�h =.rPA2A173 -�'90J Sage ill tennis [tearns to use 'the faeiiilfes,; use of the facilities by those teams Was a [temporary and 'sa a o-1 erscommodation to all''aw the schoo35 to cornplete work on thefr.own courts, Manotheles% as reflected in the Recreation Element of the CityCs General Plan. ":... private facilities; indluding yacht chuk golf courses, end country clubs are also factliVes lhait serve residents of Newport Beach," As such, it. maybe true That p+.a'te recreatiw facifil_ies Such as the existing tennis; facility could seirva Ito'Vffset;° to seis7e degree, the daniand for,public recreation through the, availahltlly eflhe (private lentils courts to a timited segment of the population w1thin'the City of Newport . Beach and nearby aireas. oordling to the tlewport (Beach Recreation Elernerlt, two recreational seMVioe areas hawe adequate pz,Tklandl and1lor reoreatIpIn fapililfes. service Area Hp. ,g (Ha±wparl.Center) and ervim Aisai No. 11 IHarbor Wiaiaj; Tract proposed project is located within Service Area Hai 0 as Illustrate i in Fbure. R11 fn theRei,reafidin Element. ft ,of un 20C7dE't o (public) recreational facilities exist within thin WrVine area, IMlti,ding the Baick IBay'VIeuv Park and the Nlewppit Chines Aq attic Pare', which logether encompass 101;1 acrRs. Based` on the .2005 popufationi w t.l fin this•,servtce area. a-total of only 10.9 ,acres of parkrand iSL requ.rad', re5ultingi in a net surplhrs' ofZ.I actres of publfc parkland In, §erWiceMea No. s,. V0111e It 'is, difficult to assess if the toss of 17 prrvatefy owned and malntained lea is cgvd5 in the,'City two?uld adversely impedt pultfic t ellitf € "s, it would' apnea} that +ilhout ad'd'ti nal rttiem�rshig, the 7 remaining tannic Grottrks wcutsf continue to be adequate to serve the members zind,woul'd not sig,niTicantlyy frripact existing, public t�e7ifte's ielsjwhere In the City .of' Newport 146abh AUlhouylh,.a_s indfeaiiedl alratiM2, flee existing; lenni5,tourt5 ma3? prowiue solno reoreaCionat gp,nanSi g wutr in the'servide Brea, the lobs o,f '1 7 of the 24 tennis courts v ouId not be considered a.siglnificantadverse impact, This is dire to the,;fact [hat . the continued use of the seven 'teninis courC5 proposed for the lenriis ctuti, which VIr rernairi private Facllities� will ae limited, to members and gpes,ts of the pvGposed facility. In addition, the elimination pf:the tennde woOSi3 not considered to be significant In light of -true RKreafion Element delermina din that no deficiency in.partd'and an 'for, redreathonal facilities exists. or is anticipated ;to aeour wi4hfrl erui a „for a PrPO'- g. As evaluated fin the Initial study, i'iriptirm®ntaition of the proposW prctecttw ouldl riot substantially increase the use o6 existing rergidilal. parks,andior atiuse the subslantial physical deterioration or- ,amy park facility. Furthermore, 'based) on the .findings in -Ihe Newport Beach [Re-creation ;ElemOrk. She projpel would, nplr require the 'construction iii or expari cif` rec?eati6niai faclfiLes:: A5 a result, no additionall recreational' facilities beyond those identSfted above wvithin the .service arch, fncludi,rpg tennis Facilitiea, a: a tueoessar} vilhln the degig ated recreational serrice area Res rlse'to.Cornviryent lNo. '16 The assessntent,of pwenlfal proj;sch'; relwed traffic Impacts follows the 'City's pootocdl Far owiducting'tiraftlic anal se& 'T'ero gen_arallan for the.existirig and the praao.sed projgcl uses tivere tiaserB on the Sand use quantiti€is for each land, takerr,'f djh the Institute of 'Transportation [Engineers IITIE) Tdp Gsvte?rardan (811h IEdflion), as, showen on lrabl'e 2 of ll1.e TraAc and 'Parking A1'nalysls prepared by Kimle¢� -Horn and i sbciates„ fine; Trips generated 6y the existing Ilan? l uses wtre,calculated' and subtracted From thb turps that Mall be generated. by the proposed development_ iBased an' {h4 'pr¢iiect Grip generaYlon, the proposed project,' doea nol glomerate: a ito,ughi traffic to warnanit Further dela;il'ed analysis, 'WVhyile the Ct&B Me.riter$ refer?noe.ta the underutfliz_addan p_F the exis€liig courts may have merit With respect to the nurniber of eui "sting) Grips on a N -hour basis, That number is not.tha rneasure of lmfTrr, used by Ith,eCity tor,: in fact by agencies,g[eneually), to evralt ata Ilratfc impacts, Rather',. "peak hour trip$” are the relewanf Factor b usii they [measure traffic activity at those G'rrnes of fq® +ray when projected increases in traffic may pa!tentially result in slgpnifidant Impacts, in addition to applying.. the CjVs sfartdard pry Real to nfeasure existing_pea!k hour trips:, it a'Iso is,a, measonable,assumption to assiurie that because ctrl the - °surplus` of courts available to tennis club Mminers and the heigfrtened demand) for peak, hour use of those courts,; exirjing play on the 6ouAs has been disproportionately QCe1L1rred 'du:dg9 peak hours. Up6n completion of the prdjeck only M3uxg4 ib'��nlS�n![3 = "rrZR IP!'ol�f�'1J'iiP: vr'u -wir tYeu¢:iti+aralr�+ C�u� (.OYJS =fdC1 HA 72S P&AWF,W rsp PyVn4',r Goff-,awy ds- Ji'CR pfovnrur�g PatiS;unOr7 iP °YaCti GoyOy GliNly. =,d�r12�7S_L•"r�.p seven, rather Man twenty-four„ courts will Ibe, available for peaty hour (play; thus rec'uting the number of ,players pwho "n play. during the 'high demand peals hours, 'nlhether uslipg the iCity's standard protocol aT appliv nql N& yeas inai 'let assumption regarding, peak. hour ptayf, the net result is a projeciO ddarease in the nudriberof inpS resulting from peak hour use of`the tennis opurts. Asf Indicated in, this comment, Impl'ermentation of the proposed project will occur in severe'! phases, lit4 ding d6molitioh, site preparation and cnnstructfoni of the proposed singlle rarnily residences, bungaloWs, •and tenalis, club and related fa ilttiem: Athqugh not quantfied, oonsiruction lca_ffic llrripscts would iricliud'e 6eth heavy truck ltraflfic assocllaEed with, the delivery of consNrucfuon 6quipmenra -nd huitdiiiq mallenats and' atanstnacilon rwcrlSer andkor, vendor IC+�ffie, +ks.rnoted in the inlUar study, these construction- related trips would be axpeffted to result In some c4rf9086n atoV East Cotast'Hliglrway in the'vicinity of the Subject pmt perty; nolfimWer, it islmportant to note that none of these trips viogDd occur during. eilh,er the a,m. or p.m, pearl haues due 'to like res'trie ides pla`c :on the prgjeet through the Cons'trucfion - C'ag6elh: Racking, and Traffic. Control Plan. As,irequiredl In The iwTM -$ +ah'ibft must be submitted to-and ap,prtoverl by file Oily of Newport Reach poor to The issuance of a grading perumil for Ifhe project, the plan m!risl identify all constrtaorigr' lrafc routes and avold •streets where construcAon is undarvnay vrilhun,or adjacent to -the streal thalvrould trmpaptthe efficientyr,of theLlpro,posed rdvte_ Othier requtrernents imposed on the Ipr ject tiwabld include res'tn`cHons an heavy truck traffic d6fing peak 1;ours. vie offWgIrraer,, bh?ic des, and similar measures, t.o ensure that traffic and ctrcu'lation is noLiidverselg afffeci , Response to Comment NIm 17 Refer to R sptnse to Comment Na 11. As previously indicated the prinjW, appllcanf Would be subject Ili the requirement manda'W Ihy it,e iiwC gratpry Bird Tr v.l Act,and would be required avoid consvuctign dtrria gl the inesfing'season �Fiehruary 15 tthrcrugh ,fulyr 31j. In ordlerc to anidedaken cpnstmatien during the: nestirlg;.sreason, the'appiicant would be required to undertake a pra#MriStfijoton servpy to Corl1lilQl the absence of nesLK9 spedes,, An fniliatsludi f was prepared for The h1BCC l3rojTPtd by 11 8C. ,�,hldh incfudes'tlne r!'emalitian of the existing golf' course clubhouse and iecoristr6ulion of a Isrger ctubhouse ds, indicated in this obi- nmen't;, Because the, analysis for Ihe. clubhouse assumes, the same 'trip,generations; as the CsRF proposed duuf>,7nous , 'despite rue Ilarger scrotum tr p generatioftnofthe , CAUbhoijSe fS.' ft, sale for the two ptbjedl5 Tiherefore, !wlln the exCe?,ptlon of shoft4ermi traffic, noise and air - qualify impacts IN GIRIF ar'*yws pnnvideS the waort t ease'" 5 rearip ibc the hwo,prmjecCS if the City 6viere top aplpraved the IBiC proposal For the golf'cowTSe duhhousc and this GRF land use p4ropOsal Iror the terinls clubs bungalow?- and sipa, and'five siingte- fannilyr residential �dwalling units to, Die east. 6.s indicale for ire proposed pMeet the shod.' -temp pispruction lmpactS WOU'Id be neciuoed lo•a !less 'than • €ign fficaret level through the unposttion ,of f?guTfiements ,placed .on'cons"u—tion, Iraffk throiugh the Construction Staging; !Parking and Traffic. Control (Plan pra$mbad In Eh€, 1J ©_ IEnFoans dl r5iif aR an Is iL?st?E d' to enSrr a that ns'truulEvn,relatr lair pollutant em sslons; Whidlt were fd'enl`rfied td !tae cumulatively significant dues to the' „na�,n afCainniemt” stalvvo the alr basin, will resi'uae those temporary imp2:Cts to a. less than significant level; Similarly; construction noise impacts are sha•rt =teran lih naYUre and . +w'oruld be cojitMllei uhrouGh Measures pr td"ribedl tin the ConstiiuPion Management Pian. Property tuned) oonstryclifan equipment etc. Q1her,pote'ntial Cumulative irrnpactsmould tae less than signifiCSnt (because the proposed dulahouse would indt result in any signTUirant change.& to the existing lannd use and, Wien ciomb fined wV1 the land uses itb, the b,851. proposed by GRF, which rdsult, in a reduction of traf ig. Response fio Gornrnent No. 1 B The fitnQgsi*ntarand sps,ar ,)mrnpinnents w lhln dse Bungalowccunpotnenl of the gtoposdd profedt: and bwpuid be available for use by guest of the 'Bungalows and perhaps Tennis Glub rn €fnbvrs- a !&such, dig trip ga narat ®n factors rrtilfx4(t fdr Ifh;g inurigalo,,v'erW Tennis 010 uses Would incfuda trse of•thezpa and! lkeiw,ravnl 8arich rrt!ry'CI'rih Q�RA A?r'='r44J! 19 724 R'&Wanse•�,Va1?WBIe,CpfmammJ - J;«4`R'arinhir ?61VMnAffP."t �Cerintry Q&J 42 _PtM fitness center, whlIch - unoufdl'lypically not generate aery tripe, IrOpehdOritly_ As a result„ it is not Ineoesaary to in Irnp gelneralion rates td:r those uses. Similarly„ the trip•generatfo,rr irate used for Me, golf Course . club house (Land Use M,o.,430: wolf dDurse) reed$ not only,gotl courses up to 36 hrales, but also fadilities dead include a pr4,shep, restaurant, lounge; and banqual0facplities; Thar, el rd; 'the top aeneratiom rate used far the olf' Co rse clubhouse is ,app epmate Jlo •Bstirnate (rips that wc+ugd reSir t from the g. Implementation of the prspastd prpyet✓I, As ,previously Ilndlcateal, because the proposed Mandl use Is'the Same as the, e*ling land use„ and would net, resuli, in any new trips w ben donr,paned'to the attesting land use, a delaildel l'raFE'tc:analysis'irwas not rMq,uired. Response to iCorhmmierni, No, 110 The trafficanalysls prepared for the proposed project compl es With the Cily!'S proturoll'for preparfnig traffic analyses. Because Me peek hour tn'ps,'geraerated by the pmpcnsedl piof;ect would he reduged whentt cdri pared to the ezisling land rases„ it was :determined) thaal ,project- related traffic would not re_.suli in, a siglnitica:nl, irnpai:t to e3dsung ar lfuturer roadwaw gndffor!laljrr eorloppip,61ting Conditions. 'As a result, a detar7ed trraffictanalysus:was notrequired- Restohse to Comm ent.No. 20 The ,requlircmenC that the applicanit, pre-pares parking, Imanag,effnent,pian is Joped 'on the palw0ral for special ievents to occur at either the golf X0-VIM of the -tennis Club, both of :,`which have hosted) teurnarhertRs, In the past:, r<ts required by the City of Ntewparl, IBeach, a,3,pedal Use permit vwould be regquired and,-as a ccrndltidnl of Rhe special _u'Ise peraruii, the applfeanl would be regUiaed t0. prepare, the. paiking managament plan, In the event thal:addlltlonal parkingi'is required to 5acbbrnmodate'thespecial eVelits hatd at the gcll course, and'lor tennis club, the parking eaimmenR is a means by wWich titelapp$csnt .could meet the ;con6iidns stipufets_d in the:speciall use perrtnit to provide, ar.nerng oth er lrllttgs, adequate parking -r„ based on the proposed uses. fEaelparltingi proposed for each of tl ie fuses, not IN01 ding, special,evants suety as-golf or terinis tOurrraments or other actintCies deteirmined by the City to raq.Wre a special use permit, weds to Iparking rt gLfi,ned by the' City and than dertitit W in the Planned) Com,`rnun¢ty. Clewelopntent, Plan. response to Cornrrnertt No, 211 This parking, ea58rreeot noti+d in the MIND would (provide parklhg at certain firma, b €y,ond :rail', ne?.45 rdentiited for the normal; and crunkornary uses of The proKsed Nc lKes, However. 4 is noted siimply to Provide Inforrnaation with respect to the potential for spedat events which might require additionall; parking, Those spetial ewenlfs, howreyer. art; not (part o! the ,proposed project and would n autngiP f by apprtnval Of die prr7pOsed prsijet Each "special enteral;' Which may include igalf tournaments, t_ennlls' tournaments. or Dtheirsuch acliv iOn_s conducted at (the gMect 51te, wduld be subject tQ the granting,at a special event permit pgirsuanit 16 the requlrernen1V mandleted in Chaptor 1`1,03 61 !the 060 &tort iBeach Monkipal Coale. trim 11'.30:050 (Standards and (Requirements) allows :the Cil'y' to impose conditicm on any Spec ail 6en,t Plarmit. Including those related td, ... us6 Of Lily beaches, fire prolic €ion„ frafifie; erkan secure p g, ty, dust; control„ wrater'quafity prelect pn Of the lay: and ocean, noise temporary structures. signs and banners, outdoor fighting, fnsurand e, mild) other made'ftemedl by the Rinv 6wing Atahority to lit_? irecces"_- for prrptaGTori 0 public hea!Ilfti•, safety a-lid eruerel'ue9fare " Response to comment. No: 22. Recreational outdoor noise wtuld be no gnaaW, tha'ri that 6ccurding at the presenl time_ Thtere are 24 tennis courts ' that currently sxist, on the su'bj,eci prope_ntyr flee us? faire these 0000is -has, In the past and', generated noise asssoclaledl with play at Hie tennis dJub both during reguRa 1play and duringl tourrnarienis held) at the fadility. As ilndisated in the project descdption„ implementation of the pfbposedl project tiaill. Rawprw to r !onfS� -I rd,F.' irv!Y% ftmx tr sigh minty er•,IS dAiMs=i.rar 21 725 t2e rsa ¢rr RvbJ ir+hfi'r - Ji R Mari ft Y1'&�6710P[- B.:F!'rJ' ca lmrN�y�r�, �s J.3fr31 result in i�€ alirminailon 01 17 tennis court,. leaufrm8 seven courts for aotime Play and use. It is ant.06 ted that tha leuel of nO]sp Associated with seveni 1en'ils couiils would be no; greater than the noise gone ra,W in the past by the use of up to 2:4 cb- u:rts. Based on the. red'uc —fion of the r(umber or tennis courts ii;ei„ 24 e'xfshnag courts compared to'- 7 proposed courts] and the sma'lle'r ioverall area fnl tiwltlo'h tennis: vrouiid be pilaiy'eO, it is an.licipaWd IIfaa.i noise' fe4ets at the tennis club could decrease, but in -no event VmrUld he grealer_ Furthermore. Ss'ckon 10.28 or the Nloise Ordinance ('laoud and Unreasonable INoike) is Grtand'ed to unsure thal noise IPM do not create a pu'hlia nUisanoe or detrimeJ?t'' to' Public- health ihdl peace and quiet of ther,Gitypnd its rnhabitamis,'" To thhdt end, reud and unreasonable noise is Ipro.416itedL however'. as indicV*d previausly. noise associated with either Ole proposed tenrt -ris club or the'gpff course tiaautd Pbt generate a' cQ%Mr level, of exlerfor noise than currenlij exist- at Ilhe- present time... TherejoW, m sign 'ifrrcalnt noise impads , associated Mth etthei reereaBOn use ar,g antiiaipalied and no m5itigati6m measures - -are regUrired. Response th7i COl13rrlent, No. 23 The Traffic and Parking IEvaluation prepoireO lby ICinrley- l-lonm atnd Assodiptes included an jssessMent 61 [he parking prourded for the proposed project. Based -om ftt; assessment 'the proposed proleet'would result in a'surplus`of 72 parking spaces. fncliedtni9y8;spaces In eix'ces of'the 54 parking spaees' r- quired for the tennis cluWfennis spa ;,amdi'� spaces Ignore than Ole 27 pdirkin.g �paees required 'fir the, Igungailows, The Ohre WOW identifies the Cily's parktrog regrli ments-prescrfGed fn the Zoning.c-We as uell as #lie pa'rtring mquiretmer!t5'r?etfeCtedl in the proposed Plamnkdl Corrnm ky District 1$egtnfations- As indicaledl In that table oin,sile ;parking meets 6r exceeids the pmjeckretatedl 1parking requirements, _ LaI15nJ Slse NIBCC'iPC Par_kEn, -- US Zoning g do RarWmo Parking tae uired Paring, PIrovidedl surpll'usJ b_ ifi'tiii Golf Course 244lota:l As i$pedried by IN & Pia_nnlx1q iMOtoF 244 300 _ `s6 Tennis Club 4k3u:fd 4rcourt' 28 58 6 Tenrros Cli'h, a 4111 LOC10�',SF 4}i 00 SP 22 6'rn alo,ws Uremi unlit iN 4res't roorrn lugs 2' 22' 34 7_ - Ililtas. JSFpisp 2 erave[ed and 2' off- slree:Yhome 2'en p3�tunit _ :201 21 1 Tlo!tall _- 241 4493 N t6URCE: f lntle -Hann. and Associates, tnc'. The !jury of INewv rrt Beach has reviewed) the parking 'supply analysis ,prepared by the'. appficani's ccnsiul!Cartl as 'well) as that prepared by Kirm[ y =piorn atid cs iai+5 suMfnarlZr.1 above and has d tcmesireerl that the Krk prbuldedl omdsite exzeeds that requlred far the proposed proyeciL Response to Commend No. 29. Refer to R6spon� to Comment No. 23. OR"- to.Co mrnent Mg..25 Refer to.iResponses to Comment Maas, 211 and 23. �iaJ,aWwn3�5'!9S CYU�Tav1RSs- Irtr�4 „Plrlr7l�d�, 64n7 h CtirJr Vly Chub ir'! �N35 -�r4kP 2.1 720 �f:S�5MRS9-CO POW �anenrs - KtP l-{Vilii76 rg i 8aaclu ca M cwm rr3azrux,_-ra0 Response to Comment No, 26 Refer to Response to Comment No, 2'1. Responsgcla Comment fits. 27' The Phase 'I ESA prepared For the: protect thoroug;hlip evaluated ft potential hazards alndfor Itazard'ous materfai;s, associated v lih the existing uses and subject property, With the eatpeptioni of polenilat tea�- based paint (LOP) and asbe�s -tos, conttaining 'rmaiterfals (ACi) .Ghat may be present in the exisliq strua ve6, no recnnized enviranr antal cond lions_ wvre fdPnIlFW during the on-sile.invesGgalfon andfor dafabase'sea'rch toodutted for the proposed' project. and d tmanledl iri l`ne ESA. As a result of the1 inveslig,atian„ no, potentially sipriFfic -hint health hazards are anticipate and no. mitiga!tign irneasures are roquFred, despite the recommendation tocpholuct,sollsarnpl'irtg. Respons* to!Cornmenr No. ,2Fr The air quality,analy�sis prepared For dhe proposed prof %A estimateid the potenliall stwrt- term air quality . irnper is aw6ated 'With the aspha'IG de.ntolilion and crushlmghacla+nation activlties proposed Ibr the Project. The Ire cults of'thaC analy" are presented in Hie inihal,study In Table' 11, Fn thaf ta'bla, Ilte asphalt demolFtian and cn!slfinglrra la�tatlon iCli'ities +ati'tauld.lgenerale 3.2 poundsydayr of, R,OQ, 31,3 poundrMay of NOX (26.7 ppunds'day' after mitigaitio4). 1!4i.1 poundslday of C-O; i a °pourirfslday lot Pmiao dOA po?unalday after mllff"timnl„ 1.3 poundstday' clf 1:5M:s (04,3 ppundyday alter M.A.98liorn), and 3,'i9'1 pounds,Iday of,002 The "Ie al eo lncl'vdes.emiss'ronl esinntates Ifor slaweture dernol['llon, rnass gra�irig, Orre'grading.'trencfiing, constnudlion, and oonstruction and 1pain'ting, INCne df the shart4ernn emissians or amy'al the r�ii�stuuottam'aCCiviGes ezoeede�d EFue �CAd]I4117 sigrwldie�nga Ittu�l�oid�, Response to Gomrnent No, 29 Consitrnucapri emissiorr5,'datclpated ror eadh oarnpo'nent ol'the;'proposed project would result irk small, Inur'ementai (uvels of pollutant ennissions,, Assuming some '004ifap' tif irte golf' course clutihottse_ and artier oompanenis of the praLoaseci project as suggested in this =rnment %61dl be enroll when combined) e_lher aind would tot result in emrss ons that would exceed . Me thmoollas esiabllslhed fur eadh pollutant by the SCAQMIC. RiVspon6e to Cbm merit No. all As indfcatad in the Int211 :study, ihd project- r>elrrW DDnsLre cfion sclivities will result in i3iomnfial'IV siiranifioani, cwm iladg6 air, quality+ impacts. klegreever, Odse imipeols do n[it exceed signfcan +theesftratds . estalxlshad by khe SCAS MID and, Furthermore are shorl,•ternl in malure,.jmd woUld oCCutr only during "!the consiruction ptt2s�2s of We project, Mitigteifon measure'. including enhanced measures have been prescribed) in the 1AND, because thagproject area is looaled rm'a noft4ttainrnent area. llniplementalron of We rnitipafta rneasu;res,, as well as compliar2e uwirh, th €,SCAPIVID- mandaled (or dust suppression and t thar pcfttant' ei nissicns.alnticlpeted to occur during construction, are adequate to reduce phiei paldoliaf cumutafive imp4cts W a loss Pan signi11DUig level:. Response to Comment No: 371 Most of Ithe.sensltive receptors that would' be atdectedl by the;proposed project are located more than 100 'Feet MOM tite prop'csed project_ (Construction activities genrxra4e many lamer' pa?Ea s with shorter atrnesphe_ric resldar� IWmes Willi: smaller, (fine p€articF'e-s'riamafn:ing'suspe iddd in the_ ,atmoso4ere seMi- ncleCnitely. As,a resell kilo dusk IS ;o1mpn. rnalli'ly pf 1ame diarnal1 r, inert.siticates That are chcmically non-reaotive and are further (readily filtered out lay hrwn'rpn W01111Ag ;passagiee. Yfues4- fugitive dust . rrs9� la IsUI{RLIT3W`PS - di'd��.�'enru'hig Nkrv�rt L ese�h.iCagnlyy a~:WL.�1�A49 22 727 f2e4 P-e CD,°UM awaffi¢aPa, -.�KLR PA7=1 vg Juiriwu:M'eevu4 ° rN tLft�4 Otr�f 14'0li Prttrles are, therefame, imam of a polentie'l sollIng nuisani oe'to random +sensidve rece&rs withtln 1,0`0 ie3et as they Settfe aWl inri parilued cars, ouWoor Furnilirre; or landscape foliage rather and typically do not pose an adverse health h+aaardt The'd'epcsitioni distance of rlhosL smiling nuisance particulates is iless. than 100, feet from the source;ii 1,99511. As indicated ahoue,'thb-re are few'sensa9F,we reeepAnas Within: 1100 feet. from the priofeiet consinurrydomsfte: perimeter.. IResponse'to. Comment No. 32 Table ifi in the. air quaility an, slpsis includes a compraherusius. list of onstripction equipment that'awolild be used over 'fJ1e sav_eral construction Phases. Because littla„ `it any., asptrall dernolidon end crushingkeel'amallon would be' i'egi i*d during the cbnstraicfcm of the clubhouse, -no impat4s `associated with Those actMties would occur. Rather, the pbllulamt emissiarrwoudd he limited to that generated ley 11haiequlpmentav5oclatesj with the 'rempcnderof'tho'construgtIdn adtiv,AMes'd'enl'nFiga In Table 16„ including stnrcturodernolition, mass grading, fine grading, constructions, and'construciya_n and ,paint?nlb. I? espiti ta.Comment l+te_ 33 Construction equlpnsent exhatist oonlains carclLnogeMQ6 comi ads within lthe,desel': exhaust O:Mcuiateas, The tonicity of diesel exhaust is evaluii relatii to 2i 2-4J,Ilocur per day, 355 days per year, 30=year liretl'mte exposure. Publib eirposure. tb heavy ®miuipnnent ermlesians ujil be an ext1rem;ely small fraction of, the abcvr dosagaai a'ssumpflon. Il iesel equipment, is also becoming gvog,nessluely'9eFeainer' in response, lc; air quality rules. ran naaw off -read equiprrleint. Any public ,health risk associated Math paojiect- related heavy eq,uiprryenl tr;per'atfr*ms ismhaust's anticipated to be small' arnd not gvan iFrA;l a,s undfceted in the -act afualify. anailysisL Furlhorrmore„ venrilation alongl the,crrasl, cornbin €dl wilh the relative short duration IthaC llh'e pollullanis' are. suspected 'ir the area, reduce'th'e polienlial adverse leffe- Dr ib, idiasi a hauet land'olner' particulates. As a result „'they alre- consldered.to be less than Significant. ReS',PoriS'e i Comment. Pi iii, As indiC.'a-M in Iprioe'.resprimes (refer tai Responses 'lo,CCommenit Coos 1'a and 11g), no additional trips era.. antictpated to occur” as a result of (project im;plemenEatuon. A neC ru=duct on in trfps a,ouk occouur,dure to the sigmiifi_cant reduction In the number of ionn1S, courts. In addition, Vahicu'lar trips generated by the used identifrsd um -this comment, (&g., fitness ^,Enters, spa, !banqu#i: fagtl ties, etr._) ore ,ancillary to and accounted IFGr inn, the trip generation rates For the pirimary cusps i;e , golf' i ctiu',bhouse and bungal'owvs). As indicated In this di $4uSSiJorn of tr+;'ffc' itmpacts, it is esGrnated that Me prmposed project wrill resuylt in,a .net . reduction in trips„ Itherefore, no'signifi'canttratti'c Firni arer'antfci,paled. Response! 0 Gornm;ent No 35 Although the 2lF pollutant ennissions esgirinaled ror the propiosed',prpjeel are based an a 26112 gompt�GO!r1 date, the emissions are,consid'ered to be .,a worst case asseSSi dire loi the; anticipated continued Improvements fn emissiDns 9echnotdgy and more rigojroud, *,Lil'aitory conlrolls on pollutant eRiissi4n wahich xarauld rcasvll in FiWererroissions. p,s.,a r'esuullt, the o'perat'ional 6ini'ss'ions generated byr the.prmpos;ed pro,jecl'For slime-6i d'®ta Ibaylond'2 012' erei anfidpine ttr l less, than that presented in the air.quaiity an awl S. Rosponse tB'Goallrnent No, 36 AS irlldicated' in Response ito Comment t'los '12. A is not possible to determine the nature andl extent col potential imi'tlgaglrn mq,uired' for ai single +pa©yeet °s potentially signincar l impsadt and tKerorore, top speculative in tltie ahsenee df a regignJa-1 or silatewdide,i negulaEi i t global `raaaming and by wmlct IC could Fie, measured. Th® analysis does, as indicated lnl this comment, rg"g;nixe the p:olect Impi wrriuldl cpntrilivi ;V'rmnlativully ko'the phenomenon ol:glnbal w&mimtg; hoavivpr„ thel analysis Id4es not o-ornclude dea3RsaboiGdmmm5ra,, -XLR Piwwft. 15Ya�earY 8trarel� t�crrr}ri°.�m. (S�A2t7lisrrf7j 23 722 P h_d;nuntrw G"Wb - ePA2fM5 -1,, 71 that the cunnwgeliue. irnpacfs are signift2_nt, 9h!e0, the speculaffva nature of Stich ai conclusion without knovrPedge of °the nature and ardent of other proje Wts worldwide. Although Mitigation rneasures are ncut required, several) medet re'S hava been recoMmemddtl to neduce pobgntial greenho.0se gas ennissions ganerated by tlhe project. ' Response 10 Canmme:nt O, 37 ' 'Ujpsizing of Rhe exilbtng stone diraini'is required to order to occotnnuod?t@ the postdfeveloplment etcirrn Mnofl; no flooding irnpaiAs ere,aniticipatpd to occur as a resflt of ,project Innioleunentetion, Response. toy Co mment, Na, As trt icaited°iin this eomMent„ the (proposed profect includes the Construction of a' new ,3© -inchi RrP oni a propQrtyr adjdcerrt'to to subjecll zite 'Thal construction is,a oomponent of tine p- roject Therefore„ a_qy change In the prUje#,descriptidn waould acquire �ddition�l envirarumr?niat'e_lea_ranoe, Respanse to ComMent No, 39 The info ne io,n presented' in the .precec ing respomes add'Imsses the comments • SOMitted an the proposed) paropact, The ainafysis i'nclud'ed in the lnitia'l e[vdy and the ad'd'itissnal info nnatian pr4?irlet In, these responses adequately evalwaited tire, potential impacts an tipated to' Occur as ai result of project' Implementation. w7nae t>? r�+r +n+7P?al5 -�Gd� Ptmnr�rr�p Alft,% rt �eaWh Cannfny Gdu8 l�/1F965= A4fJ�l 24 Response to Commonts' -Golf: Realty Fund Newport Boach Flainnfingl Csmrm,lss'ion August 4, 2011 QlieviSi6dl November 17. 2011 j PC Co mment& an the Golf Reafty' Fund (O'HIIII) p'rrrjec?t, 13.60nun h'b_ 1 Address the,land use I m,pac'ts af'ihe lwo prnjectg tu,e,, interface andlcumulalive ilml cts) Respoyise To G'ommem,No, f The:::r?elalionshi'p bettveen ther hy.0 projiacts ( °lhe GIRF Plan' and "Ile 11M Plan') has ewdlvled in savetal respects' In _renewing this 'nelationshfp, it is Impor nl 'lo hole that the 180 Plan includes only line golf' cluhihduse andi'the golf dub pamihg Icti tivMte the iGRIF iPlan.includes the golf areas, C ut, afso pro posies. GunigblovIS (lii5tel units). the Tennis 'Club (private recreational use and We ` IMS ffive Sjgg(e farsiny r sillonces)ion pibperfy I,ni medlaletyadjacenl to the gol'fefu'm porlien'of the ,Planned iczffirTIDWy:. P'aterelial Fand use ron licts It ttween We 1113C Plan and the GRF Plan wena-cvnsidelred' in Pope p wised golf clubhouse In the IaC Plan- These revisians lhave resulted in greater physical, separation heb.veen the golf clubhouse and[ GRIF's Ipro;posLd gungaidwus; Tennis'Cluh and 51'itlis ,Tbie pale pmti,ere in Ile 6691'rial m !Plan wss'260' "m the GRF`s closest Vllla: awhile than ravfsed.I IBC Plan shays the distano2•'at 315. Time nearest 8001ow .struclure. is Row proposed) to The 16 i feet kom the, porte c0ch&%-00mpa;red to. aplprWisn IQiY 128 fse(, lm the.previdsis IBC flan. There afro ls,a:Ora fast se;paratfon Ihetwaon. the nearest. Bungailmw and the bag drop area near tine Iporte cochere, compared lo,apppoxlrmately 57 feet, lin,:tfne proof Ifs iPlan In 'additloc„ MC has mrdlded We foot nnl af' fhe Boil' clukihou5e sm that' the nearest Bumgalmm P slrauclure, will be ,about 1'311 feat. from the'dlubllousse, cr7appuoximately ithe sahte di=noe as the prior IBC Pjan'(134 feaq- Whan carppared to the iprevirusly proposed) IBC.' ?Ian, fh'a increasrad physical sepsardon ef. ittcse uses, ccimtiined ±rriltT the Ila'ndscaRing proposed fir ISM revised golf clubh ©usej WO "So"n' the land use interface between IIBC's proposed tgglf sxyurse ctut hubse a'nd GRF's proposO adjarArlt Sungalpw, 0r,d. yasidemfal uses'. As a result, potential land use conflikis behVeen the,;ty o bm6_eets fraue bt=€n adeg0ately addressed dircu h redesign of the IBC project, which includes increased, p1h'ysiral saparsfion between 'Ihe proposed 5trurlures as wall as, enhanced landscaping, to ',proAde. adequaia Wreerring. 7i erefore, M significant land 'um conflicts oY in6am.palibilify is•anfirapated' and no mitigation nweasu'res :are: r€qu ired. The parking lot' gesEgn Of the, two proposals d'itlefs in ways�Uizt the tum. applicants each belieV_aL are, irnpa0bp1_ Tl1n'e 1130 Plan shows ',parking lopes running } erpendfuufar tai Nhe [golf cluhhoulse. - whereas the CRF plan shows those lames ¢unOingr p mllet'to the gall "clwnous The'IBC Plan dirkis5 incullatioini1br' both automobiles and ,golf oarts''from thg du4h yuse areal dawn ramps to tne..s t; ern end of [_hp parfcing lot ifa ordew,to efl1br "the parkihq 1lot circulation patterm, The GRF' Plan provides access to the peeling Id,t cfrmulallon. pattern at the northemr end oil the parftiaig' )lot closes', to the g€Ilf'dubho!use.. IRC belleves that its circu1a6qn1 pattern besi::senes the needs !of itsr membeirs and guests aind mill function ei`Qleraly and effectively,, wt iie 6RF helliwns lhat Its circulalion patterm fS -m are.LomvzvAentfmrameumi members. and guests; will I VOW C4ngagdan vrlthua the parking field and at i_tie e1?lrance. to_ they Planned Community, and, lherellom, will Ibis anarre compatible wutll oilh:er t+SeS tsv;ch as [he 'f�uns�aladys. Tennis Club,ryd �tlasj within the (Planned Com—munky. Another area where que'slfo'ns have, been rarsed with nespect:tn cornpatiruility ibetween the plans is aref fte style. The GRF Plan pnaposos emnsistent architectural style througlioirt the Planned C3i. rntmily, induciing the golf cfu'bhouse, and sp ficnyr fdenlifi€s "California Coastal" as the mm re C rum nls .,M7! ra amm-q _P'annimp:tonrir mAbri r<�,�,r,ea�wr earrnrr� Ctlua m0y 7 3O ,arc - hftoetural tlheale. The' IBC IPlan proposes IPrairfe-styte architecture 1br the golf ofubhouse. 'While Hie character created by the ruvol dilferlug srchillecaurel sfyles is dls!tirfetly different, the' difference doe`s W consbtute-a si9niFcant and use oonflici nor create in.compalibilily between land uses under. CIE09. The issue dorchliecture is•, muted to protect design, wehich'rs subject. to;sile ,plan and;destgn rniuic r by the .City 'and, u'llimrately„ the Planning Commission and City 'Council. As previously indl=ted, no signiitctnt' Land use ntlliCk6 and± r irto §nrp BbflPhr aWuld'.ampr bahveen the',golfctubhouse proposed by 1:13C and the mixed use development (i.e.. bungalowtlspa, fermis taub6 and single =fdm lliy m6d6niial) pr ?posed to the east. , Adrl'.iOonallly,_ ILhe sige:and location of thelgolf clubluouse differ in the two plans. !Gross.'Sactions comparing Bhe, GR€ Plan witli the 1IR ; Plan} illustrate the diiffemnces Iloe"en the ttwo prrojpels. Fxhif it ;1. iillusira'�s 'the ralatfonship of GFBF's roposed; a9f'cout srcCUEtihause ft� the'esfi fing'clu$'h€ause whenrvieuaed Pram tlh"e. east. (Based on thataornparison, the Imaximurn (height of the Iprappsed clubhouse is 53' W,., mmpared In 'the approxilm'a'tel`y 22-Wt height of the bxlstingl 'cluhhouse. GRF's prbposedl cllubhouse is Cmited approxunatety.424 fit north of East Coast Highway, or ;poroximartety Bt0 f rther north ff n lone Q2tstlrog clubhousrr °at°3!t4 fe®t, #irr rn that, arterial, IBC's proposed C'Wbhovse Ib apprommete'ly 300 feet from East Giiaist HlgtRvay and appraximatehy' 44 lfeet °closer to East CoastHig,hWay than the existing golF,dub_hnuse_ a vfewed, f�o m East,Co ast , Highway (refer fa E.'xhl4ft 2), GRFs propose: — olvbhouse: is approxlrn'aiteliy the same vaith as the existing clubhouse li.ex 265 feet wMe veu:sus 262 (feet -wrfde), :wsheri a.% ISC-;s proposed clubhouse is approximately 44% wider (378 Feet wide versus 262 feel, wide). The relaitve. !differerrares (between tlte.;two praiposed golf dovrse diubhouses anid the existing PORCC clubhouse is presented i;Hi Table 1. Ta Well kl;uigtitr idt-Ih,Ainalyrs_is, 'OofiOelt' A.Va.2 Assess the proposed -Go'li Reallgy'Fund Planned Community ®etielopimen't Pfau V�Ie�f5clV159' @p} iIJGV7Prr1€ilJl 1'>rrl1, '� The PRF Ptan would amend the :existing Planned Community No, 47 (Newport Beardii Country Club Planned Con'ruunity) u9l5ich vras:aeraptet In tB97 Cry. ?rd'inence,BD7 -11�. tt;is lr porWprto rn4t,d&hW Nq, 47 'that was assigned "te the PG°. 6r the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community fiDevelopftnt Plan wds not adap!led when the PAC Grislrict zoning designated 'was, assigned to the 1145 -acrro prsp'edy, . including the Aumrstuong Nursery properly. Wh1uh is riotuocVud'W a5 pirt of the proposed pMect . rRe*m4sB rn iCemrtrenks.- 14�x1oari' a a.�r `aran. rJjp' pr M& rT' 731 ExIlstiriig Cllu!bthou's ;e GIRF Club'housp Pros 9s"a,l IBC 'Clurbil ouso proposal bpi ht at peak',- 22 Feet +l- 53.5,F2et 52 feet W- +77wj� From Pc HI 344 E� 424 Feet 304 f=eet Wrdl: r ae. seen fmoim PGH, 282 Feet 1 285 Feet: 37B Feet, 0 A maasuOad frog i Iowest eiiis'ting graide,direnlly trelow point. Wd thl iirneasuied pQ r alfel to E3 35t. Highway-. SOU CE: Golf Realty Fund' 'OofiOelt' A.Va.2 Assess the proposed -Go'li Reallgy'Fund Planned Community ®etielopimen't Pfau V�Ie�f5clV159' @p} iIJGV7Prr1€ilJl 1'>rrl1, '� The PRF Ptan would amend the :existing Planned Community No, 47 (Newport Beardii Country Club Planned Con'ruunity) u9l5ich vras:aeraptet In tB97 Cry. ?rd'inence,BD7 -11�. tt;is lr porWprto rn4t,d&hW Nq, 47 'that was assigned "te the PG°. 6r the purpose of tracking and a Planned Community fiDevelopftnt Plan wds not adap!led when the PAC Grislrict zoning designated 'was, assigned to the 1145 -acrro prsp'edy, . including the Aumrstuong Nursery properly. Wh1uh is riotuocVud'W a5 pirt of the proposed pMect . rRe*m4sB rn iCemrtrenks.- 14�x1oari' a a.�r `aran. rJjp' pr M& rT' 731 7S2 i' , I IL !q I I , 1 Y w y V? fC O U k = O t- L? a U cc Q c� 0 u 0 U LU 0 C.E., V J 4 L' v m Y cam. r� _o L L W 3 U U U fi7 2 c m w m L L CD LL a E C 4 a E 4 U m 733 C T E 2 lf. �' I 5 f �t m J h q I, I, p p YI 1 t�. a 2 Y I� 4 W Vl 7 4 U UJ It f- U z Q V z ■.w W r--e 4J I--1 �1. 73 R'ii{¢canSr~40 Rionnfog dAJMIlIkmrco Giomrtielri . (N`Flr � ma -9edi C,��ura€nr Gdub d,PA2tA7.�ri'�!61' The GRIF !Plan Its irifended to establish theJavOlopmi�inf;,stae,dOMS a:rtd design,gaiidelfnes for the. proposed: profeeL As originally submitted GRF S Planned Community DevellopmeAt Plan (the 'GIRIF PCDP",', raMuded use regulations, development dansilyand intensity parameters for the proposed uses and very specific. development regulatlons (e.g., building height, floor area, sethael¢s; and parking) for each of the. proposed uses. '(Note: The 16nnls Club and Asnns(rong' Nursery are currently,governeid separately' by the use penmits approved: for each, ), The GRF PCQP pmt cribes spedlibc architectural character and design for all of, tile" atiuolures, including the gall clubhouse. the' BuirgatOW% the Tennis Cfub. anti the Vfltas, Irn addition, the, GRF PCDO also ,establishes detailed -standard's for the! internal 'ciccul'ation, including ;pedestnaru and wehlcula:r'systems, ;proposed within the three disfihct elements of the proposed prgjecl_ ,Finally, the GR-F PCID , as originally Siu_"gmilted, includes the detafted site plan, ejevations, "and Hoar 1plans- For each of the land use components, landscape plane and Ilghiing plan.. IIfadopled!, the .GRF OWIP will regujaie developrmenl within the proposed projadt Curramobf Aim 3 Assess :hh polwtlm impacts otelimmatjng V tennis courts. Rospmlse. tc G'om want No. 3 Aecar ingi Ile the property ow?ner,,:ttae ll censee,of the.existing prfnwshe Tennis i tu6 also operates two other Tennis Clu&L The Tolgc_ Lake Tennis Ctub meintaips 7 Sennis courts that'support a memirarship at-mb members, resdIlipg in on awarage of 50 :members, for eat i tennis court., In addiviorr, IPelisade9'Teaft Clal'b ii N�.tvp6rt 8eaehu algo, vVith 7 oowrts. has 'a rhetnbersl'ip of x229 and a per ,court :ratio of 32 memlmarsdcourL The -aPpl cant' has .sa,ggesiled a ratio 6f one temnl6 4GGrt for each 35 members. The current membership of ;the existingt Tennis Club. combined with, th ®'7 tennis carats that are proposed 'tr, remain (i e,, :eliminatIM of 18 euI'Stfng leatnis Courts,. and a new " center court") would yield "a ratio of 3;1 m- erm'eer5 per Court. amo oil the rec rnmen4led members-to- tennis oourts read(35 1). Me "proposed" TienmirC;lub could srtrppori' 46 adOiUional.members, 'Ipr a WIWI of 245 mein bars. As a desull', inq. -�ignifiCant i.mpaIcts &oUld be anticipated to occur_ As indicated in tine prof ;�cl descriipti;on and'ah'cve, fm',piamentation,of the proposrod',projectWould result in the et rninatian: of 'lli of the 24 rbnriis,caums_ het ourmriiily,exis4' on the subject prgfaerly. leewingl d��'severy tennis courts, I.nctudhig one new- "center oDurt" As,a private club, the exiisienrg lennis-murls are not gienemlly avail'a'ble for IpUblio play. WKile' the :club haig a11'3wed the COrongrflaill Mar ahrt Sage Hill Ile! riiryis teams ko use the faciftfes, us e of the fBCllill2s by kh4sse.'C0,8mi5.-,Ivas: a lemporary eemmmodation: to allow Via saoDis fa complete work on their owrn:aoudsi. NohetlkWoss, as refBeeted in the Recrt atian,',Elernent of ttre.City Gen:erali Plan, private farcElifles, including yacht .clubs, gollrcourses, a'nd %country. clhtxs are also ',faralitles,;thal Serve mi ;IdvntS of Rew,po_rt Sgaph,' As Such, it May' he; tnie that' private Jecreatl8ni farilit'ies such as th® €xisting tanrtis'faciFty coufdl.serwe to offsEt „” to a''rf ra.c, the demand for public: reerreadon through the eu ilalriluty of the pdiale. tennis courts to a United segment at the.populatian within :[he City, of- IWvport Bmh arWd nearby areas, A=ord.ing to the Newport' Bijarh Recreation 1Elemenh two roe sitarist se rime areas haws 2&40a,Ns parkland an&or recreation fadilitiesr Service Area Ma- 9 '(Nlewyporl Center) and Service Area No 11 (barber Y" -',). Thwpmposed project is located withimSeruibe Alga Mci? 0' as illustrated in Iplgure IR11 1.0 fhe Reeteatlan Elament., As of June, '.2005, taro (pub3ld] ouereahionajl'fecilitles.oxist within this se'nrice- area, including the Back - Bay View Park and the Nenwpo:iit tunes Aquatic Park- which logether enr*rnpass 19.1 acres. Saa6eol om the 26--05 population withio this•seirmcia are%'a total of only 10.$,ac of, p rma:nd is required. resu'IEinq in a net. suriplus of 8-1 acres of puh'Im pa*lanid'in Service Area No. 9. ReSPVR+ 113 �LbdilTiVMs -d5 n-v. Vr, Sv =h'd?d11MLVtrd'plYafiJAl4&LLtri 7S5 Ras' ?sa'ro Pfirm ft C- dmmi.%l 'C %m•terjrs �vw5Dr1 BBL'47t�lAPhLCVJJ`F�'' P0),— Afltuougif top existiAg jannis Caurls, may provide some weallopal oppolu i'ilies +v,ttliin the service area. the (net) foss vhf 17 of`the 24 •tennis courts v uld mot be Consider red ars gmkcanl adverse irropdct. T hiss fa due'te lire Fact that, Me ongoing use ,of the Tennis Club Wit copfibueAd be. limited to members °•and their' Guests anti, as dlsbussed above, are expected to adpquateiy serve lhcsse needs; In addition, the elimination of tne, tetnriis courts is not considered to be signilfcant in light, or [he'Recreatidrt Elemenr determfnatfan that no d F.cfenGy `inl par3itiu?id anftr r treatirrirtl'fa lutfe3.ax[St5'or is a;nficlpa'ted la, occur within Servke Area No. 9. AS evaluated -in the initial sludy and elabpiated upon in vanops responses to:commeruts, irmlplemenr'ation 4,f' lha ,proposed project Would not siubstandatly increase the ^utse of existing nebhborhaccil and regional parks anddcr cause the stthstantfal ',physia l dete&ratian of arty parft facility; FurtYrermam. ljased on the findings un Oho Newport Beachi RecreaFion Element, the projeG1 Would not retlufre the consWuction of, of expansion of hKireational - Wcilfties:'Therefore. for the reasons ow above, the reduction in the numb 'Br.at courts vmgld not be expected to deprive the pub'lidof playing'oppMJunilier% overburden the club, or plaice an increased demand on public facilitf2s, Ash result, no addititonai rerm Onnal facflides`bey9md those ide:ndfed above with the. aervisas area, lnieliuding Ie'Ahin facilities, are necessary, wi[lhan :the designated w resloonal 5grcnCe' drew. ComThertt' Ab, 4 AssessIthe aesftfic imacfs of the etewations, pDrspectiives, anti pross sections for the project 14,P�wnse to gC?mment No. 4 The characl r of ih,e proposed project is Mu&tratedl W,several.el'evafions, As Intdicated in hGblt.3 and Exhibit 4, GEiF's prosposed golf c_ou_he dluhhduse.Ir¢fl €pfs al.catifarnia coastal archicec ural•styy a. Tihe Iproposed tt'ungatgve5 Tennts Club rluhhouse, and' 'villas wouid refet.a similar claim4sw o id style e W �hihilfS Ternis ~fUhh�se aae Rasttated li .°`#e nd BUngal`mv Spa) and] Exhih t 6ra-ftd Exhibit 7 (Villas = Pllans A and B), rerwiting in a fully integrated characler of each of tf7e land use comnponentkWithln lire (Planned 1Cornmunfty. The architectural Style for all cif' Me 1propo.sed Vilna diwarellmn! �:nnts lit e' im9lsrt9rlurrvit; A anti B., A panorarnk: view of' the ooesh is avaitabRa from the tap of Neltrpo' Cernter Drive Gi'Mid Stirolght ahead', d'owrn NevapeftCentei' IIb we towiards ''pant hffgh ey. (However, only peek -a -boo° Oc@2 vieur hi�v exists. from Newpo &CC4nt'er Drive aevoss +the site af.the Planmed`l:bminunity- Relereneiry Exhibits 8;,9, aind 10. that narrow view Gccurs „betwuan the last Granvflfe Condominium unit and the fu9c,+bnigle Group pffide building (rarei'to. Eklil it'8,. "M ewr from Point 1) and afbeP°d1e,WA'cF 6,19le Gm]ulp'off'ce .ulldirng lc -led-alt. the Intersectlun of N&wipof center' Drive and tLrie p'fi ±ate t2twvilt2 R ad (safer to IExlhithif, IP, "View from Point 3,°). the irnprmu_memts proposed by, QRF wowid'rnpt res.ujt in any sigrilficernt visual imnpaot on lire 'View from Paint ,1,,” Bind oin'ly a barely perceptible change to ,tee nkft tr from Poem ,3:" +w ilrh would also have•a fessAhan Sig ,n'ifice'nk impact un, the visnavu lh etib Oa:raoter of the'area,. The, GRP Plait wpuld also rant in lass: than si¢gniificant-impacls dn. the', Public Wow Point in Irvinne :Terrac+e, Par%i_ The only:sfgnificant public view from Irvine Temace'Parlk, is orierilte 1 t ++eed INewport Bay,and the_ Pacific a�cem, idecara the hd ®CC PCa is laeailed out the inland side of rift Highwray frdiro Ilrwiine Tiarrace Park, .plat vieve cainnol a;nd av ould not be impedbedL Furthermore, the -,wall buffering irwilne:T'errace Park from-, coas.4 hligtiwray, together With life Ibull&gs In Gtxr ' ate IPWa Om and the eidstidtg lands+csping; •makes the,Golf Club Parking Lot 'time only area Wfth'in' the P'ianned Community visible from' Irvine Terrace Park •(refe:r!to Exhibit 11, `,Lrievr From, Poi'nt t°). The view of tfie,''Golli"Club Parking,Lot W uufd (jar improva<d aesthetically as a result of a fa a landscaped bean alon`rq Coast &-0rghway and fouir rauvs of perpendicular landscajping in the Genf CIO Palk mg b et As a resu!It. no slgn licant visual fnipdct_s. Would Aespi>nw,To Cgmmemv - itiPSrn�nari.6raac�!nP au�vtgi �nCeenn Nie wpon &each Eow?dly`C- __Ad+b (AA2005L'740p 7SO REAwr1 so' rs7 � C'GYdNn F,ke'1ba (eomr-AVYN't occuir From Ns view locsriion. Overayf, fmpl'e:rne.nta#id,ni of the proposed prnjed would riot rrsuuNt in 8rty significant 9isual irmp a s;, no mlOgaff -On m_ eaisur are required. Roa b'rA 5'esd� POM.i44 C4AIMk4dfal 00rj ff ,S&P.c a CQEjf3W G[�+b dPAA ?005 -- -4401. 7S7 7S2 fl m M a Z4 N 6a 7Fa a Z4 N } 1 I I 2 8F K} 0 IL —c d 4 t R c Lin > iL LU U) to Y iq o a 1 f] e i LYJ 7S/ ,P • tr m • x p[1 N • � x6 Q iii d Y iq o a 1 f] e i LYJ 7S/ p f� � fit I Il� 777r III i f 9 E is I 1 �4R u s e Q �7 9 R t U `c V a e. 1 r 3 n d • �i -T 0 r C a D L O x > Lu 0 W m M 4 L U m e U O 47 7-+o ! \ \\ | I ! § | | | \ � B f ; ! |§k Pr _| ; §§ i LU � \ / 7y± §�\ ! \ \\ | I ! § | | | \ � B f ; ! |§k Pr _| ; §§ i LU � \ / 7y± N ti 11 i I ItF !r J L�. Ir P I� �iil TT � J i l F-a r i i rD C � a b � L } :-3 o W - a F W W � u� r s�� m W 3 4 w � Q N ti 11 i I ItF !r J L�. Ir P I� �iil TT � J i l F-a r i i rD C � a b � L } :-3 o W - a 742 F W � u� r m W 742 � . � K ja � «§ � { p 94 ► F- � ] � l !l _ \ l:- \ � ! | §. IL � . ! h� [� | � � ui Fu IL � r 743 / � . � K ja � «§ � { p 94 ► F- � ] � l !l _ \ l:- \ � ! | §. IL � . ! h� [� | � � ui Fu IL � r 743 M Y i C L O X d W � m O d y 744 0 CL LLLL LLA m 44 C a Q. w E 0 y E WO 74,5 I J I J K 9 I f A I f 1 f f e i t I s i KL K.0 y O Ci T y b+ C: 10 0 CL }i. 2 W d_ 0 i J r� 1 CD C rS LL LU LL! F� T r i.a .. C A O iY f= 4 I 747 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB — GOLF REALTY FUND INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PA2005 -140) January 24, 2012 742 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study for the proposed Newport Beach Country Club project located in the City of Newport Beach. The MND indicated that there would not potential adverse environmental impacts to the project. The mitigation measures, standard conditions, and project design features have been incorporated into the project and the MND is scheduled for adoption by the City of Newport Beach, in conjunction with the approval of the project. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 require the Lead Agency for each project which is subject to the CEQA to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that implementation does, in fact, take place. The PRC requires the Lead Agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program that is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. In accordance with PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Newport Beach Country Club project. Table 1 lists the mitigation measures, standard conditions, responsible parties, time frame for implementation, and monitoring parties. 7-" MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 3 Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (All references to the golf course or golf clubhouse are reserved for future consideration) Notations: SC: Standard Condition PDF: Project Design Feature MM: Mitigation Measure sci 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. The site shall not be Tennis excessively illuminated based on the luminance Club Site: recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Approval of Prior to Phase 2 Planning SCA Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the photometric issuance of Division Planning Director, the illumination creates an study building permit Golf Club Site: unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land 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 Quality Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, Tennis detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any Periodic Club Site: considerable number of persons or to the public, or monitoring During Phases 1-4 Community SC -2 which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or during construction Development safety of any such persons or the public, or which activities Golf Club Department cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or construction Site: damage to business or property to be emitted within Phases 1-4 the SoCAB. Tennis Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets Periodic During Club Site: Community SC -3 requirements for dust control associated with monitoring construction Phases 1-4 Development grading and construction activities. during activities Department construction Golf Club 750 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2OO5 -140) Page 4 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. Site Phases 1-4 Tennis Club Site: Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.21 Periodic During Phases 1-4 Community SC-4 which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary monitoring during construction Golf Club Development construction equipment. construction activities Department Site: Phases 1-4 Tennis Periodic Club Site: Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets monitoring During Phases 1-4 Community SC -5 limitations on ROG content in asphalt. during construction Development construction activities Golf Club Department Site: Phases 1-4 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 SC -7 glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation during issuance of Golf Club Building Division methods in accordance with the requirements of the building plan building permits Site: Uniform 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 Tennis fossils are encountered during construction Submit proof Club Site: activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the of qualified Phase 2 vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted archaeologica Prior to Planning SC -8 by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. The I/ issuance of Division area surrounding any cultural materials or fossils paleontologic grading permit Golf Club encountered during grading shall also be al monitor Site: investigated to determine the extent of the site. Any Phase 1 artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation 7Jr1 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 5 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. 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 Submit proof prior to MM- activities. The representative shall be determined by of Native Planning 1 the City based on input from concerned Native American issuance of Golf Club Division American tribes (i.e., Gabrielino, Juaneno, and observer grading permit Site: Tongvas). Phase 1 Geology and Soils Tennis All grading operations and construction shall comply Periodic During grading Club Site: with the applicable City of Newport Beach Grading monitoring and Phases 1-4 Building SC -9 Code and Grading Manual and the most recent during construction Division version of the California Building Code. grading and operations Golf Club Site: construction Phases 1-4 Tennis Club Site: Sc- Prior to issuance of the grading permit, an erosion Approval of Prior to Phases 1 -3 Building 10 control plan shall be submitted to and approved by erosion issuance of Golf Club Division the City's Building Division. control plan grading permit Site: Phases 1-4 Submittal of Tennis soils Club Site: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant Prior to Phase 2 SC- shall submit a soil engineering report and final engineering report and issuance of Building 11 geotechnical report to the City's Building Division for final grading permit Golf Club Division Site: approval. geotechnical report Phase 2 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 Club Site: Tentative Tract Map No. 15347" (May 2, 2008) phase 2 MM- prepared by GMU Geotechnical that address site Submittal of Prior to Building 2 grading, site clearing, compaction, bearing capacity geotechnical issuance of Golf Club Division and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, reports grading permit Site: seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall Phase 1 design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, landscape maintenance, etc. The Building Division shall review the grading plan to ensure conformance with recommendations contained in the final eotechnical report. 7152 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 6 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. 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 2 Planning Water conservation design features shall be evidence of issuance of Division and 13 13 incorporated into building and landscape designs. Golf Club Public Works compliance building permit Department Site: Phase 2 Tennis Submit Club Site: evidence of Phase 2 PD F Design of buildings shall take into account the comp compliance Prior to Building -1 location of building air intake to maximize ventilation during plan issuance of Golf Club Division Site: efficiency and incorporate natural ventilation. check building permit Phase 2 process Submit Tennis evidence of Club Site: compliance Prior to Phase 2 PDF The buildings shall incorporate energy- conserving 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: The project shall incorporate fast - growing, low water during prior to Phase 2 Planning PD F use landscape to enhance carbon sequestration and landscape issuance of Division and -3 reduce water use. plan review building permit Golf Club Public Works Site: and upon field Department verification Phase 2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Prior to any disturbance of the construction Tennis materials within the Golf Clubhouse and /or the Submit ACM Prior to Club Site: Tennis Clubhouse, a comprehensive asbestos and LBP issuance of Phase 2 Building 1 14 4 containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint survey and demolition Division (LBP) survey shall be conducted. Any repairs, site permit for Golf Club Site: renovations, removal or demolition activities that will inspection buildings impact the ACM and /or LBP or inaccessible ACM Phase 3 ��3 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 7 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM and LBP shall be followed in accordance with federal, state and local regulatory requirements federal and California Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 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 Tennis California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, Periodic Club Site: which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring During Phases 1-4 SC- monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working during demolition, Building 15 practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead- demolition grading and Golf Club Division contaminated debris and other wastes shall be and site excavation Site: managed and disposed of in accordance with the inspection Phases 1-4 applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. Hydrology and Water Quality Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of Tennis intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the State Club Site: Water Quality Resources Control Board for Phase 2 Building coverage of such future projects under the General Submit Prior to Division and 16 1 6 Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit evidence of issuance of Public Works prior to initiation of construction activity at a future NOI filing grading permit Golf Club Department site. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Site: Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will Phase 1 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 shall specifically identify Best Tennis Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to Club Site: control predictable pollutant runoff, including Prior to Phase 2 Building SC- flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush." Approval of issuance Division and 17 The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine WQMP radin m gg permit Public Works structural and non - structural measures specified in Golf Club Department Site: the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs Phase 1 whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. Sc- Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project I Submit I Prior to 1 Tennis 1 Building 754 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 8 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. 18 applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and SWPPP issuance of Club Site Division and Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The SWPPP will grading permit Phase Public Works establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation Approval of Department and erosion and prevent construction pollutants from erosion and Golf Club Site: leaving the site. The project shall also incorporate sediment all monitoring elements as required in the General control plan Phase 1 Construction Permit. The project applicant shall also develop an erosion and sediment control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading permit. Tennis Club Site: Submit Phases 1-4 Future site grading and construction shall comply evidence of During grading Building SC- with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable comp compliance and Golf Club Division and 19 building code requirements prescribed by the City of and site construction Public Works Site: Newport Beach. inspection activities Department 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: Phases 1-4 During rock crushing operations, a temporary barrier Show on During rock MM- using a pile of accumulated demolition debris or a grading plans crushing Golf Club Building Site: 3 sound blanket shall be used if a direct line of sight and site operations Division exists between the crusher and any off -site homes. inspection Phases 1-4 Tennis Club Site: All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, Show on During Phases1 -4 MM_ shall be equipped with properly operating and grading plans g construction Building 4 maintained muffling devices. and site activities Golf Club Division 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 schedule and issuance of Development 5 potential project - related and cumulative construction site grading permit Golf Club Department Site: noise levels. inspection Phases 1-4 71515 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 9 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. The construction contractor shall notify the residents Tennis of the construction schedule for the proposed Submit Club Site: project, and shall keep them informed on any evidence of Prior to Phases 1-4 MM- changes to the schedule. The notification shall also compliance issuance of Building 6 identify the name and phone number of a contact and site grading permit Golf Club Division Site: person in case of complaints. The contact person inspection shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the Phases 1-4 complaint. Submit Heating, venting, and air conditioning (HVAC) evidence of Tennis equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall HVAC equipment Club Site: Phases 2-4 be shown by computation, based on the sound sound rating Prior to Community MM- rating of the proposed equipment, not to exceed an (adjacent to issuance of Golf Club Development 7 A- weighted sound pressure level of fifty (50) dBA or residential building permit Department Site: not to exceed an A- weighted sound pressure level of areas) during Phases 2-4 fifty -five (55) dBA. 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. Transportation/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 the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. This Tennis plan shall identify the proposed construction staging Approval of Prior to Club Site: area(s), construction crew parking area(s), construction commencement Phase 1-4 Planning MM- estimated number and types of vehicles that will staging, of each major Division and 8 occur during each phase, the proposed parking and Phase of Golf Club Public Works arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards traffic control construction Department Site: (e.g. flagmen, barricades, etc.) and hourly plan Phases 1-4 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 7150 MMRP —Golf Realty Fund (PA2005 -140) Page 10 SC/ PDF/ Mitigation Measure Method of Timing of Applicable Responsibility MM Verification Implementation Phase(s) No. 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 improvement Prior to Public Works g of 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. 757 Errata for the IS /MND Newport Beach Country Club (PA 2005 -140) Golf Realty Fund Page 4: Column 4 (Height (ft.)) under "Building Heights" in Table 2 (Summary of Proposed Uses) to reflect a maximum building height Change 50 feet to 53'6" for the proposed Golf Course Clubhouse. 2. Page 5: Delete all of the text and replace it with the following: The project site encompasses approximately 145 acres (refer to Table A), which are divided into four sub -areas identified below. Each sub -area as well as the hand car wash is described below and illustrated on Exhibit 2. Table A Land Use Allocations Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan Golf Realty Fund Sub Area Approximate Area Acres The Tennis Club Sub -Area 4.62 The Villas Sub -Area 1.25 The Bungalows Sub -Area 3.44 The Golf Club Sub -Area 133.01 Total ±145 'Includes Golf Clubhouse, Golf Parking Lot and Hand Car Wash SOURCE: Newport Beach Country Club Planned Community District Plan (July 12, 2010) Golf Clubhouse The golf clubhouse floor plan has a maximum of 35,000 gross square feet, exclusive of below grade cart storage, in two stories, including approximately 18,100 square feet on the first floor and approximately 16,900 square feet on the second floor. The lower floor will accommodate the following features: Grill, women's lounge and locker room, men's locker room, and pro shop. Other features included on the first floor include a cart barn 1 �JTg and club storage. The second floor will accommodate a banquet room and kitchen, dining room, lounge, foyer, offices, private meeting and dining rooms, and a "19th hole." Other features which currently exist and will continue to be part of the clubhouse facilities include a snack stand (180 square feet), existing golf course restroom facilities, and existing greens keeper buildings and area. The maximum height of the proposed golf clubhouse is 53 feet 6 inches, measured from the existing grade to the mid -point of the sloped roof. (The reference to a maximum 50 -foot height limit reflected in Table 1 on page 4 of the initial study referenced in this comment is incorrect and will be revised to reflect the 53 feet 6 -inch maximum height noted in this description.) Tennis Clubhouse and Courts The maximum floor area of the tennis clubhouse is 3,725 gross square feet and will have a maximum building height of 30 feet (measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof). The tennis clubhouse includes a lobby, pro shop, office and locker rooms. A total of seven tennis courts, including one stadium court will replace the 24 tennis courts that currently exist on the subject property. Screening for the tennis courts from The Villas E will also be provided in the form of a five -foot block wall that would be designed to be compatible with the proposed Villa E, adjacent to the tennis courts. In addition, the exterior perimeter of the tennis courts facing the Granville Condominiums, Granville Drive, and the Tennis Club parking lot will also be screened, utilizing the existing 10 -foot high chain link fence covered by a wind screen. Bungalows The Bungalows proposed by the applicant will consist of 27 "hotel' units that encompass approximately 29,044 square feet of floor area. A 2,170 square foot Concierge and Guest Center is also included in this development component. In addition, the Bungalow Spa, which is an auxiliary use for and part of the Bungalows, encompasses 7,490 square feet. This facility will include a fitness center, spa, spa bar and lounge. Other features include a Zen Garden, Jacuzzi and swimming pool. The pool and /or spa equipment will be enclosed by five -foot block wall. The maximum building height of the Bungalows is 31 feet, measured from the existing grade to the peak of the roof. Villas The five Villas are proposed within a 1.25 -acre sub -area. Lot sizes of the single - family detached residential dwelling lots will vary from 5,295 square feet (Villa A) to 17,151 (Villa D) square feet. Homes will range in size from 2,201 square feet (Plan A) to 6,384 square feet (Plan D). The maximum building heights (measured from existing grade) permitted for the Villas ranges from 23 feet (Villa A) to 39 feet (Villa D). Swimming pools are also permitted for each of the five Villas. z q ��q Golf Club Parking Lot and Private Hand Car Wash The proposed Golf Club Parking Lot has 300 on -site parking spaces. In addition, as described in Response to Comment No. 4 of The Irvine Company, above, an existing perpetual offsite Parking Agreement will continue to provide as many as 554 non- exclusive parking spaces on weekends and holidays to supplement the onsite Golf Club parking. The frontage road that exists adjacent to East Coast Highway will be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. In addition, a private hand car wash area is proposed within the parking lot in the vicinity of Country Club Drive. The area identified to accommodate this project feature encompasses approximately 240 square feet (i.e., 12 feet wide and 20 feet long). Use of the private hand car wash is limited to golf and possibly tennis club members only. 3. Page 8, Table 2: Delete Table 2 and replace it with the revised Table 2 below. 3 700 Table 2 Tennis Club Development Phasing 70- MND Revised Exhibit Phasing Duration Plan Description (Months) Reference (5/25/11) Phase Installation of Temporary Modular 1 4 1 Tennis Clubhouse Demolition of Tennis Club building, 9 1 tennis courts, perimeter tennis court fence remains, portion of Tennis Club 1 4 2 parking lot (61 parking spaces), landscaping and small portion of existing site wall Construct The Villas (3), Private Street, New Tennis Clubhouse and Parking 14 6 4 Lots refer to Exhibit 6 2 Demolition of 3 tennis courts, small portion of Tennis Club parking lot and 1 5 3 remaining Tennis Club Building Construct Center Court area and 3 8 6 Bungalow Pool 3 Demolition of 3 tennis courts, remaining portion of old Tennis Club 1 7 5 parking lot and removal of Temporary Modular Tennis Clubhouse Demolition of 2 tennis courts, and perimeter tennis court fence in front of the 3 completed Villas — After substantial completion of the Golf 1 9 7 4 Bungalows removal of perimeter tennis court fence in front of the Golf Bungalows. Construct Golf and Tennis Bungalows 15 10 8 and remaining 2 Villas. Total Schedule 36 Anticipated Start date is September 2011 SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group (May 2011) 70- 4. Page 16, Table 3: Delete Table 3 and replace with Table 3 below. Table 3 Golf Clubhouse Development Phasing 5. Page 39, Paragraph 2: Change 50 feet to 53'6" in Line 5 and Line 7. 6. Page 52, SC -8: Revise SC -8 as indicated below: 5 MND Duration Exhibit Phase Description (Months) Reference Demolition of East Side Golf Clubhouse Parking 1 11 1 Lot and PCH Entry' Construct East Side Parking Lot and PCH Entry 4 12 Demolition of West Side Golf Clubhouse Parking 1 13 Lot 2 Construct West Side Parking Lot and Temporary 6 14 Golf Club Demolition of Golf Clubhouse 2 15 3 Construct New Golf Clubhouse 14 16 Demolition of portion of Greenskeeper Area, Temporary modular Golf Clubhouse and 2 17 4 northern portion of Golf Clubhouse Parking Lot Construct Greenskeeper Area and Golf Porte 4 18 Cache and Parkin Total Schedule 34 'Start date to be determined. 2Includes car wash. SOURCE: The Templeton Planning Group (July 2010) 5. Page 39, Paragraph 2: Change 50 feet to 53'6" in Line 5 and Line 7. 6. Page 52, SC -8: Revise SC -8 as indicated below: 5 SC -8 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be available during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. The area surrounding any cultural materials or fossils encountered during grading shall also be investigated to determine the extent of the site. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 7. Page 77, Table 10 (General Plan Policy Analysis): Policy LU 5.3.3: Change 50 feet in Line 12 and Line 14 in Column 3 to 53'6". 8. Page 80: Revise the consistency analysis for Natural Resources Element Policy No. 18.3 as follows: Implementation of the proposed project does not requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan and the proiect—,t is not, therefore, subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives before adopting or amending a general plan. Nonetheless, he City has ^^mom ,plied with the Fe9wiFeFneRtS Of eQ 18 by SWbFRi" ;-,, submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)_. '^ additiGR the G#yand has also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representativesens requesting consultation vVith n the 90 -day state +„r„ mod. 9. Page 82, Table 11 (Coastal Land Use Plan Policy Analysis): Policy 2.1.2.1: Revised the consistency analysis in Column 3 to read: The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan, which designates the golf course site 9S (9per► Spase)PR (Parks and Recreation) and the tennis site MU -H /PR (Mixed Use Horizontal /Parks & Recreation). The 9pea— bpaseParks and Recreation designation allows golf courses. The MU -H /PR designation allows horizontally - distributed mix of uses, which may include general or neighborhood commercial, commercial offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, buildings that vertically integrate residential with commercial uses, and active public or private recreational uses, including parks, golf courses, marina s support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. In addition, the project addresses the relevant policies related to development of the site and the protection of coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in this table. 10. Page 96, Second sentence in the paragraph under (c): Change 50 feet in Line 3 to 53'6".