HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Overriding OC Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency and Approving the Snug Harbor Surf Park at 3100 Irvine Avenue - Staff MemoCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jaime Murillo, Acting Community Development Director
Date: October 28, 2025
Re: Agenda Item No. 20 — Additional Materials
This memorandum provides supplemental information for the Snug Harbor Surf
Park Project. The information serves to clarify, update, and expand upon materials
previously submitted to the City Council for review and consideration.
1. Update to Resolution No. 2025-72: A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving a Major Site
Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Modification Permit
to Authorize the Construction and Operation of the Surf Park with
Ancillary Uses and Types 47 (On -Sale General Eating Place), 58
(Caterer), and 68 (Portable Bar) Alcoholic Beverage Control Licenses
for the Property Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue (PA2024-0069)
In response to comments submitted on October 23, 2025, by the County of
Orange, acting in its capacity as the owner and operator of John Wayne
Airport, staff maintains that the project is consistent with the State
Aeronautics Act and there are sufficient facts to support the findings
required to override the Airport Land Use Commission's determination of
project inconsistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
However, staff recommends adding an additional Condition of Approval
related to special events to prohibit large gatherings of spectators within
Safety Zone 2 during such events. The following operational condition is
proposed to be added to Resolution No. 2025-72:
During Level 2 and 3 special events, no spectator areas shall be located
within John Wayne Airport Safety Zone 2.
2. Update to Resolution No. 2025-74: A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach, California, Finding the Surf Park Project
Community Development Department
Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue Consistent with the Purposes of the
State Aeronautics Act and Overriding the Orange County Airport Land
Use Commission's Determination of inconsistency with the 2008 John
Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (PA2024-0069)
A Notice of Intent to Override the Airport Land Use Commission's
inconsistency determination was sent on September 11, 2025, via email
and certified mail to the State Department of Transportation Aeronautics
Program (Caltrans). Pursuant to Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities
Code, the Aeronautics Program, Division of Transportation Planning, may
provide comments on a Notice of Intent to Override. Resolution No. 2025-
74 included placeholder language in the event Caltrans submitted a
comment letter. However, no comments were received, and a revised
resolution (Attachment 1) has been prepared removing references to
comments from Caltrans.
3. Additional Responses to Comments
In response to comments submitted by Thomas Edwards, dated October
20, 2025, staff has prepared a memorandum addressing the environmental
concerns raised. These comments were submitted after the close of the
Environmental Impact Report's public review period, which ran from May
23, 2025, through July 7, 2025. While the City is not obligated to respond
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, §
21092.5, subd. (c)), staff has elected to provide written responses to
comments that include environmental issues of concern to conduct a
comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
As detailed in the attached responses (Attachment 2), none of the
comments result in the identification of new environmental impacts or any
substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified
environmental impacts.
In response to the comments submitted by the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) regarding the Notice of Intent to Override, and to the
comments submitted by the County of Orange acting in its capacity as the
owner and operator of John Wayne Airport, the applicant has prepared two
letters rebutting the contents of those comment letters (Attachments 3 and
4, respectively).
Attachments:
1. Revised Draft Resolution No. 2025-74
2. Response to Environmental Comments Received by Thomas Edwards
3. Applicant Response to ALUC Letter
4. Applicant Response to John Wayne Airport Letter
Tmplt:-02/05/15
Attachment 1
Revised Draft Resolution No. 2025-74
Revised
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 74
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE
SURF PARK PROJECT LOCATED AT 3100 IRVINE
AVENUE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
STATE AERONAUTICS ACT AND OVERRIDING THE
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF INCONSISTENCY
WITH THE 2008 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ENVIRONS
LAND USE PLAN (PA2024-0069)
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City Charter, of the City of Newport Beach ("City"),
vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and
regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations
contained in the City Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act
pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges or procedures granted or prescribed
by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, an application was filed by CAA Planning, on behalf of Back Bay
Barrels, LLC ("Applicant"), concerning property located at 3100 Irvine Avenue, and legally
described in Exhibit 'A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
("Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting to redevelop the central 15.38-acre parcel
of the privately owned Newport Beach Golf Course by removing the existing driving range
and putting green, pro -shop, restaurant and bar, and three holes of golf and replacing it with
a new surf -focused outdoor commercial recreation use ("Project");
WHEREAS, the Project's site improvements include approximately five acres of
surfing lagoons surrounded by viewing platforms, seating, pools, spa, restrooms,
landscaping, clubhouse with amenities, athlete accommodation building with 20 overnight
rooms, and two parking lots with 351 parking spaces,
WHEREAS, the Project will be constructed on approximately 79,533 square feet of
area; however, 19,761 square feet will be excluded from the total development limit for the
Property as incidental building areas which is consistent with Table LU1 (Land Use Plan
Categories) of the City's General Plan ("General Plan") for properties categorized as Parks
and Recreation;
WHEREAS, the following approvals are requested or required to implement the
Project as proposed:
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 2 of 7
• General Plan Amendment ("GPA"): To increase the development limit from
20,000 square feet to 59,772 square feet for Anomaly Number 58, as identified
in Table LU 2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan;
• Major Site Development Review ("SDR"): To construct a nonresidential building
larger than 20,000 square feet in area;
• Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"): To allow the operation of an outdoor commercial
recreation use including a restaurant with alcohol sales, establish the appropriate
parking rate, and allow the construction of buildings taller than 18 feet;
• Modification Permit: To allow for the construction of retaining walls taller than
eight feet in height from finish grade; and
• Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"): To address reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific
discretionary approvals;
WHEREAS, the Property is categorized as Parks and Recreation (PR) by the
General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Santa Ana Heights Specific
Plan/Open Space and Recreation (SP-7/OSR) Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone, therefore, a coastal
development permit is not required;
WHEREAS, the Property is located approximately 0.4-mile southwest of John
Wayne Airport ("JWA") and is within the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use
Plan ("AELUP") Notification Area;
WHEREAS, the Property is trisected by Safety Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure
Zone), Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone), and Safety Zone 6 (Traffic
Pattern Zone) for the 2L/20R runway that is used by commercial aircraft;
WHEREAS, most of the Property is located within the 65 dB Community Noise
Equivalent Level ("CNEL") contour pursuant to the 1985 Airport Master Plan Noise
Contours and the northeast corner is located within the 70 dB CNEL contour;
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 3 of 7
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolutions 2023-72 and 2023-73 and
Ordinances 2023-20 and 2023-21 on November 14, 2023, authorizing amendments to
the Noise Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan and Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") to update the noise contours
identified by the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment
Environmental Impact Report No. 617 ("EIR No. 617");
WHEREAS, a significant portion of the Property is located within the 65 dB CNEL
contour and the southwest corner is located within the 60 dB CNEL, pursuant to the
updated City noise contours;
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code ("CPUC") Section 21676(b) requires
the City to refer the Project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC")
to review for consistency with the AELUP,
WHEREAS, ALUC conducted a public hearing on August 7, 2025, and
determined the Project is inconsistent with the following provisions of the AELUP (5 ayes
and 1 nay) and detailed in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference:
a. Section 2.1.2 (Safety Compatibility Zones), which provides "the purpose of
these zones is to support the continued use and operation of an airport by
establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational
safety and to reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working or
recreating near JWX;
b. Section 2.1.3 (Building Height Restrictions), which states that a
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate
to a Consistency determination of the ALUC and that the Commission may
find a project Inconsistent based on an obstruction determination;
C. Section 2.1.4 (Air Transportation) and CPUC Section 21674 which state that
the Commission is charged by CPUC Section 21674(a) "to assist local
agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ... existing
airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not
already devoted to incompatible uses," and CPUC Section 21674(b) "to
coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide
for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time
protecting the public health, safety and welfare."; and
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 4 of 7
d. Section 3.2.1 (General Policy), which states that "within the boundaries of
the AELUP, any land use may be found to be Inconsistent with the AELUP
which permits structures of excessive height in areas which would affect
adversely the continued operation of the airport; or permits activities or
facilities that would affect adversely aeronautical operations";
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
September 4, 2025, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance
with Government Code Section 54950 of seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act"), and Chapter 20.62
(Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. PC2025-018 by a unanimous vote (6 ayes, 1 recusal) recommending the
City Council approve the Project;
WHEREAS, after the Planning Commission's decision and pursuant to Sections
21670 and 21676 of the CPUC, the City Council may, after a public hearing, propose to
overrule ALUC by a two-thirds vote, if it makes specific findings that the Project is
consistent with the purpose of Section 21670 of the CPUC purpose to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption
of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already
devoted to incompatible uses;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on September 9, 2025,
in the City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice
of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with Section 21676(b)
of the CPUC and the Ralph M. Brown Act. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented
to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2025-60 by a unanimous vote (6 ayes, 1 absent) to notify ALUC and the State
Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program of the City's intent to override ALUC's
inconsistency finding;
WHEREAS, a notice of intent to override ALUC's inconsistency determination,
along with Resolution No. 2025-60, was sent via email and certified mail to ALUC and the
State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program on September 11, 2025;
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 5 of 7
WHEREAS, the City received a timely comment in response to the City's notice
of intent to override the ALUC inconsistency determination from ALUC in accordance with
CPUC Section 21676, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on October 28, 2025,
in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach,
California to consider the Project. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was
given in accordance with CPUC Section 21676(b), the Ralph M. Brown Act, Chapter
20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC, City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local
Coastal Program) and City Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the
California Environmental Quality Act). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to,
and considered by, the City Council at this hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council has evaluated the comments provided as Exhibits
"C', and "D," from the reviewing agencies and does hereby make the findings necessary
to override ALUC's determination attached hereto as Exhibit "E," and which is
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution 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 resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 6 of 7
Section 4: An EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024110238) was prepared for the
Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., Section 15000 et seq. as set forth in Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines"), and City
Council Policy K-3 (Implementation Procedures for the California Environmental Quality
Act) to ensure that the Project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Based
on the entire environmental review record, the City Council having final approval authority
over the Project, found that the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than
significant impact on the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects
on human beings that would be caused. By Resolution No. 2025-73, the City Council
adopted and certified the Final EIR as complete and adequate and adopted the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program including all findings contained therein, which is
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 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.
Resolution No. 2025-74
Page 7 of 7
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2025.
Joe Stapleton
Mayor
ATTEST:
Lena Shumway
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C.
City Attoi
Attachment(s): Exhibit A - Legal Description
Exhibit B - Airport Land Use Commission Inconsistency Determination
dated August 11, 2025
Exhibit C - Comment Letter from Airport Land Use Commission dated
October 8, 2025
Exhibit D — Intentionally Left Blank
Exhibit E - Findings to Override ALUC's Determination
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
PARCEL NO. 1 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 94-2, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED MAY 9, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
94-318607 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO 97-428866 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS THEREOF CONVEYED IN FEE TO THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014-427814 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS
APN: 119-200-38 & 119-200-41
EXHIBIT "B"
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION DATED
AUGUST 11, 2025
ORANGE COUNTY
:44uc:
August 11, 2025
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Ali -way Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: ALUC Determination for Newport Beach Snug Harbor Surf Park at 3100 Irvine
Avenue (General Plan Amendment)
Dear Ms. Perez,
During the public meeting held on August S, 2025, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
for Orange County considered the subject item. The matter was duly discussed and with a 5-1 vote,
the Commission found the Newport Beach Snug Harbor Surf Park at 3100 Irvine Avenue (General
Plan Amendment) to be Inconsistent with Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport
(A EL UP for JWA).
Please contact me at AMailbox@ocair.com or (949) 252-5170 if you have any questions regarding
this proceeding. Thank you!
Sincerely,
% I 41re 0 4.
Kristal Carr
Recording Secretary
cc: ALUC Commissioners
EXHIBIT "C"
COMMENT LETTER FROM AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
DATED OCTOBER 8, 2025
Docusign Envelope ID: OBE6791 1 -B7EE-424B-BDF9-26DO6688D672
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
ORANGE COUNTY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
SLUG 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
October 8, 2025
Newport Beach Mayor and City Council
c/o Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Response to Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use
Commission Determination for Snug Harbor Surf Park Project at 3100 Irvine
Avenue (General Plan Amendment)
Mayor and City Council Members:
We are in receipt of your September 11, 2025, letter notifying the Airport Land Use Commission
for Orange County (ALUC) of the City of Newport Beach's (City) intent to overrule the ALUC's
inconsistency determination on the Snug Harbor Surf Park project at 3100 Irvine Avenue General
Plan Amendment). A copy of Resolution No. 2025-60 with the City's Findings of Fact adopted
by the City Council on September 9, 2025, was attached. In accordance with Section 21676 of
the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the ALUC submits the following comments addressing the
proposed overrule findings for the above -referenced project. This letter is advisory to the City
and must be included in the public record of any final decision to overrule the ALUC, which
may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City's governing body.
Please be advised that PUC Section 21678 states: "With respect to a publicly owned airport that a
public agency does not operate, if the public agency pursuant to Section 21676, 21676.5, or
21677 overrules a commission's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be
immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting
directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to overrule the commission's
action or recommendation. "
Background
On June 13, 2025, the City of Newport Beach submitted the proposed Snug Harbor Surf Park
(Project) for a consistency review with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport
(AELUP for JWA). The Project site is located south of John Wayne Airport on the middle of the
three parcels that comprise the Newport Beach Golf Course. The 15.38-acre Project site currently
Docusign Envelope ID: OBE6791 1 -B7EE-424B-BDF9-26DO6688D672
ALUC Comments Newport Beach Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 8, 2025
Page 2
includes a turf driving range, putting green, three of the golf course's 18 holes (holes 1, 2, and 9),
a pro shop and restaurant building, and a surface parking lot. The Project would remove the
existing improvements and develop a surf lagoon with warming pools, a spa, and seating areas; a
three-story clubhouse; a two-story, 20-unit athlete accommodation building; ancillary storage and
maintenance areas; and associated parking areas providing a total of 351 parking spaces. Solar
panels would be installed on building rooftops and on carport structures in parking areas.
At a Special Meeting on August 7, 2025, the ALUC reviewed the proposed Project and determined
it to be Inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA based on land use intensity, safety, and noise
exposure within established approach and departure corridors. The determination was based on
AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety Compatibility Zones), which establishes criteria to minimize the
number of people exposed to potential aircraft accident hazards; AELUP Section 2.1.3 (Height
Restrictions) and Section 2.1.4 (Overflight), which address protection of navigable airspace and
public awareness of aircraft operations; and AELUP Section 3.2.1 (General Policy), which allows
a land use to be found inconsistent where it places people in areas adversely affected by aircraft
operations or concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents.
On September 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-60 declaring its intent to
overrule and, on September 11, 2025, transmitted its Notice of Intent to Overrule to the ALUC
along with the adopted findings.
Response to Finding "a" Noise Exposure
As noted in the City's finding, theAELUPfor JWA is intended to reduce public exposure to aircraft
noise and maintain compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The
Project includes multiple outdoor recreational and spectator areas within the 65 CNEL contour,
with portions of the site extending into the 70 CNEL contour. The City's analysis relies on interior
noise standards under the State Building Code and disclosure signage; however, these measures
do not mitigate aircraft noise exposure in outdoor areas such as the surf lagoon, seating areas, or
open-air gathering spaces. AELUP Section 3.2.1 (General Policy) emphasizes avoidance of
exposure rather than mitigation through interior design or notification. The ALUC maintains that
outdoor exposure to aircraft noise at this location is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
AEL UP for JWA.
Response to Finding "b" Safety / Intensit_y of Use in Safety Zones
The Project site is located within the Safety Compatibility Zones for JWA. Approximately 38
percent (5.85 acres) ofthe siteis within Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone), 22 percent (3.38
acres) within Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone), and 40 percent (6.15 acres) within Zone
6 (Traffic Pattern Zone). The City classified the site as "Urban," but the ALUC determined that
the site and surrounding area is Suburban in character based on existing low-rise development and
surrounding land uses. Under the Suburban classification, the California Airport Land Use
Docusign Envelope ID: OBE6791 1 -B7EE-424B-BDF9-26DO6688D672
ALUC Comments Newport Beach Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 8, 2025
Page 3
Planning Handbook limits intensity to 40 to 60 persons per gross acre (80 to 120 per single acre).
Based on the project plans submitted and the City's estimate of approximately 5,000 to 10,000
spectators during special events, the project could result in occupancy well in excess of the land
use compatibility standards defined by Caltrans in the Handbook. The congregation and attraction
of a significant number of people to the project area represents an incompatible condition within
Safety Zones 2, 4, and 6 under the AELUP for JWA.
Response to Finding "c" Height / Part 77 / Navigable Airspace
As noted in the City's finding, the proposed structures will not penetrate FAA Part 77 surfaces, and
the FAA has issued Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation. The ALUC acknowledges
this compliance but notes that AELUP Section 2.1.3 (Height Restrictions) provides that a
Determination of No Hazard does not automatically equate to ALUC consistency. Accordingly,
height compliance with FAA standards does not alter the ALUC's overall inconsistency
determination.
Response to Finding "d" Overflight Exposure
The City's finding states that aircraft overflight frequency will not increase and that disclosure
language will be provided to patrons. While flight operations at JWA will remain constant, the
proposed project would substantially increase the number of people located beneath existing
approach and departure paths. Flight track data from the John Wayne Airport Noise Office show
that numerous aircraft pass adjacent to the site at altitudes as low as 500 feet above mean sea level.
AELUP Sections 2.1.4 (Overflight) and 3.2.1 (General Policy) call for minimizing the number of
people exposed to aircraft overflight. The ALUC concluded that concentrating large numbers of
people directly under active flight paths is inconsistent with the intent and policies of the AEL UP
for JWA.
We urge the City Council to take ALUC's concerns into consideration in its deliberations prior to
deciding whether to overrule ALUC. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Signed
by:
L-84D
4FA86
Gera A. resnahan
Chairman
cc: Members, Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
Matt Friedman, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics
Vincent Ray, Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics
EXHIBIT "D"
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
f *4 y iiil
FINDINGS TO OVERRIDE ALUC'S DETERMINATION
The Project is consistent with the purposes of Section 21670 of the CPUC and the AELUP
of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of
airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The City Council's decision is
based on the following findings and facts in support:
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
A. The Project is consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP.
The AELUP guides development proposals to provide for the orderly development of
JWA and the surrounding area through implementation of the standards in Section 2
(Planning Guidelines) and Section 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these
standards is intended to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise,
to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft
accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable
airspace.
Most of the Property is located within the 65 dB CNEL contour, under both the 1985
Airport Master Plan noise contours and the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement
Agreement EIR No. 617.
Section 2.1.1 of the AELUP sets forth the CNEL standards, and Sections 3.2.3 and
3.2.4 of the AELUP define the noise exposure in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour
(Noise Impact Zone 2). Specifically, Table 1 of Section 3.2.3 identifies four different
land use categories consisting of "Residential," "Community Facilities, "Commercial,"
and "Industrial" along with the decibel levels that are consistent for each particular
use. In this case, the Project does not fit squarely within any of four land uses, but
rather, is a hybrid between " Community Facilities" and Commercial" land uses. In
either land use category, a 65 dBA CNEL is " Normally Consistent" subject to the
project including conventional construction methods as acceptable and without
requiring any special noise reduction requirements. Section 3.2.3 further delineates
the restrictions and construction requirements for each of the above land use
categories within the 65 dB CNEL Noise Impact Zone 1. Specifically, residential is
generally prohibited within Zone 1, however, commercial and recreational uses may
be acceptable provided that commercial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated
to allow normal work activities to be conducted. The Project will comply with the sound
attenuation requirements for commercial and industrial structures as per the California
Noise Insulation Standards, Title 21, 25, California Code of Regulations. Furthermore,
EIR No. 617 requires all nonresidential structures to be sound attenuated consistent
with the General Plan and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC.
Additionally, as to outdoor noise, there are no aircraft noise restrictions for outdoor
recreational uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour. Specifically, Section 3.2.3
recommends that all designated outdoor common or recreational areas within Noise
Impact Zone 1 provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of
operating aircraft. The Project will incorporate outdoor signage notifying the public of
the operation of aircraft. Of note, aircraft noise at the Property would be a regular
occurrence and identical to the noise currently occurring at the golf course.
Finally, the Noise Analysis (Appendix Q of the Draft EIR) found that Airport Exposure
for the Project would be less than significant and did not require further mitigation.
B. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP.
The Property encompasses approximately 15.4 acres with portions of the Project
overlying three airport safety zones. A detailed description of the Project Area, along
with the uses within each safety zone, is provided herein. In Safety Zone 2, the total
Project Area is approximately 5.79 acres. The Project uses in Safety Zone 2 include
207 parking spaces (however, 95 parking spaces will be reserved for the off -site golf
course use, leaving 112 parking spaces for Project uses in Safety Zone 2), heating
equipment, equipment yard, maintenance buildings, wave making equipment, and
37.8 percent of the surf lagoon. In Safety Zone 4, the total Project Area is
approximately 3.48 acres. The Project uses in Safety Zone 4 include 9,432 square
feet of athlete accommodations (20 total overnight units), wave making equipment,
pool area, restrooms, storage, and 41.2 percent of the surf lagoon. And in Safety Zone
6, the total Project Area is approximately 6.16 acres. The Project uses in Safety Zone
6 include 49,221 square feet of clubhouse space including staff area, restaurant, surf
shop, fitness areas and related uses, 144 parking spaces, a drop off area, pool area,
outdoor arcade, outdoor changing rooms, storage, mechanical/electrical/plumbing
("MEP") equipment areas, and 21.0 percent of the surf lagoon.
Section 2.1.2 (Safety Compatibility Zones) of the AELUP sets forth the allowable land
uses within each safety zone and provides the maximum intensities for each zone.
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Caltrans Handbook") suggests
the following maximum allowable occupancy for non-residential land uses in an urban
setting, and the below table also provides the calculations for the maximum allowed
occupancy based on acreage per safety zone applicable to the Project.
Snug Harbor Project
Zone Nonresidential Intensities
Zone Nonresidential Intensities
Safety 11
Zone
Acresper
Zone
Average ople/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
Avera ePeople/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
60
80
120
160
150
200
450
600
Zone 2
5.79
347.4
463.2
694.8
926.4
-
-
-
-
Zone 4
3.48
-
-
-
522.0
696.0
1566.0
2088.0
Zone 6_1
6.16
No Limit
No Limit
I No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Umit
Na Limit
The ALUC applies the suburban intensity parameters to the Project and provided the
following occupancy calculations: 254 people per acre in Safety Zone 2; 770 people
per acre in Safety Zone 4; and 972 people per acre in Safety Zone 6.
The Project trip generation assessment ("Traffic Study") prepared for the Project EIR
(Appendix R of the Draft EIR) includes a detailed trip generation assessment based
on the uses and traffic flow for the Project that quantifies the anticipated number of
individuals in each Safety Zone. Moreover, the City's Project Conditions of Approval
require compliance with these use parameters. Specifically, the assessment includes
the development of trip generation rates, time -of -day distributions and estimates for
the Project based on detailed programmatic attendance information and operational
modeling data provided by industry experts. The occupancy for the Project shall
comply with the estimates from the approved Traffic Study, which estimates the
following for daily activity: a) 1,400 visitors and surfers (comprised of 700 people in
the surf lagoon, 140 people in the surf academy, 280 people in the restaurant, 70
people in the shops, 210 people in the yoga/fitness areas), and b) 70 employees. The
maximum number of surfers in the lagoon is 72 at one time. The average number of
people in the Project Area between the peak hour of 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM is 388
people. The average vehicle occupancy parameters assume visitor vehicles at 2.0 two
people per vehicle, and employee vehicles at 1.0 people per vehicle.
Applying the parameters set forth in the Traffic Study, the anticipated number of
individuals in each Safety Zone based on use and traffic flow are set forth herein. With
respect to Safety Zone 2 which includes a portion of the surf lagoon, automobile
parking and park maintenance facilities; a portion of the surf lagoon totaling 1.91 acres
(37.8 percent of the total lagoon area), is the only area in Safety Zone 2 that would be
steadily occupied by people and which yields an average potential of 27 people in the
Safety Zone 2 lagoon area. There are also two proposed maintenance buildings
totaling 2,000 square feet. The California Building Code assumes 300 square feet per
person for maintenance uses, yielding seven employees potentially in Safety Zone 2.
The combined occupancy of these uses in Safety Zone 2 totals 34 people over 5.79
acres or approximately six people per acre. Applying the Caltrans Handbook suburban
limit of 40 to 60 people per acre in Safety Zone 2 would allow approximately 232 to
347 total people over a total of 5.79 acres. Thus, for Safety Zone 2, with a total of 34
people over 5.79 acres, the Project would comply with the maximum allowable
occupancy for non-residential land uses for either an urban setting (347.4 to 463.2
people) or suburban setting (232 to 347 people).
With respect to Safety Zone 4, it is comprised of 20 rooms for athlete accommodations
and a portion of the surf lagoon. At a maximum of four athletes per room, these
accommodations would total 80 people. The portion of the surf lagoon in Safety Zone
4 is 2.08 acres (41.2 percent of the total lagoon area), which equates to an average
potential of 30 people in the Safety Zone 4 lagoon area. The total combined occupancy
in Safety Zone 4 is 110 people over 3.48 acres or approximately 32 people per acre.
Applying the Caltrans Handbook suburban limit of 100 to 150 people/acre in Safety
Zone 4 would allow 348 to 522 people based on a total of 3.48 acres. Thus, for Safety
Zone 4, with a total of 110 people over 3.48 acres, the Project would comply with the
maximum allowable occupancy for non-residential land uses for either an urban
setting (522 to 696 people) or suburban setting (348 to 522 people).
With respect to Safety Zone 6, it is comprised of a wider array of uses including a
portion of the surf lagoon, the clubhouse area, beach areas and parking spaces
spread over 6.16 acres. The portion of the Safety Zone 6 surf lagoon is 1.06 acres (21
percent of the total lagoon area), which equates to an average potential of 15 people
in the Safety Zone 6 lagoon area. The Traffic Study noted 388 people during the peak
hour from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm. Subtracting out the total number of people in the
lagoon area (72) equates to a potential of 316 visitors in Zone 6, which could be
generally using the clubhouse area. If all 70 employees were also in Safety Zone 6, it
would bring the total maximum number of people in the clubhouse area to 386. The
combination of occupancy in Safety Zone 6 totals 458 people over 6.16 acres or
approximately 75 people per acre. Applying the Caltrans Handbook suburban limit of
200 to 300 people/acre in Safety Zone 6 would allow 1,232 to 1,848 people based on
a total of 6.16 acres. Thus, for Safety Zone 6, with a total of 458 people over 6.16
acres, the Project would comply with the maximum allowable occupancy for non-
residential land uses for either an urban setting, which has no limit, or suburban setting
(1,232 to 1,848 people).
The Project is anticipated to host approximately 12 surf events/competitions per year
that would be ticketed events similar in scale to other local sporting events. While the
number of persons within the safety zones will increase during these events, these
increases are temporary in nature and not a part of the regular operation of the Project.
Lastly, the existing condition of the Project site experiences the highest concentration
of persons at the restaurant and at driving range and putting range. These golf course
components are within Safety Zone 2. Conversely, the Project places the highest
concentration of persons into Safety Zone 6, within the amenity clubhouse building.
Based on the combined analysis from the Project Traffic Study and Project uses within
each Safety Zone, the occupancy associated with each use area is within the Caltrans
Handbook recommendations for each safety zone area using either the higher urban
limits or the lower suburban limits.
C. The Project is consistent with the height standards of the AELUP
The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has the sole responsibility for studying
and determining airspace hazards. The Project complies with FAA notification,
pursuant to 14 Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and
Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. On May 6, 2025, the FAA issued a
Determination of No Hazard for Air Navigation. As the tallest proposed buildings on
the Project site would not exceed the 14 CFR Part 77 construction notification
imaginary surfaces over the Property, the Determinations of No Hazard applied to all
aspects of the Project.
ALUC determined that a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not
automatically equate to a Consistency determination by the ALUC and that the
Commission may find a project Inconsistent based on an Obstruction determination
pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP. However, no Obstruction was found since
the Project heights are lower than 130-feet above mean sea level ("AMSL").
Specifically, Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces requires a height of less than 130
feet AMSL. In this case, the maximum height of the Project is 71 feet which is below
the 130-foot maximum height restriction and, therefore, is not an Obstruction. In no
event will the Project's height limits be inconsistent with the parameters outlined in
Subsection 3.2.6 (Height Restriction Zone) of the AELUP and FAA standards.
D. The Project is consistent with the overflight standards of the AELUP
Overflights will be the same with the Project as with the existing golf course. There
was a total of 302,654 aircraft operations in 2023 at JWA. Of the total, only 9.7 percent
(29,353 aircraft operations) flew over the Property. Approximately 95 percent of these
overflights would be departures south of JWA and the remainder would include a mix
of JWA arrivals north, overflights to other airports in the vicinity and helicopter traffic
at JWA and within the vicinity of the airport. The average daily total overflights of the
Property are 80 to 88. While persons in the Project area will generally notice departing
aircraft at lower altitudes, it will be the same as the aircraft operations currently noticed
over the golf course.
Attachment 2
Response to Environmental Comments
Received by Thomas Edwards
E P I D SOLLITIONS,INC
WHERE EXPERIENCE AND PASSION MEET
Date: October 27, 2025
Prepared by: Renee Escario and Brady Connolly
To: Joselyn Perez, JPerez@newportbeachca.gov
Site: Snug Harbor Surf Park Project
Subject: Responses to Environmental Comments Received Prior to City Council Hearing
This memo contains responses to a comment letter related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the
City of Newport Beach received in response to the notice of the City Council Hearing for the proposed
Project of October 28, 2025. This comment was received after the close of the Draft EIR public review
period (May 23, 2025 through July 7, 2025).
Under CEQA, a lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written
responses, if a comment is received within the public comment period (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd.
(d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment
period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091,
subd. (d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.5, subd. (c)("Nothing in this section requires the lead agency to
respond to comments not received within the comment periods specified in this division, to reopen comment
periods, or to delay acting on a negative declaration or environmental impact report.").) Although a lead
agency is not required to respond to late comments, it may choose to do so (Gray V. County of Madera
(2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1 1 10 (Gray), citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d)(1); CEQA
Guidelines, § 15088; Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th
911, 925, fn. 10 (Gilroy Citizens).)
The City of Newport Beach has elected to prepare the following written responses to comment received
after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR ended (July 7, 2025) that include environmental
issues of concern with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to
the bracketed and numbered portions of the comment letter.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments result in
identification of any substantial increases in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts
that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation
as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new environmental impacts would result from the
Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in
the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative that would reduce potential
impacts, or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would lessen
the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and
conclusory in nature.
Letter CC1: Thomas Edwards (5 pages) Late Comment Letter
October 20, 2025
City of Newport Beach
Mayor and Council Members
Re: Snug Harbor Surf Park(PA2024-0069)
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
This comment letter is submitted in response to the proposed actions that you intend to take
on or about October 28, 2025 with regards to a proposed project at the current Newport Beach
Golf Course, including but not limited to the proposed Findings of Fact filed by the City as well as
comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Snug Harbor Surf Park submitted by Back
Bay Barrells, LLC. The intent of this letter is to lower the temperature on the project, not to be
confrontational but rather propose questions some of which remain unanswered despite requests to
the contrary.
My comments, observations and suggestions about the project are premised upon the
following primary concepts and concerns:
CCl .1
Any actions taken by the City Council with regards to the project should in accordance with
the Santa Ana Specific Area Plan and ensure the longterm use and vialn7io of the Newport Beach Golf CC1.2
Course.' It is imperative that nothing proposed or implemented through the project jeopardize such
use.
I understand and respect the City's responsibility for and control over the project, however
subject to all existing legal restrictions. It is important, however, that the City understand
and respect the views of those who are impacted by its decisions regarding the project. CC1.3
Unfortunately, many in the community affected by City's decision feel they have not been
included, in any meaningful way, in the development of the project. Their inclusion in future
discussions is critical to the long-term success of project if the City ultimately approves the
project.
• If the City does approve the project then certain conditions should be attached to any
approval with due consideration given to the concerns of the surrounding communities and CC1.4
reflected in the conditions, as well as conditions that protect the City from potential liability
and/or obligations in the future, if any.
• The 1985 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement as amended, reflects consensus
between the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Airport Working Group CC1.5
(AWG) and Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) on the nature and extent of facility and
operational improvements that may be implemented of JWA. For 40 years, this Agreement
has balanced the development of facilities and the growth of operational capacity with the
I In verbatim accordance with Newport Beach Afuniczpal Code Section 21.90.030.
legitimate environmental concerns of the surrounding communities. It is imperative that
nothing proposed or implemented through the project jeopardize the continued successful CC1.5
implementation of the Settlement Agreement. I
Cont.
With the foregoing in mind I offer the following:
What justifies the ignoring of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 21.90.030?
Initially the project as proposed violates the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 21.90.030.'
The Municipal Code specifically sets forth:
"A. Purpose and Intent The SP-7 (C SR) District is established to ensure the long-term use and
viability of the Nenport Beach Golf Course." (emphasis added)
Clearly the proposed project fails to do so. The purpose of the project states: "The Snug
Harbor Surf Park Project (Project) would remove all existing improvements on the Project site
including the driving range, pro shop, restaurant and bar, and three holes of golf',..." and as
I mportantly is not even considered in the EIR document. In addition in the CEQA proposed
Findings of Fact filed by the City' no mention is made of the purpose and intent of the SP-7.
Despite assertions to the contrary the project does "...conflict with an applicable land use plan,
policy...." Such failure is not only a fatal flaw because of its violation of the City of Newport Beach
("CNB") Municipal Code, but its failure permeates the entire process as demonstrated hereafter.
Moreover any action taken in violation of the statute would be void ab initio.
Simply put: The removal of 3 golf holes; removal of the driving range; the removal of
the putting green; the removal of the golf shop and starter shop; the construction of a 5 acre
surf park; the construction of 59,772 square foot of density does not ensure the long-term
use and viability of the Newport Beach Golf Course.' If anything the project expedites the
demise of the Newport Beach Golf Course.
Moreover, the failure to address CNB Section 21.90.030, is fatal and not addressed in the
proposed Findings of Fact filed by CNB, and thereby provides no basis for approval; and as noted
previously permeates the project as there was a failure to include and therefore study reasonable
viable alternatives per the requirements of CEQA Section 15126.6, which states that "...it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision
making and public participation."
' The section is a part of the Santa Ana Specific Area Plan.
'The body of documents makes mention of the removal of the 3 holes of golf but realistically and never
considered is that effectively it removes 9 holes of golf. And clearly demonstrates that it is in violation of the purposes of
the Specific Area Plan. Nor is there any showing of a long -tern use and viability of the golf course.
4 Filed October 2025 by the City. Historically speaking the Santa Ana Specific Area Plan was incorporated into
the CNB code as part of the policy of the City to preserve the City from the adverse impacts of John Wayne Airport (see
CNB website). Preserving the golf course has been advocated for a number of years with even some entertainment of
the idea of the City purchasing the golf course in or about 2008 to further protect from encroachment of the airport. It
is not unreasonable that improvements to the golf course etc. be studied in accordance with CEQA 151266 And in
keeping with CNB Section 2190 050
5 A careful reading of the project appendices; analysis discloses that the two -prong test associated with CNB
Section21,90.050was never considered.
CC1.6
Isn't the project subject to CNB Charter, Section 423?
The project as proposed unless otherwise remedied by a specific requirement of approval, is
violative of the CNB Charter, Section 423.
As noted in the project documents, "...The total Project development
intensity would be approximately 59,772 net square feet." (emphasis added) And also "...requires a
General Plan Amendment to increase the current development limit of 20,000 net square feet (per
Anomaly Number 58) to 59,772 net square feet.
As specifically set forth in Section 423 of the CNB Charter. -
"Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan.
A "major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that
allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or intensity. "Significantly
increases" ..means over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity)...." Moreover as Section 423 goes
on to say: "Voter approval is required" means that the amendment shall not take eect unless it has been
submitted to the voters and approved by a majority of those voting on it. (emphasis added.)
What is the factual basis to override the findings of the ALUC?
Nowhere in any of the past presentations and or documents is there a factual basis to
override the findings of the ALUC. As stated in the ALUC determination: "That the Commission
find the proposed Newport Beach Snug Harbor Surf Park Project inconsistent with the AELUP for
JWA." As the Council is aware in order to overrule an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
inconsistency determinationb, it must make a specific findings that the project is consistent with the
purpose of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP); 'and which must include an aeronautical
determination. (emphasis added)
Isn't there an inconsistency in the documentation as to the proposed hours of
operation?
In two different portions of the document two different hours of operation are stated. In
one portion of the document it states the hours of operation to be 7 AM to 10 PM and in another
place as 6 AM to 11 PM.)' Which is it? People do not know. It should be noted that the hours of 7
AM to 10 PM are otherwise consistent with the CNB Noise Element as well as the Santa Ana
Heights Specific Area Plan; and the curfew hours of JWA. Moreover the issue of noise associated
with the so called "wave machine" has never been addressed.
G The findings of August 7, 2025 inconsistency as determined by the ALUC are incorporated herein by this
reference.
7 One consideration is that the council should determine if the override of the ALUC may invite future
liability.
8 It is difficult to ascertain which standard was used in the evaluation of the project.
CC1.7
CC1.8
CC1.9
Conditions to be attached if the City approves the project:
1. Hours of Operation: 7AM-10 PM; no loud music etc.10.; in addition, limitation on hours
of operation of the wave machine.
2. Completion/Restoration Bond": Given that if the project is begun and construction and
digging ensues but is not completed for any variety of reasons, including but not limited
to the fact that the project will encounter a process known as dewatering because of its
location on the Santa Ana River flood plain,12 which may ultimately preclude completion
of the project, the City to protect itself should require the applicant/owner/successors
and assigns to post a restoration bond. Once the project is begun putting the genie back
in the bottle becomes more difficult In addition, should the project go out of business
for any reason, the status quo of the Golf Course would be difficult to restore as well as
inconsistent with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan.
3. Indemnify the City: The Applicant/Owner/transferees/successors and assigns etc.
should indemnify and/hold harmless the City etc., with regards to the override of the
inconsistency finding of ALUC.13
4. Require a demonstrable and enforceable plan with the sole purpose of protecting the
longevity of the golf course and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan.
5. Water Well located on the Golf Course. Given that there is a ground water well located
on the Newport Beach Golf Course, there should be some kind of protection for the
City, such as bonding/indemnification etc. against the contamination etc. of the well by
the owner/applicant etc.; indemnification should consider that indemnification of the
appropriate water district as well.
6. Require a vote of the people if the Council approves the project.
9 I reiterate that any conditions imposed should be in accordance with the Santa Ana Specific Area Plan and
ensure the long-term use and viability of the Nenport Beach Golf Course,
10 The hours of operation is only a bate minimum; for there has been representations that the wave machine
allegedly would operate as much as 1000 waves per hour. There is no showing as to the amount of noise associated with
the machine. Moreover the noise associated with the machine is quite different than the sound of someone hitting a golf
ball.
11 In addition the City could require a restoration agreement and record a memorandum covenant to run with
the land as a condition.
"Historically the golf course has encountered flooding with up to 10 feet of flooding; and is also susceptible to
high tides and storm surges. This is in addition to the locational problems noted above which may lead to dewatering of
millions and millions of gallons just to ensure the integrity of the construction.
13 At a minimum, the City should determine exactly what the risks are of overruling an ALUC and whether and
to what extent it presents potential legal liability for the City, if any. It is a concern that any taxpayer of the City should
be concerned with.
CC1.10
I am certain that many in the community may have other suggestions which the City should
consider and the foregoing is not an exhaustive list by any means.
CC1.11
Thank you for the opportunity to express my comments, observations and concerns. The
foregoing are expressions of my own concerns only and may not represent the concerns of any
others.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Edwards
Response to Letter L1: Thomas Edwards, dated October 20, 2025
Response CC1.1: This comment is introductive in nature and does not provide comment about the
environmental analysis in the Draft EIR or provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project
would result in a new significant environmental impact. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Response CC1.2: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, and in
Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks
and Recreation, which is intended to provide for a variety of both active and passive uses, including: golf
courses, marina support facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The
Project site is zoned for Open Space and Recreation within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which,
subject to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. The proposed Project is consistent with
the intended uses for the site within the City's General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The
proposed Project would keep golf course holes 3-8 and 10-18 and provide support for their continued
use, which would be consistent with the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for
the Project site.
Response CC1.3: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 21092, the Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIR for the proposed Project was mailed on May 23, 2025 to owners and occupants within a 300-
foot radius of the Project site, posted physically onsite, posted on the City's website, and published in the
Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot. Additionally, prior to circulation of the EIR, the
Notice of Preparation was similarly noticed on November 7, 2024 to the radius list, onsite, as well as on
the City's website which notified about a public scoping meeting held in the Newport Beach Civic Center on
November 20, 2024 where public comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR were heard.
Thus, sufficient notice was provided per CEQA Guidelines.
In addition, the Applicant team has coordinated numerous outreach efforts to engage with members of the
community beyond CEQA requirements. The Applicant team has hosted more than 125 meetings, both one
on one and engaging with neighborhood groups such as the Mesa Drive Community. Meetings have also
been held with community organizations such as the Newport Beach Realtors, all of the Newport Mesa
Unified School District High School surf and golf team coaches, the Newport Beach Junior Lifeguards, and
various non-profit and surf organizations such as the Board Riders Organization. Finally, the Applicant
team has engaged through a public website that details Project information as well as through social media
that provide links and email addresses to reach out for more information. Thus, community outreach has
occurred both as required and in a meaningful way.
Response CC1.4: This comment is introductive in nature and does not provide comments about the
environmental analysis in the Draft EIR or provide any substantial evidence that the proposed Project
would result in a new significant environmental impact. See Response CC1.10 for a response to the
proposed conditions provided by the commenter.
Response CC1.5: As discussed below in Response CC1.8, the Project's consistency with the JWA safety and
land use policies are detailed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.10, Land
Use and Planning. The proposed Project was evaluated for compliance with existing FAA, California Division
of Aeronautic, and AELUP planning guidelines and regulations related to airport hazards and land uses. As
detailed on Draft EIR page 5.8-40, there is an annual risk of an accident on the Project site of 0.033% per
year, which is the same under either existing golf course or proposed surf park uses. As detailed in Draft
EIR Section 5.1 1, Noise, the General Plan Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, identifies that commercial
recreation facilities are "normally compatible" up to 75 dBA CNEL, which is consistent with the ambient
noise on the Project site. In addition, as detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation, the increase in
vehicle trips to the Project site below the threshold of 300 daily trips. As detailed on page 6-1 of the Draft
EIR, the Project would result in the addition of 23 employees that would not be all onsite at one time. Thus,
the additional persons on the Project site would be limited and substantial growth on the site would not
occur. The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence to indicate how the proposed Project
7
would jeopardize the continued implementation of the 1985 Settlement Agreement. Thus, no further
response is warranted.
Response CC 1.6: As discussed in Final EIR Master Response 2: Loss of Existing Golf Course Use, and in
Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Parks
and Recreation, which is intended to provide for a variety of both active and passive uses, including: golf
courses, marina support facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The
Project site is zoned for Open Space and Recreation by the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which, subject
to a use permit, allows for outdoor commercial recreation. The proposed Project is consistent with the
intended uses for the site within the City's General Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, as
detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning.
The proposed Project would support the remaining 15-hole golf course and facilitate continued golf by
providing parking and a check -in station (starter) on the Project site, golf cart storage within the basement
level of the Project's proposed clubhouse building, and maintenance of connection between all golf holes
for a 15-hole golf track. Thus, although reduced, golf recreation would continue to be provided to the
north and south of the Project and supported by the Project. There are many examples of successful golf
courses that provide less than 18 holes, including Gable Sands (Quicksand) Course (13 holes), Brandon
Preserve (13 holes), Gravel Pit (13 holes), Gilroy Golf Course (1 1 holes), Monarch Dunes Golf Club (12
holes), and Woodside Golf Course (12 holes), among others. These courses have succeeded with less than
the traditional 18 holes, reflecting (a) a continued desire to play even with a non-standard number of
holes, and (b) that a lesser number of holes provides a golfing experience that can be accommodated on
a shorter schedule (requiring less time to complete a round).
The comment refers to "the failure to address CNB Section 21.90.030", which is the municipal code section
for the SP-7 (OSR) District. This is addressed throughout Draft EIR Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning.
Specifically, Draft EIR page 5.10-21 details the permitted uses and development standards of the SP-7
(OSR) designation and Draft EIR page 5.10-22 details the Project sites designation as OSR. Additionally,
the OSR designation is detailed in Draft EIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics, on pages 5.1-5 and 5.1-15 through
5.1-16 pages. Draft EIR Table 5.1-1 provides a comparison of the Project consistency with the applicable
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan development standards. As detailed, the Project would be consistent with
the building site area, building setbacks, and the proposed building heights would be consistent with a
Conditional Use Permit.
In addition, the Draft EIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives (as Chapter 8) as
required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The "range of alternatives" to be evaluated is governed
by the "rule of reason" and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are
feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the Lead Agency and to foster
meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives is based primarily on
the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project.
As detailed in Draft EIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment
and would result no significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the proposed
Project, and all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to a less -than -significant
level. One Alternative (Alternate Site Alternative) was considered but rejected due to infeasibility and lack
of ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/
No Build Alternative, a Reduced Project Alternative, an Alternative Commercial Recreation Use Alternative,
and a Reduced Amenities Alternative (included as Appendix F to the Final EIR) were analyzed. Each of
these alternatives provided options to the proposed Project to reduce potential impacts and/or the need
for a General Plan Amendment. As such, the alternatives evaluated by the EIR provide a reasonable range
of alternatives pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 151 26.6.
8
Draft EIR Page 8-1 states that a pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 151 26.6(d), discussion of each
alternative presented in this Draft EIR section is intended "to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and
comparison with the proposed project." As permitted by CEQA, the significant effects of each alternative
are discussed in less detail than those of the proposed Project, but in enough detail to provide perspective
and allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives to the proposed Project. The qualitative analysis
provided is sufficient to support the impacts claims. Further, the alternatives evaluation describes the ability
of each alternative to meet the Project objectives.
Response CC 1.7: The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter
20.90 and is applicable to the proposed Project. As detailed on Draft EIR page 3-35, the Project includes
a General Plan Amendment to increase the development intensity for the site from the current limit of
20,000 SF to approximately 59,772 SF. As stated in the comment letter, projects requiring a major
amendment, meaning an increase of over 40,000 square feet of floor area, would require voter approval.
As the proposed Project would require a 39,772 square foot increase of allowed intensity, voter approval
is not required. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Response CC 1.8: Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to operation of John Wayne Airport in
Draft EIR Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and the Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Risk
Assessment & Wildlife Hazard Management Analysis, prepared by Johnson Aviation, Inc., included as
Appendix M. The proposed Project was evaluated for compliance with existing FAA, California Division of
Aeronautic, and AELUP planning guidelines and regulations related to airport hazards and land uses. As
detailed on Draft EIR page 5.8-40, using the accident data in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook and from the NTSB database for SNA, the aircraft hazard assessment developed a rough order
of magnitude estimate of accident risk at the Project site. Over the most recent ten-year period (2014-
2024), SNA had 11 accidents listed in the NTSB database. Two occurred during the takeoff or departure
phase of the flight. During this same time period there were over 3 million aircraft operations at SNA. This
results in a risk rate of 0.067 accidents per 100,000 aircraft operations. Combining these two figures (0.3
accidents per year) provides an estimate of the chances of an accident on the Project site as 0.035% per
year. The additional factor that aircraft typically depart to the southwest about 95 percent of the time
brings the chances of an accident on the Project site to 0.033% per year. It should be noted that the
existing golf course has a similar risk.
In terms of the annual risk to an individual on the Project site, if there is a 0.033% chance of an onsite
accident per year, and as per the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, approximately, 0.1 1 %
of general aviation aircraft accidents result in fatalities to people on the ground, this yields a 0.000036%
chance of a fatality per year, or an approximate risk of 0.036 in 100,000 operations. Therefore, the
Draft EIR determined that potential impacts from aircraft accidents would be less than significant. As
detailed in Section 5.11, Noise, the General Plan Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix, identifies that
commercial recreation facilities are "normally compatible" up to 75 dBA CNEL.
In addition, as detailed in Draft EIR details in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages 5.8-15
and 5.8-40 that the Project site has previously undergone FAA evaluation, which determined that structures
on the site that are below 162 feet amsl would not have a significant adverse impact related to
aeronautical hazards. Thus, the FAA has not blocked development within the Project site.
On September 9, 2025, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-60, Notice of
Intent to Override Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Determination of Inconsistency for
the Snug Harbor Surf Park Project. The resolution provided notice to the ALUC and State Department of
Transportation, Aeronautics Program of the City' s intention to find that the Surf Park Project is consistent
with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and overrule ALUC's determination that the Project is
inconsistent with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
Response CC 1.9: The hours of operation for the proposed Project are accurately described in Draft EIR
Section 3.0, Project Description, which states that the proposed hours of operation for the surf lagoon are
E
6:00 a.m. to 1 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week with ancillary amenity hours varying based on demand. The times
of 7:00 am to 10:00 p.m. were used within the Draft EIR to describe the operational noise levels during the
daytime hours, as defined by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.26.025(A), which states that exterior
noise levels at single-, two or multiple -family residential land uses (Noise Zone 1) shall not exceed 55 dBA
Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). For commercial uses, exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the
daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.). The City Noise standards are shown in Draft EIR Table 5.1 1-2. Thus, the Draft EIR describes the
proposed Projects compliance within the daytime/nighttime thresholds established by the City. Draft EIR
Table 5.1 1-9 shows that the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. would range from 53.8 to 64.1 dBA Leq at the offsite receiver locations. This is less than the
existing daytime ambient noise in the Project vicinity, which ranges from 67.8 to 73.7 dBA. Draft EIR Table
5.1 1-10 shows that the Project operational noise levels at the closest sensitive receivers during the
nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. would range from 40.0 to 45.7 dBA Leq, which is below the
City's 50 dBA Leq nighttime noise standard at residential land uses.
The proposed wave machine noise generation was discussed within the Draft EIR in Section 5.11, Noise, on
page 5.1 1 -22, which describes that based on the manufacturer's specifications for the wave generator, the
proposed wave machinery would generate a peak wave noise event of 61.4 Leq at a distance of 50 feet,
which would be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 1 1:00 p.m. Draft EIR Table 5.1 1 -1 2 and Table 5.1 1-13
identifies that the Project would generate daytime operational noise level increases ranging from less than
0.1 to 0.8 dBA Leq and nighttime noise level increases ranging from less than 0.1 to 2.0 dBA Leq at the
nearby receiver locations, which are less than the thresholds. Therefore, noise impacts related to Project
operations were determined to be less than significant. Please refer to Master Response 5: Noise Impacts,
as well as Draft EIR Section 5.11 Noise, for additional discussion of the proposed Project's noise impacts.
Response CC 1.10: The proposed conditions provided by the commenter are not related to potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project and would not lower any potentially significant impacts to a
less than significant level. As discussed above in Response CC1.9, operational noise from the proposed
Project would be less than significant during both the daytime and nighttime hours, and there is no nexus
for additional measures to reduce impacts.
CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with a project's physical changes to the
environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora,
fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360).
Any economic and social effects of the proposed project are not treated as effects on the environment
(CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131 (a)). Therefore, consistent with CEQA, the Draft EIR
includes an analysis of the Project's reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant physical impacts on
the environment and does not include a discussion of the Project's economic or social effects. Thus, impacts
related to the proposed Project's potential failure as a business and ability to be redeveloped is not within
the scope of CEQA and are speculative.
The proposed Project would support the remaining 15-hole golf course and facilitate continued golf by
providing parking and a check -in station (starter) on the Project site, golf cart storage within the basement
level of the Project's proposed clubhouse building, and maintenance of connection between all golf holes
for a 15-hole golf track.
As detailed in Draft EIR page 5.9-10, the golf course is currently irrigated via well water. Implementation
of the Project would convert this three -hole golf course area, and the use of the onsite well water would be
eliminated. As detailed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would be required to
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction and a water quality
management plan (WQMP), pursuant to existing regulations, which includes site design, source control and
treatment control elements to reduce the discharge of pollutants in runoff that could effect the groundwater
well. Compliance with these requirements are included in the Project's mitigation plan as PPP WO-1
E
through PPP WQ-3 would be verified during the City's construction permitting process. Thus, protections
related to water quality are in place.
As discussed above in Response CC1.7, the proposed Project would require a 39,772 square foot increase
of allowed intensity, thus voter approval is not required.
Response CC 1.11: This comment is conclusory in nature and does not provide evidence of a new
environmental impact. This comment and response will be available to City decision makers as part of the
Staff Report.
Attachment 3
Applicant Response to ALUC Letter
JOHNSON AVIATION
CONSULTING
Nick Johnson
30141 Agoura Road, Suite 104
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
818.606.3560
nick@iacair.com
October 27, 2025
City of Newport Beach City Council
c/o Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(Via email)
Subject: Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter — Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
Mayor and City Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to address the comments raised in a letter from the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) for Orange County sent on October 8, 2025 ("ALUC's Letter") regarding the Snug
Harbor Surf Park Project ("Project") located at 3100 Irvine Avenue. The ALUC's Letter was sent in response
to the City of Newport Beach ("City") Notice of Intent to Overrule (Resolution No. 2025-60, Adopted
September 9, 2025) the ALUC determination of inconstency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs
Land Use Plan. A copy of the ALUC's Letter is included in the City's record for the Project Hearing
scheduled for October 28, 2025.
The City has developed a comprehensive analysis of the airport land use compatibility of the Project that
was included in the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), presented to the ALUC staff and
Commission, and presented to the City's Planning Commission. This rebuttal to ALUC's Letter are drawn
from these previous analyses and additional points, particularly related to Project occupancy by airport
safety zone during Special Events.
The ALUC provided responses to several of the Findings of Fact that are included in the record for the
Project. These ALUC responses are provided here with rebuttals to each.
1. ALUC Response to Finding "a" Noise Exposure
As noted in the City's finding, the AELUP forJWA is intended to reduce public exposure to aircraft
noise and maintain compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The
Project includes multiple outdoor recreational and spectator areas within the 65 CNEL contour,
with portions of the site extending into the 70 CNEL contour. The City's analysis relies on interior
noise standards under the State Building Code and disclosure signage; however, these measures
do not mitigate aircraft noise exposure in outdoor areas such as the surf lagoon, seating areas, or
open-air gathering spaces. AELUP Section 3.2.1 (General Policy) emphasizes avoidance of
exposure rather than mitigation through interior design or notification. The ALUC maintains that
outdoor exposure to aircraft noise at this location is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the AELUP for JWA.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 2 of 7
1A. Response
Aircraft noise at the Project site would be a regular occurrence and identical to the current golf course
and driving range recreational uses on the site. The AELUP noise contours represent outdated noise
contours and outdated planning for the Airport facilities. In 2014 the Airport Settlement Agreement was
updated to allow for additional facilities and increases in passengers and operations at the Airport and
extended the Agreement through 2030. In 2019 the General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) EIR
627 was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. The GAIP allows for renovation of the general
aviation facilities at the Airport and the EIR prepared updated noise contours as part of the change in
operations. These more recent planning processes provide more up to date and accurate noise contours
reflecting the level of noise that users of the Project site would experience.
While there are no aircraft noise restrictions for outdoor recreational and commercial land uses, daily and
hourly aircraft noise levels will be prevalent and noticeable at the Project site. These outdoor noise
impacts have been fully disclosed as part of the project.
2. ALUC Response to Finding "b" Safety/intensity of Use in Safety Zones
The Project site is located within the Safety Compatibility Zones for JWA. Approximately
38 percent (5.85 acres) of the site is within Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone), 22
percent (3.38 acres) within Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone), and 40 percent
(6.15 acres) within Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone). The City classified the site as "Urban,"
but the ALUC determined that the site and surrounding area is Suburban in character
based on existing low-rise development and surrounding land uses. Under the Suburban
classification, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook limits intensity to 40 to
60 persons per gross acre (80 to 120 per single acre). Based on the project plans submitted
and the City's estimate of approximately 5,000 to 10,000 spectators during special events,
the project could result in occupancywell in excess of the land use compatibility standards
defined by Caltrans in the Handbook. The congregation and attraction of a significant
number of people to the project area represents an incompatible condition within Safety
Zones 2, 4, and 6 under the AELUP for JWA.
2. Response
The Snug Harbor Project site encompasses approximately 15.4 acres. Portions of three airport safety
zones overly the Project site. The total Project Area in Safety Zone 2 is approximately 5.79 acres. The total
Project Area in Safety Zone 4 is approximately 3.48 acres. The total Project Area in Safety Zone 6 is
approximately 6.16 acres.
The Project uses in Safety Zone 2 include 207 parking spaces (however, 95 parking spaces will be reserved
for the off -site, adjacent golf course use, leaving 112 parking spaces for Project uses in Safety Zone 2),
heating equipment, equipment yard, maintenance buildings, wave making equipment, and 37.8 percent
of the surf lagoon. The Project uses in Safety Zone 4 include 9,432 SF of athlete accommodations (20 total
units), wave making equipment, pool area, restrooms, storage, and 41.2 percent of the surf lagoon. The
Project uses in Safety Zone 6 include 49,221 SF of clubhouse space (staff area, restaurant, surf shop, fitness
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 3 of 7
areas and related uses), 144 parking spaces, a drop off area, pool area, outdoor arcade, outdoor changing
rooms, storage, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) equipment areas, and 21.0 percent of the surf
lagoon.
The Project includes Special Event Temporary Accommodations in Zone 4 and Zone 6 as per the Level 2
Newport Beach Special Event guidelines which allow attendance at between 1,000 to 5,000 persons.
Generally, the permit for this type of Special Event allows for a duration of up to 4 consecutive days and
requires limited City services (as determined by the Recreation and Senior Services Department). Based
on the site layout, Zone 6 will accommodate 1,340 people during special events, and Zone 4 will
accommodate 200 people during special events.
The Project EIR includes a detailed trip generation assessment based on the use of the Project to guide
the Project traffic study and parking requirements ("Traffic Study"). The City's Project Conditions of
Approval require compliance with these use parameters. The assessment includes the development of
trip generation rates, time -of -day distributions and estimates for the Project based on detailed
programmatic attendance information and operational modeling data provided by industry experts. The
occupancy for the proposed Project shall comply with the estimates from the approved Trip Generation
Assessment and Parking Demand Analysis reports, which estimates the following for daily activity: a)1,400
visitors and surfers (comprised of 700 people in the surf lagoon, 140 people in the surf academy, 280
people in the restaurant, 70 people in the shops, 210 people in the yoga/fitness areas), and b) 70
employees. The maximum number of surfers in the lagoon is 72 at one time. The average number of
people in the Project Area between the peak hour of noon and 1PM is 388 people. The average Vehicle
occupancy parameters assume visitor vehicles at 2.0 two people per vehicle, and employee vehicles at 1.0
people per vehicle.
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") suggests the following maximum
allowable occupancy for non-residential land uses in an urban setting, and the below table also provides
the calculations for the maximum allowed occupancy based on acreage per safety zone.
Snug Harbor Project
Zone 2 Nonresidential Intensities
Zone 4 Nonresidential Intensities
Safety
Zone
Acres per
Zone
Average People/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
Average People/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
60
80
120
160
150
200
450
800
Zone 2
5.79
347.4
463.2
594.8
928.4
-
-
-
-
Zone 4
3.48
-
-
-
-
522.0
696A
1586.0
2088.0
Zone 6
6.161
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
The ALUC contends that suburban intensity parameters should be used and provides the following
occupancy calculations: 254 people per acre in Safety Zone 2; 770 people per acre in Safety Zone 4; and
972 people per acre in Safety Zone 6. The ALUC exclusively used the California Building Code methodology
to calculate occupancy. It did not consider that this methodology works best for sites that are comprised
of mostly buildings, i.e. this methodology should not be used to calculate occupancy in areas that are not
in buildings, like the Project's Surf Basin.
The Handbook describes several methods that can be used to determine occupancy estimates, "...the
number of parking spaces... maximum occupancy levels prescribed by building and fire codes; and surveys
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 4 of 7
of similar existing uses (actual counts at other similar facilities)." The Handbook also states that, "Certain
uses may require an estimate based upon a survey of similar uses. This approach... is appropriate for uses
which, because of the nature of the use, cannot be reasonably estimated based upon parking or square
footage."
The ALUC's occupancy calculations also do not consider the traffic flow in and out of the surf lagoon park
through the course of the day and that there is limited parking (there are only 351 parking spaces provided
and 95 of those spaces will be reserved for the golf course).
The Project EIR's Trip Generation Assessment included "the development of trip generation rates and
estimates for the Project based on detailed programmatic attendance information and operational
modeling data provided by industry experts ... and extensive review of comparable case studies"
This Trip Generation Assessment found that there will be a maximum of 316 persons in the pool deck
areas at one time and that the maximum number of surfers over the entire Surf Basin at one time will be
72 (due to safety, physical and operational parameters, and demand control of reservation systems).
Applying data from the Trip Generation Assessment, the following occupancy analysis, provides the
anticipated maximum people in each Safety Zone, i.e. during Special Events, based on use and traffic flow.
Safety Zone 2 includes a portion of the surf lagoon, automobile parking and park maintenance facilities.
The only area in Safety Zone 2 that would be steadily occupied by people is a portion of the surf lagoon
totaling 1.91 acres (37.8 percent of the total lagoon area), which yields an average potential of 27 people
in the Safety Zone 2 lagoon area, and a portion of people from the pool deck that may walk to different
observation points along the lagoon (17 percent of the total pool deck area), which yields an average 54
people in Safety Zone 2. There are also two proposed maintenance buildings totaling 2,000 SF. The
California Building Code assumes 300 SF per person for maintenance uses, yielding seven (7) employees
potentially in Safety Zone 2. The combination of the occupancy of these uses in Safety Zone 2 totals 88
people over 5.7 acres or approximately 15 people per acre. Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban
limit of 60 people per acre in Safety Zone 2 would allow 347 total people based on a total of 5.7 acres.
Safety Zone
CBC Floor
Site Area
Percent of
Floor Area
Area/
Safety Zone
(Acres)
total
(s.f.)
Occupant Occupancy People/Acre Parking Stalls
North Parking: 207
2
207
Heating Equipment
2
N/A
Equipment Yard
2
N/A
Wave Making Equipment
2
Maintenance Buildings/
Storage Areas
2
2,000
300 7
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
2
1.91
38.00
27
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
17.00
14,939
54
Zone 2 Total
5.79
88 15
Safety Zone 4 has 20 rooms for athlete accommodations and a portion of the surf lagoon. At a maximum
of four athletes per room, these accommodations would total 80 people. The portion of the surf lagoon
in Safety Zone 4 is 2.08 acres (41.2 percent of the total lagoon area), which means that there is an average
potential of 30 people in the Safety Zone 4 lagoon area. The portion of people in the pool deck area is 29
percent, which yields an average 92 people in Safety Zone 4, and the pool will accommodate
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 5 of 7
approximately 58 people. During Special Events, additional temporary accommodations will be provided
for 200 people. The combination of occupancy in Safety Zone 4 totals 462 people over 3.48 acres or
approximately 133 people per acre. Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban limit of 150
people/acre in Safety Zone 4 would allow 522 people/acre based on a total of 3.48 acres.
Safety Zone
Athlete Accommodations
10 Units (4 people/unit max)
10 Units (4 people/unit max)
Other
Wave Making Equipment
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
Pool
Special Event Temporary Accommodations
Rest.
4
4
Safety Zone CBC Floor
Site Area Percent of Floor Area Area/
(Acres) total (s.f.) Occupant Occupancy People/Acre Parking Stalls
4,716
4,716
40
40
4 N/A
4 2.08 41.00 30
4 29.00 24,692 92
4 2,920 50 58
200
4 738 N/A
4 443 300 1
ne 4 Total 3.48 462 133
Safety Zone 6 includes a wider array of uses including a portion of the surf lagoon, the clubhouse area,
beach areas and parking spread over 6.16 acres. The portion of the surf lagoon in Safety Zone 6 is 1.06
acres (21 percent of the total lagoon area), which means that there is an average potential of 15 people
in the Safety Zone 6 lagoon area. The portion of people in the pool deck area is 54 percent, which yields
an average 171 people in Safety Zone 6, and the pool areas will accommodate approximately 32 people.
Applying CBC guidelines to the clubhouse portion of the Project yields a maximum occupancy of 2,921
people. During Special Events, additional temporary accommodations will be provided for 1,340 people.
There are also proposed maintenance buildings and storage, yielding 60 employees in Safety Zone 6. The
combination of occupancy in Safety Zone 6 totals 4,538 people over 6.16 acres or approximately 737
people per acre Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban limit of 300 people/acre in Safety Zone 6
would allow 1,848 people/acre based on a total of 6.16 acres.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 6 of 7
Safety Zone
Safety Zone
Site Area
(Acres)
Percent of
total
Floor Area
(s.f.)
CBC Floor
Area/
Occupant
Occupancy People/Acre Parking Stalls
Clubhouse
Corridor
6
2,670
N/A
Staff (Office)
6
1,415
100/.5
7
Drying Room
6
274
300
1
Kitchen
6
1,708
200
9
Main Electrical
6
365
N/A
Members Lobby
6
765
5
153
Prep Room
6
183
50
4
Rest.
6
2,045
N/A
Restaurant
6
2,127
7
304
Restrooms/Changing Rooms
6
1,447
N/A
Snack Shack
6
329
7
47
Surf Academy
6
2,735
50
55
Surf Shop
6
2,754
30/.5
46
The Bar
6
2,824
7
403
Wash Room
6
274
N/A
Fitness
6
3,224
50
64
Members Lockers/Spa
6
2,469
50
49
Rest.
6
1,145
N/A
The Point Lounge
6
6,697
7
957
Yoga
6
1,790
50
36
Corporate (Office)
6
3,059
100/.5
15
Recording Studio
6
2,908
7
415
Rest.
6
218
N/A
Service
6
550
100
6
VIP
6
5,247
15
350
Other
South Parking: 144
6
144
Drop Off Area
6
N/A
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
6
1.06
21.00
15
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
6
54.00
44,484
171
Pool
6
1,586
50
32
Special Event Temporary Accommodations
1,340
Outdoor Arcade
6
N/A
Outdoor Changing Rooms
6
1,312
N/A
Storage
6
1,220
300
4
MEP
6
929
N/A
Storage
6
15,889
300
53
MEP
6
499
N/A
MEP
6
557
N/A
Storage
Storage
MEP
6
6
6
720
322
383
300
300
N/A
2
1
Zone 6Total
6.16
4,538 737
Based on the occupancy analysis, the occupancy associated with each use area is well below the Caltrans
Handbook recommendations for each safety zone area using either the higher urban limits or the lower
suburban limits.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 8, 2025 ALUC Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 7 of 7
3. ALUC Response to Finding "c" Height/Part 77/Navigable Airspace
As noted in the City's finding, the proposed structures will not penetrate FAA Part 77
surfaces, and the FAA has issued Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation. The ALUC
acknowledges this compliance but notes that AELUP Section 2.1.3 (Height Restrictions)
provides that a Determination of No Hazard does not automatically equate to ALUC
consistency. Accordingly, height compliance with FAA standards does not alter the ALUC's
overall inconsistency determination.
3. Response
The ALUC's response acknowledges compliance with the AELUP criteria for Project height, FAA Part 77
surfaces and protection of navigable airspace. The ALUC's response provides no further points or
evidence with regard to these criteria. Likewise, the City's Notice of Intent to Overrule does not rely on
any one point but all of the Findings of Fact and the evidence in the record as to the compatibility of the
Project with the purposes of the Public Utiltites Code Section 21670.
4. ALUC Response to Finding "d" Overflight Exposure
The City's finding states that aircraft overflight frequency will not increase and that disclosure
language will be provided to patrons. While flight operations at JWA will remain constant, the
proposed project would substantially increase the number of people located beneath existing
approach and departure paths. Flight track data from the John Wayne Airport Noise Office show
that numerous aircraft pass adjacent to the site at altitudes as low as 500 feet above mean sea
level. AELUP Sections 2.1.4 (Overflight) and 3.2.1 (General Policy) call for minimizing the number
of people exposed to aircraft overflight. The ALUC concluded that concentrating large numbers of
people directly under active flight paths is inconsistent with the intent and policies of the AELUP
for JWA.
4. Response
A comprehensive aircraft overflight flight track analysis has been prepared for the Project. The purpose
of this analysis is to clearly understand the segment of SNA air traffic that is overflying the Project site,
the aircraft types and their phase of flight (arrivals vs. departures). This study used the full 2023 calendar
year aircraft operations within five nautical miles of the SNA airport reference point (ARP) and up to and
including 4,500 above mean sea level (AMSL) to ensure a comprehensive data set. Over 90 percent of this
overflight activity tracks to the east of the Project site and would continue to do so with no additional
exposure of overflights than is currently the case on the site.
END OF ALUC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Sincerely,
Nick Johnson
Johnson Aviation, I
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Attachment 4
Applicant Response to John Wayne Airport Letter
JOHNSON AVIATION
CONSULTING
Nick Johnson
30141 Agoura Road, Suite 104
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
818.606.3560
nick@iacair.com
October 27, 2025
City of Newport Beach City Council
c/o Joselyn Perez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(Via email)
Subject: Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter — Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of
Intent to Overrule
Mayor and City Council Members:
The purpose of this letter is to address the comments raised in a letter from the John Wayne Airport
(JWA), sent on October 20, 2025 ("JWA's Letter") regarding the Snug Harbor Surf Park Project ("Project")
located at 3100 Irvine Avenue. The JWA's Letter was sent in response to the City of Newport Beach ("City")
Notice of Intent to Overrule (Resolution No. 2025-60, Adopted September 9, 2025) the ALUC
determination of inconstency with the 2008 John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan. A copy of the
JWA's Letter is included in the City's record for the Project Hearing scheduled for October 28, 2025.
The City has developed a comprehensive analysis of the airport land use compatibility of the Project that
was included in the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), presented to the ALUC staff and
Commission, and presented to the City's Planning Commission. This rebuttal to JWA's Letter is drawn
from these previous analyses and additional points, particularly related to Project occupancy by airport
safety zone during Special Events.
JWA provided responses to several of the Findings of Fact that are included in the record for the Project.
These ALUC responses are provided here with rebuttals to each.
1. Project Proximity to Airport and Special Events
JWA has significant concerns regarding the proposed project due to its proximity to the Airport
and its location directly beneath the Approach/Departure corridor. This raises serious issues
related to safety, noise, land use, and overall airspace compatibility issues. While the Surf Park's
daily operations present land use compatibility challenges, our primary concern lies with the City's
consideration of approving up to 12 special events per year — described as being "similar in scale
to other local sporting events." (Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2025-018 Facts in
Support of Finding #6).
These special events are further defined in Condition of Approval No. 130 ("Special Events"),
included in Exhibit G of the Planning Commission resolution. This is a binding, enforceable
condition that governs how special events may be held on the site. The condition categorizes
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 2 of 8
events based on attendance and duration: Level 1 Special Event is defined as no more than one
day and with less than one thousand persons in attendance; Level 2 is an event with a duration of
up to four consecutive days and an attendance of 1,000 to 5,000 persons over the course of the
event; and Level 3 is any event that exceeds the duration or attendance thresholds of a Level 2
event. The City's consideration of allowing 12 special events per year, without clear limitations on
attendance or duration, effectively permits an unlimited number of attendees and event length,
without adequate consideration for Airport Safety Zones, as outlined below. This matters because
Condition 130 is the operative mechanism the City will use to authorize and mitigate high
attendance, non -routine uses; absent explicit caps and aviation -safety coordination triggers, it
enables concentrated occupancy in Airport Safety Zones well beyond baseline operations,
increasing public -safety and access risks.
1. Response
Comprehensive airport compatibility analysis of the Project demonstrates that the safety, noise, overflight
and airspace criteria are met for the project. The Snug Harbor Project site encompasses approximately
15.4 acres. Portions of three airport safety zones overly the Project site. The total Project Area in Safety
Zone 2 is approximately 5.79 acres. The total Project Area in Safety Zone 4 is approximately 3.48 acres.
The total Project Area in Safety Zone 6 is approximately 6.16 acres.
The Project uses in Safety Zone 2 include 207 parking spaces (however, 95 parking spaces will be reserved
for the off -site, adjacent golf course use, leaving 112 parking spaces for Project uses in Safety Zone 2),
heating equipment, equipment yard, maintenance buildings, wave making equipment, and 37.8 percent
of the surf lagoon. The Project uses in Safety Zone 4 include 9,432 SF of athlete accommodations (20 total
units), wave making equipment, pool area, restrooms, storage, and 41.2 percent of the surf lagoon. The
Project uses in Safety Zone 6 include 49,221 SF of clubhouse space (staff area, restaurant, surf shop, fitness
areas and related uses), 144 parking spaces, a drop off area, pool area, outdoor arcade, outdoor changing
rooms, storage, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) equipment areas, and 21.0 percent of the surf
lagoon.
The Project includes Special Event Temporary Accommodations in Zone 4 and Zone 6 as per the Level 2
Newport Beach Special Event guidelines which allow attendance at between 1,000 to 5,000 persons.
Generally, the permit for this type of Special Event allows for a duration of up to 4 consecutive days and
requires limited City services (as determined by the Recreation and Senior Services Department). Based
on the site layout, Zone 6 will accommodate 1,340 people during special events, and Zone 4 will
accommodate 200 people during special events.
The Project EIR includes a detailed trip generation assessment based on the use of the Project to guide
the Project traffic study and parking requirements ("Traffic Study"). The City's Project Conditions of
Approval require compliance with these use parameters. The assessment includes the development of
trip generation rates, time -of -day distributions and estimates for the Project based on detailed
programmatic attendance information and operational modeling data provided by industry experts. The
occupancy for the proposed Project shall comply with the estimates from the approved Trip Generation
Assessment and Parking Demand Analysis reports, which estimates the following for daily activity: a)1,400
visitors and surfers (comprised of 700 people in the surf lagoon, 140 people in the surf academy, 280
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 3 of 8
people in the restaurant, 70 people in the shops, 210 people in the yoga/fitness areas), and b) 70
employees. The maximum number of surfers in the lagoon is 72 at one time. The average number of
people in the Project Area between the peak hour of noon and 1PM is 388 people. The average Vehicle
occupancy parameters assume visitor vehicles at 2.0 two people per vehicle, and employee vehicles at 1.0
people per vehicle.
The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook ("Handbook") suggests the following maximum
allowable occupancy for non-residential land uses in an urban setting, and the below table also provides
the calculations for the maximum allowed occupancy based on acreage per safety zone.
Snug Harbor Project
Zone 2NonresidentialIntensities
Zone 4 Nonresidential Intensities
Safety
Zone
Acres per
Zone
Average People/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
Average People/Acre
Maximum Single Acre
60
86
120
160
150
200
450
Boo
Zone 2
5.79
347.4
463.2
694.8
926.4
-
-
-
-
Zone 4
3.48
-
522.0
696.0
1568.0
2088.0
Zone
6.161
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
No Limit
The ALUC contends that suburban intensity parameters should be used and provides the following
occupancy calculations: 254 people per acre in Safety Zone 2; 770 people per acre in Safety Zone 4; and
972 people per acre in Safety Zone 6. The ALUC exclusively used the California Building Code methodology
to calculate occupancy. It did not consider that this methodology works best for sites that are comprised
of mostly buildings, i.e. this methodology should not be used to calculate occupancy in areas that are not
in buildings, like the Project's Surf Basin.
The Handbook describes several methods that can be used to determine occupancy estimates, "...the
number of parking spaces... maximum occupancy levels prescribed by building and fire codes; and surveys
of similar existing uses (actual counts at other similar facilities)." The Handbook also states that, "Certain
uses may require an estimate based upon a survey of similar uses. This approach... is appropriate for uses
which, because of the nature of the use, cannot be reasonably estimated based upon parking or square
footage."
The ALUC's occupancy calculations also do not consider the traffic flow in and out of the surf lagoon park
through the course of the day and that there is limited parking (there are only 351 parking spaces provided
and 95 of those spaces will be reserved for the golf course).
The Project EIR's Trip Generation Assessment included "the development of trip generation rates and
estimates for the Project based on detailed programmatic attendance information and operational
modeling data provided by industry experts ... and extensive review of comparable case studies"
This Trip Generation Assessment found that there will be a maximum of 316 persons in the pool deck
areas at one time and that the maximum number of surfers over the entire Surf Basin at one time will be
72 (due to safety, physical and operational parameters, and demand control of reservation systems).
Applying data from the Trip Generation Assessment, the following occupancy analysis, provides the
anticipated maximum people in each Safety Zone, i.e. during Special Events, based on use and traffic flow.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 4 of 8
Safety Zone 2 includes a portion of the surf lagoon, automobile parking and park maintenance facilities.
The only area in Safety Zone 2 that would be steadily occupied by people is a portion of the surf lagoon
totaling 1.91 acres (37.8 percent of the total lagoon area), which yields an average potential of 27 people
in the Safety Zone 2 lagoon area, and a portion of people from the pool deck that may walk to different
observation points along the lagoon (17 percent of the total pool deck area), which yields an average 54
people in Safety Zone 2. There are also two proposed maintenance buildings totaling 2,000 SF. The
California Building Code assumes 300 SF per person for maintenance uses, yielding seven (7) employees
potentially in Safety Zone 2. The combination of the occupancy of these uses in Safety Zone 2 totals 88
people over 5.7 acres or approximately 15 people per acre. Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban
limit of 60 people per acre in Safety Zone 2 would allow 347 total people based on a total of 5.7 acres.
Safety Zone
CBC Floor
Site Area
Percent of
Floor Area
Area/
Safety Zone
(Acres)
total
(s.f.)
Occupant Occupancy People/Acre Parking Stalls
North Parking: 207
2
207
Heating Equipment
2
N/A
Equipment Yard
2
N/A
Wave Making Equipment
2
Maintenance Buildings/
Storage Areas
2
2,000
300 7
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
2
1.91
38.00
27
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
17.00
14,939
54
Zone 2 Total
5.79
88 15
Safety Zone 4 has 20 rooms for athlete accommodations and a portion of the surf lagoon. At a maximum
of four athletes per room, these accommodations would total 80 people. The portion of the surf lagoon
in Safety Zone 4 is 2.08 acres (41.2 percent of the total lagoon area), which means that there is an average
potential of 30 people in the Safety Zone 4 lagoon area. The portion of people in the pool deck area is 29
percent, which yields an average 92 people in Safety Zone 4, and the pool will accommodate
approximately 58 people. During Special Events, additional temporary accommodations will be provided
for 200 people. The combination of occupancy in Safety Zone 4 totals 462 people over 3.48 acres or
approximately 133 people per acre. Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban limit of 150
people/acre in Safety Zone 4 would allow 522 people/acre based on a total of 3.48 acres.
Safety Zone
Athlete Accommodations
10 Units (4 people/unit max)
10 Units (4 people/unit max)
Other
Wave Making Equipment
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
Pool
Special Event Temporary Accommodations
Rest.
ne 4 Total
4
4
Safety Zone CBC Floor
Site Area Percent of Floor Area Area/
(Acres) total (s.f.) Occupant Occupancy People/Acre ParkingSta
4,716
4,716
40
40
4 N/A
4 2.08 41.00 30
4 29.00 24,692 92
4 2,920 50 58
200
4 738 N/A
4 443 300 1
3.48
462 133
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 5 of 8
Safety Zone 6 includes a wider array of uses including a portion of the surf lagoon, the clubhouse area,
beach areas and parking spread over 6.16 acres. The portion of the surf lagoon in Safety Zone 6 is 1.06
acres (21 percent of the total lagoon area), which means that there is an average potential of 15 people
in the Safety Zone 6 lagoon area. The portion of people in the pool deck area is 54 percent, which yields
an average 171 people in Safety Zone 6, and the pool areas will accommodate approximately 32 people.
Applying CBC guidelines to the clubhouse portion of the Project yields a maximum occupancy of 2,921
people. During Special Events, additional temporary accommodations will be provided for 1,340 people.
There are also proposed maintenance buildings and storage, yielding 60 employees in Safety Zone 6. The
combination of occupancy in Safety Zone 6 totals 4,538 people over 6.16 acres or approximately 737
people per acre Conservatively, using the Handbook suburban limit of 300 people/acre in Safety Zone 6
would allow 1,848 people/acre based on a total of 6.16 acres.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 6 of 8
Safety Zone
Safety Zone
Site Area
(Acres)
Percent of
total
Floor Area
(s.f.)
CBC Floor
Area/
Occupant
Occupancy People/Acre Parking Stalls
Clubhouse
Corridor
6
2,670
N/A
Staff (Office)
6
1,415
100/.5
7
Drying Room
6
274
300
1
Kitchen
6
1,708
200
9
Main Electrical
6
365
N/A
Members Lobby
6
765
5
153
Prep Room
6
183
50
4
Rest.
6
2,045
N/A
Restaurant
6
2,127
7
304
Restrooms/Changing Rooms
6
1,447
N/A
Snack Shack
6
329
7
47
Surf Academy
6
2,735
50
55
Surf Shop
6
2,754
30/.5
46
The Bar
6
2,824
7
403
Wash Room
6
274
N/A
Fitness
6
3,224
50
64
Members Lockers/Spa
6
2,469
50
49
Rest.
6
1,145
N/A
The Point Lounge
6
6,697
7
957
Yoga
6
1,790
50
36
Corporate (Office)
6
3,059
100/.5
15
Recording Studio
6
2,908
7
415
Rest.
6
218
N/A
Service
6
550
100
6
VIP
6
5,247
15
350
Other
South Parking: 144
6
144
Drop Off Area
6
N/A
Surf Basin (72 persons max)
6
1.06
21.00
15
Pool Deck (316 persons est)
6
54.00
44,484
171
Pool
6
1,586
50
32
Special Event Temporary Accommodations
1,340
Outdoor Arcade
6
N/A
Outdoor Changing Rooms
6
1,312
N/A
Storage
6
1,220
300
4
MEP
6
929
N/A
Storage
6
15,889
300
53
MEP
6
499
N/A
MEP
6
557
N/A
Storage
Storage
MEP
6
6
6
720
322
383
300
300
N/A
2
1
Zone 6Total
6.16
4,538 737
Based on the occupancy analysis, the occupancy associated with each use area is well below the Caltrans
Handbook recommendations for each safety zone area using either the higher urban limits or the lower
suburban limits.
2. Noise Exposure
The Project includes multiple outdoor recreational and spectator areas within the 6S CNEL
contour, with portions of the site extending into the 70 CNEL contour. The City's project analysis
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 7 of 8
relies on interior noise standards under the State Building Code and the use of disclosure signage.
However, these measures do not mitigate aircraft noise exposure in outdoor areas such as the
surf lagoon, seating areas, or open-air gathering spaces. JWA concurs with ALUC's position, as
stated in their letter dated October 8, 2025, which emphasizes the importance of avoiding
exposure altogether rather than relying on interior design mitigation or simple outdoor
notification signage.
2. Response
Aircraft noise at the Project site would be a regular occurrence and identical to the current golf course
and driving range recreational uses on the site. The AELUP noise contours represent outdated noise
contours and outdated planning for the Airport facilities. In 2014 the Airport Settlement Agreement was
updated to allow for additional facilities and increases in passengers and operations at the Airport and
extended the Agreement through 2030. In 2019 the General Aviation Improvement Program (GAIP) EIR
627 was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. The GAIP allows for renovation of the general
aviation facilities at the Airport and the EIR prepared updated noise contours as part of the change in
operations. These more recent planning processes provide more up to date and accurate noise contours
reflecting the level of noise that users of the Project site would experience.
While there are no aircraft noise restrictions for outdoor recreational and commercial land uses, daily and
hourly aircraft noise levels will be prevalent and noticeable at the Project site. These outdoor noise
impacts have been fully disclosed as part of the project.
3. Safety/Intensity of Use in Safety Zones
Additionally, the Airport is concerned about the proposed Project's high intensity use located
within Safety Zones 2, 4, and 6 for JWA, as defined in the California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook (Handbook) which establishes land use compatibility policies for ALUCs, airports, cities
and counties. The Handbook indicates that within Safety Zone 2 (the Inner Approach/Departure
Zone), agriculture and non -group recreational uses are normally compatible, while residential
uses, multi -story buildings and uses with high density or intensity should be avoided. Group
recreational uses are explicitly prohibited. The AELUP for JWA further requires that uses within
Safety Zone 2, characterized as a "high -risk" level for accidents, be limited to nonresidential uses
that attract only a few people. The City's proposed Snug Harbor Surf Park project, a group
recreational use that would triple the current intensity of use, is precisely the type of project
prohibited under the Handbook policies.
Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone) is considered a "moderate risk" area, where
restaurants and retail uses are typically deemed compatible; however, group recreational uses
should be prohibited. Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), which includes the western portion of
the site, is least restrictive in terms of airport land use compatibility. Nonetheless, if the City
proceeds with approving the Project, it could result in the placement of thousands of individuals
within the project site (as referenced in the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. This
number far exceeds the number of individuals at the current golf course site and far exceeds the
Handbook policies of uses that attract "few people," creating a new and concerning safety risk.
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM
Rebuttal to October 20, 2025 John Wayne Airport Letter
Snug Harbor Surf Park Notice of Intent to Overrule
October 27, 2025
Page 8 of 8
3. Response
See Response #1.
4. Aircraft Overflight and Aircraft Noise
Furthermore, the proposed Project falls beneath the approach surface forJWA, meaning potential
patrons would be exposed to significant aircraft overflight and associated noise disturbances as
aircraft depart or approach overhead. The attached flight track data provided by the JWA Noise
Office show that on recent dates, a concentration of commercial flights is located just east of the
project site.
4. Response
A comprehensive aircraft overflight flight track analysis has been prepared for the Project. The purpose
of this analysis is to clearly understand the segment of SNA air traffic that is overflying the Project site,
the aircraft types and their phase of flight (arrivals vs. departures). This study used the full 2023 calendar
year aircraft operations within five nautical miles of the SNA airport reference point (ARP) and up to and
including 4,500 above mean sea level (AMSL) to ensure a comprehensive data set. Over 90 percent of this
overflight activity tracks to the east of the Project site and would continue to do so with no additional
exposure of overflights than is currently the case on the site.
END OF JWA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Sincerely,
(�/�k -
Nick Johnson
Johnson Aviation. In .
30141 AGOURA ROAD, SUITE 104 1 AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 191301
JACAIR.COM