The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0_300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums_PA2025-0102CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 5, 2026 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) ▪Major Site Development Review ▪Conditional Use Permit ▪Vesting Tentative Tract Map SITE LOCATION: 210 and 300 Newport Center Drive and Unaddressed Parcels Identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 442-091-12 and 442-161-16 APPLICANT: Related California OWNERS: Edwards Affiliated Holdings, LLC, Joan E. Randolph Three, LP, and Ruoff Properties, LLC PLANNER: Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner 949-644-3234 or lwestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A request to demolish all improvements on a 4.17-acre site, including an existing movie theater (Regal Edwards Big Newport) and a health/fitness facility (Body Design), to allow for the construction of two, 22-story residential buildings (approximately 270 feet high) consisting of a total of 150 condominium units, on-site amenities, for-sale home offices, retail/café space, and 343 parking spaces. Each residential building is nearly identical and is connected through a podium that contains the home offices, retail/café, amenities, parking, and building support facilities. The project includes private residential amenities such as pools, exercise facilities, and entertainment spaces. Vehicular access to the Property is through a driveway on Newport Center Drive, which leads to a guardhouse and motorized gate restricting access to the motor court and valet drop off. The requested project requires the following approvals: •Major Site Development Review to allow a new residential development with five ormore units and a tentative tract map, and to waive 5 of the 52 Multi-Unit ObjectiveDesign Standards; •Conditional Use Permit to waive 58 required off-street parking spaces for theproposed home offices and retail/café component; and •Vesting Tentative Tract Map to consolidate four lots into one parcel and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units and nonresidential units forcondominium purposes. 1 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 1)Conduct a public hearing; 2)Find that this project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the project isconsistent with the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (SCHNo. 2023060699); and 3)Adopt Resolution No. PC2026-004 approving the Major Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407, collectively filedas PA2025-0102 (Attachment No. PC 1). (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 2 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 3 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Regional Commercial Office (CO-R) Office – Regional (OR) Movie Theater and Health/Fitness Facility NORTH Regional Commercial (CR) North Newport Center (PC-56) Fashion Island and surface parking SOUTH CO-R OR Various retail uses EAST CO-R and Medical Commercial Office (CO-M) Block 400 Newport Center (PC-28) Various medical uses WEST CO-R and Multiple Residential (RM) PC-56 and Residences at Newport Center (PC-61) Car wash and professional business offices 3 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 4 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Background Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District and Amendment On September 13, 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period (Housing Element). The Housing Element was later certified as statutorily compliant with state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 5, 2022. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts (Housing Overlay) in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC and to create multi-unit objective design standards (“ODS”) in Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, respectively. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the Housing Element. The adoption of these ordinances provided new housing opportunities within five subareas to ensure the City can meet its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation: Airport Area Environs Area (HO-1), West Newport Mesa Area (HO-2), Dover-Westcliff Area (HO-3), Newport Center Area (HO-4), and Coyote Canyon Area (HO-5). These subareas correspond directly to the Focus Areas identified in Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) of the Housing Element. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 4.4 (Rezoning to Accommodate Housing Opportunities) clarifies that housing sites were intended to be located within areas that are generally consistent with the Housing Element’s Focus Areas. However, not all sites must be included, and other sites or adjustments may be identified in the future through rezoning. Although the Property was not identified as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element, it was included in the rezoning for the Housing Overlay and is subject to the standards therein. Specifically, properties within the Housing Overlay have specified development standards conducive to residential development at the prescribed average density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The standards include but are not limited to minimum lot area, setbacks, height, open space, landscaping, and parking. The ODS are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre to ensure high quality design and to provide a baseline standard for new multi-unit developments throughout the City. As shown in Figure 1 below, the Property was included within the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Overlay. 5 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 5 Figure 1, HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District On November 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-85, initiating an amendment to Section 20.28.050 and the pending complementary section in Title 21 of the NBMC, to review and make possible adjustments to certain development standards, including but not limited to building height limits as specified in Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 and pending Table 21.28-1 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) in Title 21 of the NBMC. Project Site 6 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 6 As originally adopted, the NBMC identified heights within the HO-4 Subarea as being limited to those in the underlying base zoning district. Given the variety of zoning districts, maximum height limits range from as high as 300 feet and as low as 32 feet. Due to the lower base height limits, an adjustment to allowable building heights was deemed appropriate and necessary to accommodate residential developments within the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, which adjusted the height limitations for housing projects on several properties within the HO-4 Subarea, including an increased height limit of 270 feet for the subject properties. Project Setting The subject properties are four parcels that together comprise a 4.17-acre site located at 210 and 300 Newport Center Drive and Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 442-091-12 and 442-161-16 as shown in Figure 2 below (“Property”). The Property is on the southeast side of Newport Center Drive (East) and extends from Anacapa Drive to San Miguel Drive. It is currently improved with the Regal Edwards Big Newport, an approximately 73,892-square-foot, six-screen movie theater with 1,134 seats, an approximately 6,400-square-foot health/fitness business, and a 121-space surface parking lot. Figure 2, Aerial photograph of project site Existing Theater Existing Health/Fitness Building 7 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 7 Project Description The applicant proposes demolishing all existing improvements on the Property and constructing 150 residential condominium units and 343 parking spaces within two 22-story towers. The project also includes the construction of a retail/café space at the corner of San Miguel Drive and Newport Center Drive and nonresidential home office spaces that will be sold individually to owners of the residential condominium units. A breakdown of the gross floor area and individual unit sizes are provided in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1, Building Summary Use Floor Area (SF) Residential 498,469 Resident Serving Amenities 31,621 Home Offices 18,060 Retail/Café 1,950 Parking Garage 158,750 Total 708,850 Table 2, Unit Summary 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Penthouse Unit Size (SF) 2,127-2,408 2,459-2,579 3,104 6,419 Number of Units 70 72 6 2 Each residential tower is nearly identical and is connected through a podium that contains the home offices, retail/café, amenities, parking, and support facilities. The home offices are all within the main podium of the building along the street frontages and accessible via the public courtyards and interior of the podium. Table 3 describes the uses on each floor. Table 3, Floor Description Floor Description of Uses Shared Building Podium B1 This floor is primarily below grade and contains 136 parking spaces, a loading dock, emergency generator room, two home offices, and building support systems. The parking is directly accessed from the entry drive, with no direct internal vehicle connection to the other parking levels. This level does not extend below the north tower (Tower B) and daylights at the home offices below the south tower (Tower A), which fronts on Newport Center Drive. 1 The first floor provides the main entry, lobby, valet, and access to parking. This level has 142 parking spaces, home offices, retail/cafe space, loading dock, trash room, building support systems, mail room, and an amenity 8 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 8 Floor Description of Uses garden space. The parking garage is accessed through two entry points, one prior to the motor court and one after the motor court and provides internal access to the parking spaces on the basement level, first floor, and second floor. 2 The northern half of the second floor contains 65 parking spaces and home offices. The southern half includes a pool deck, gym, screening room, playroom, dog spa, and landscaped amenity deck. The parking on this level can only be accessed through the parking area on the first floor. Residential Towers 3 Each tower includes office spaces, a shared entertainment kitchen, dining area, lounge, club room, and outdoor lounge/amenity deck. A second pool deck is located on the south side of Tower B. 4-7 Each of these floors contains 10, two-bedroom units (five per tower). Each unit will have a private balcony. 8-18 Each of these floors contains two, two-bedroom units (one per tower) and six, three-bedroom units (three per tower). Each unit includes a private balcony. 19-21 Each of these floors contains four, three-bedroom units (two per tower) and two, four-bedroom units (one per tower). The three-bedroom units would have two private balconies, and the four-bedroom units would have a single private balcony. 22 Each tower has one penthouse unit that occupies the entire floor. Each unit would have three private balconies. Design and Architecture As depicted in Figure 3 on the following page, the project will have a contemporary architectural style with neoclassical and mediterranean elements. The façades are organized by vertical pilasters and horizontal string courses, which mimics elements found in neoclassic architecture and the surrounding built environment. The building podium incorporates arched windows and lush, integrated landscaping, grounding the towers in a mediterranean-inspired environment. 9 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 9 Figure 3, Project rendering from Newport Center Drive Access and Parking Vehicular access to the Property is through a driveway on Newport Center Drive, which leads to a guardhouse and motorized gate restricting access to the motor court and valet drop off. The guardhouse will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to screen visitors to the site. A vehicle turnaround is provided between the guardhouse and gate to facilitate an efficient flow of traffic by those denied access to the site. A bypass lane is provided to allow residents to skip the guardhouse and activate the gate with a transponder. Entry to the basement level parking garage is provided via the main entry gate. This parking area will be secured by a rollup gate at the garage entry. The first and second floor parking garage can be accessed through the motor court, which will also be secured by a rollup gate at the garage entry. Residents will have the option to self-park or utilize the valet parking, which will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Visitors will be required to use the valet parking. The applicant has prepared a parking management plan (Exhibit “D” of Attachment No. PC 1) that demonstrates how parking will be managed. Pedestrian access would be provided along a pathway leading to the lobby from the public street. A security gate would close the entry to the Property for both vehicles and 10 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 10 pedestrians, with landscaping screening to reduce the appearance of the Property being walled off from the public right-of-way. Three loading docks are proposed. One loading dock for delivery and moving trucks is provided on the southwest side of the basement level and accessible via the adjacent property on the southwest side of the Property. The other two loading docks are located on the southeast side of the first floor, which can be accessed from San Miguel Drive, across the property to the east. The southeastern loading dock provides trash storage and staging. The southern (central) loading dock provides access for delivery and moving trucks. Existing easements facilitate access to the three loading docks. Smaller deliveries and standard mail would be delivered to the main lobby. Figure 4 below depicts the various access points and intended access types. Figure 4, Site Access Publicly accessible open space (PAOS) is provided in four courtyards accessible via 8- foot-wide walkways along the public right-of-way. The PAOS courtyards would be open to the public and lead to exterior entrances for the home offices and retail/café as depicted in Figure 5 on the following page. The retail/cafe space would be accessed from the public right-of-way at the intersection of San Miguel Drive and Newport Center Drive and is intended to serve the public in addition to onsite residents; however, an allowance is 11 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 11 included to allow the conversion of the space into a private residential amenity in the future. Figure 5, Depiction of PAOS courtyards with 8-foot walkways Residential Amenities The project includes multiple resident-serving amenities, including an approximately 1,575-square-foot pool on the second floor and an approximately 3,300-square-foot pool on the third floor. Additional amenities include an event lawn/garden space, bocce court, gym, yoga studio, screening room, dog spa, kitchen/dining facilities, and club room. For-Sale Home Offices The project includes 12 separate home offices within the first and second floors of the building podium. The home offices are a unique commercial use in that they will be sold individually and exclusively to owners of the residential condominiums onsite. The home offices range from approximately 350 to 1,500 square feet. The home offices are different from a typical business center commonly included in multi-unit buildings because each office will be owned and operated privately by a single resident. The home offices would not be available for use by other owners in the building. The home offices are essentially an elevated version of a home occupation and are anticipated to have limited traffic and employees. The draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) includes several restrictions on the use of the home offices to ensure adequate parking remains available on the site. For example, owners of the home offices would be prohibited from subleasing their office to another user and would be restricted to business office use (e.g. no medical office, retail, etc.) consistent with the assumptions of the Parking Study (discussed under Conditional Use 12 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 12 Permit). To help ensure the home offices remain compatible, a condition of approval is included in the draft resolution to prohibit employees without the provision of additional onsite parking. Subdivision and Establishment of Grade The project proposes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407 to combine the four lots into a single lot and to allow the separate conveyance of the residential dwelling units, office spaces, and retail/café space (condominium subdivision). If approved, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would secure the development rights and zoning standards that are in effect as of the approval date to the applicant, provided the tentative tract map does not expire. Lastly, the project proposes the establishment of grade for height measurement purposes for the overall building. The grade establishment is pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (B)(1) (Grade Establishment – Subdivisions) of the NBMC. The project proposes an average grade plane elevation of 192 feet based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Required City Approvals The following approvals are required to implement the proposed project: 1. Major Site Development Review (SDR): Required for any project proposing five or more residential units with a tract map. The site development review allows the City to review the proposed development and allows for deviations of 5 multi-unit objective design standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Required to waive 58 parking spaces for the proposed retail/cafe and home office space required by the NBMC; and 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM): Requested to consolidate four lots into one 4.17-acre lot, pursuant to Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review) of the NBMC and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the 150 residential units, home office, and retail/cafe space for condominium purposes. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan Consistency The Property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Regional Commercial Office (CO-R), which is intended to provide for administrative and professional offices that serve local 13 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 13 and regional markets, with limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses. Notwithstanding this and as detailed above in the “Background,” the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-16, which implemented the Housing Element, in part, and established the HO Overlay Zone. Ordinance No. 2024-16 also updated the City’s Zoning Map to apply the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the HO overlay to the Property. The HO-4 Subarea would allow residential development in addition to the uses allowed in the underlying CO-R land use category. A consistency analysis was completed and is detailed in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), as well as the attached General Plan Consistency Table (Attachment No. PC 2). Zoning Code Consistency The Property is zoned Office Regional (OR) and is within the HO Overlay Zone. Specifically, the Property is within the HO-4 Subarea. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050(B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts – Uses Allowed) of the NBMC, the project is permitted in the HO Overlay, regardless of the underlying zoning designation, subject to the approval of a site development review. Table 4 demonstrates the project’s compliance with the development standards of the HO-4 Subarea. Table 4, Development Standards Development Standard Standard Proposed Density 20-50 du/acre 35.97 du/acre Setbacks Front (San Miguel Dr) 0 ft1 30 ft Rear 0 ft 15 ft Side 0 ft 15 ft Street Side (Newport Center Drive) 0 ft1 30 ft Height 270 ft 270 ft Building Separation 10 ft N/A Floor Area Limit (Residential) No restriction 550,100 square feet (sq ft) Common Open Space (75 sq ft/unit) 11,250 sq ft 11,250 sq ft Private Open Space (5% gross floor area/unit) 24,923 sq ft 54,450 sq ft 1. Any portion of the structure that is twenty (20) feet in height shall be set back a minimum twenty (20) feet from the street right-of-way. While the project meets or exceeds all required development standards identified in Table 4, the project will not meet the required parking pursuant to Sections 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Spaces Required) of the NBMC. As identified in Table 5, this project requires 389 off-street parking spaces, whereas the project would provide 343 spaces. The project provides more than the minimum parking required for residential use but provides no formal 14 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 14 parking for nonresidential uses. Therefore, the project also requires a Conditional Use Permit to waive nonresidential parking pursuant to Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC. The associated analysis is provided under the Conditional Use Permit section below. Table 5, Parking Requirements Requirement Factor Parking Required Residential Parking (NBMC 20.28.050) 2 Bedroom 1.8 space/unit 70 units 126 3+ Bedroom 2.0 space/unit 80 units 160 Visitor 0.3 space/unit 150 units 45 Subtotal Residential Parking Required 331 Subtotal Residential Parking Provided 343 Commercial Parking (NBMC 20.40.040) Office 1 space/250 sq ft 9,450 net sq ft 38 Retail 1 space/250 sq ft 1,950 sq ft 20 Subtotal Commercial Parking Required 58 Subtotal Commercial Parking Provided 0 Total Parking Required 389 Total Parking Provided 343 The project is also subject to the Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards provided in Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. As indicated in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Exhibit “C” of Attachment No. PC 1), the project conforms to 47 of the 52 applicable standards. Subsection 20.48.185(C) (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards – Applicability) allows for deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of an SDR, by the Planning Commission, with additional findings. The applicant requests minor deviations from five standards, as described in the Major Site Development Review - Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation section below. Major Site Development Review Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews – Findings and Decision) of the NBMC requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving SDR: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district; B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; 15 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 15 ii.The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii.The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv.The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v.The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi.The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection); and C.Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Staff believes facts to support the findings exist to approve the SDR. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following subsections. Development Compliance and Suitability Residential Consistency The project is consistent with multiple programs, goals, and policies of the General Plan that establish the fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development. Although the Property was not included as a Housing Opportunity Site in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Property was included in the HO-4 Overlay that permits residential and mixed-use construction. As described in Table 4 of this report, the project is consistent with the HO-4 zoning district. The project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the Housing Element contains adequate alternate sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities and therefore this approval is consistent with the State’s no net loss provisions. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan Policies is included as Attachment PC2. For example, the project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). The underutilized Property is improved with a movie theater, health and fitness business, and large surface parking lot. The project would replace these uses with 150 dwelling units that assist the City in meeting its share of RHNA and accommodating additional growth in the community. These new homes are in a job-rich area, supporting reduced commute times. 16 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 16 Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. Therefore, the Property is suitable to accommodate the change to a mixed-use development. Nonresidential Consistency The project includes the construction of two nonresidential components, the home office suites and the café/retail space. The construction of these nonresidential components would be permitted through the conversion of the existing commercial and theater uses onsite. Specifically, pursuant to General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 4.7 (Redevelopment and Transfer of Development Rights), the intensity of existing allowed uses may be reconstructed on the site as part of a mixed-use development provided the gross floor area allowed by the General Plan is not increased. The intensity of existing uses may be converted to other uses allowed by the underlying General Plan land use category provided that average daily trips and peak hour traffic trips are not increased above the trips from the existing allowed use. For example, existing office may be converted to retail. Nonresidential intensity not included as a component of a future residential project will remain within the General Plan allocations on a statistical area-wide basis. The proposed project would use a portion of the existing development intensity to construct the nonresidential components onsite. The proposed home office use and café use would be consistent with the allowed uses in the General Plan and Zoning District. The nonresidential components are also consistent with the allowed intensity for the Property. The General Plan includes the Properties at 210 Newport Center Drive and the parcel referred to as APN 442-161-16 within Anomaly 36 and the properties at 300 Newport Center Drive and the unaddressed parcel referred to as APN 442-091-12 within Anomaly 37 (referred to as “200 Block” and “300 Block” respectively). The existing development intensity of the existing movie theater (Regal Edwards Big Newport) and a health/fitness facility (Body Design) is far greater than the proposed development intensity of the nonresidential component of the project. Therefore, a portion of the existing nonresidential development can be converted to the proposed nonresidential uses consistent with Policy LU 4.7. In terms of traffic and vehicle congestion, a Trip Generation Assessment was prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated November 6, 2025, that analyzed the existing and proposed average daily trips (ADT) and peak hour trips for the Project. The Trip Generation Assessment concluded that even under the most conservative assumptions, the Project would result in fewer ADTs than the existing movie theater and health/fitness facility uses. Although the project would result in more trips in the morning 17 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 17 peak hour than the existing use, the overall net project trip generation would be significantly lower than the existing use and the Project is consistent with Policy LU 4.7. Furthermore, other allowed land uses with the Zoning District and General Plan Designation could result in greater morning peak hour trips than the existing use such as full-service restaurant. Lastly, because the project results in fewer than 300 ADTs (i.e., negative 396 ADTs), no traffic study is required, and the project is consistent with Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC. Design, Scale, and Views The Newport Center area contains a variety of low-, mid-, and high-rise buildings. The Project consists of two high-rise buildings that have a height of 270 feet. The high-quality architectural design blends a contemporary design with soft features, including rounded corners, undulating balcony edges, and landscaping, to create a resort like feel. The street facing property lines are significantly landscaped and include pedestrian connections from the Property to the public right-of-way creating a compatible interface between the Property and other areas. As depicted in Figure 6, the project design includes one- and two-story podium levels adjacent to the public streets that support the two high rise towers. The home offices and café space on the first and second floors of the podium interface with the pedestrian scale and provide a more gradual transition to the high-rise towers. These commercial uses would also support a more active public realm. The high-rise towers are set back to the interior of the Property allowing for a more gradual transition from the street level. Additionally, the widest sections of the building are located near the base of the towers, with the narrowest width at the top of the towers. The addition of increased step-backs for the higher floors results in a development that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the surrounding area. Figure 6, Pedestrian Scale View of the Podium on Corner of San Miguel Drive and Newport Center Drive 18 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 18 As shown in Figure 7, there are several existing high-rise buildings that wrap around Newport Center Drive, including buildings at 520 Newport Center Drive (315 feet), 650 Newport Center Drive (299 feet), and 610 Newport Center Drive (273 feet). Although not constructed yet, the Ritz Residences Project was also approved at 1000 Newport Center Drive (295 feet). Additionally, several properties in Newport Center are located within the High-Rise Height Limit Area of the NBMC, which allows structures up to 300 feet. Therefore, project height is approximately 270 feet and consistent with the pattern of development within Newport Center and would be compatible in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on and off the site. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4 (Development Scale) describes the original design concept for Newport Center by encouraging the concentration of the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section of Newport Center along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down mass and height to follow the lower elevations towards the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 7, the project would be lower in height than the existing high-rise structures along the northeasterly section of Newport Center. Additionally, the Property is at a lower elevation than the properties along San Joaquin Hills Road and the proposed 270-foot high structures would appear lower in elevation than the existing development,consistent with the original design concept. Figure 7, Existing High-Rise Development in Newport Center 520 NCD (315 ft) 650 NCD (299 ft) 610 NCD (273 ft) Subject Property (270 ft proposed) 1000 NCD (295 ft approved) 19 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 19 Public Views Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC includes provisions for the protection of public views of specific scenic resources as outlined on General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views). The Property is near MacArthur Boulevard, Avocado Avenue, and Newport Center Drive, which are classified as coastal view roads as shown in Figure 8, below. However, the Property is not located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue and does not have the potential to obstruct the view of the coastline that is visible from the public right-of-way. Specifically, as you travel along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, the views are focused down the roadway west/southwest to the water and not across Fashion Island and the Newport Center area. Along Avocado Avenue there are several existing buildings that block views of the water. Along MacArthur Boulevard, there are existing buildings and substantial vegetation that also block views of the water. Lastly, the portion of Newport Center Drive that is designated as a coastal view road provides views towards the coastline, and the Project is not located between the road and the coastline. Therefore, the project would not impact public views of scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Figure 8, Excerpt of General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views) Subject Property 20 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 20 Furthermore, the project is not located on a parcel subject to the Sight Plane Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596), which limits the height of buildings within the area shown in orange in Figure 9. Figure 9, Properties Subject to Sight Plane View Ordinance Safety and Hazard Analysis The project includes the construction of buildings over 200 feet. Section 20.30.060(E) (Height Limits and Exception – Airport Environs Land Use Plan [AELUP] for John Wayne Airport and Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements) of the NBMC includes requirements for projects that are over 200 feet in height Citywide. For example, the NBMC prohibits projects from penetrating the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Obstruction – Imaginary surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The NBMC also requires Applicants to file forms with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission. The Project is approximately 270 feet high and requires approval from the FAA and notification to ALUC. The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the Project dated February 10, 2026 and ALUC was notified on February 20, 2026. Accordingly, a condition Properties Subject to Sight Plane View Ordinance Subject Property 21 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 21 of approval is included requiring the applicant to comply with all conditions of the FAA determination. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Building Division, Fire Department, and Public Works Department for access and safety purposes. The project plans include a draft Fire Master Plan that demonstrates adequate access for emergency personnel including, but not limited to the following: dedicated fire access lanes for emergency vehicles and equipment at the front and rear of the podium, fire truck staging areas around the building, stairs for access by fire personnel, and various water infrastructure improvements such as fire hydrants and standpipes. A final Fire Master Plan will be required to be approved prior to permit issuance. Major Site Development Review – Multi-Unit Objective Design Standard Deviation Pursuant to Section 20.48.185(A) (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards – Purpose) of the NBMC, the project is seeking deviation from 5 of the 52 applicable Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards, as shown in the Objective Design Standards Checklist (Exhibit “C” of Attachment PC 1). The project includes the following deviations: (1) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(c) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – First Floor Windows); (2) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(d) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – Upper Floor Windows); (3) 20.48.185(R)(2)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Width); (4) 20.48.185(S)(2)(ii) (First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards – Minimum Opening Standard); and (5) 20.48.185(T)(2)(a)(iv) (Lobby Entrances – Prohibited Entry from Driveway); The Planning Commission may approve an SDR to allow deviation of multi-unit objective design standards only after making all the following findings: A. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. B. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards Staff believes facts to support the findings exist to approve the deviation of the five objective design standards. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings needed for the deviations are summarized as follows: 1. The purpose of the ODS is to ensure high quality design and provide a baseline standard for all new-multi-unit development in the City. The intent of the standards is to promote quality design that builds on context, contributes to the public realm, 22 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 22 and provides high quality and resilient buildings and public spaces. The design standards were developed to address the most typical forms of multi-unit and mixed-use development such as townhome developments and larger apartment buildings with potential commercial uses on the ground floor. As demonstrated by the illustrative diagrams included in Section 20.48.185 of the NBMC, the design standards were not specifically developed to address high rise development. Nonetheless, the Project complies with 47 out of 52 standards demonstrating that the Project provides the high- quality design that was anticipated. 2. Although there are minor deviations to several standards, the Project promotes a quality public realm through the provision of meaningful PAOS in the form of courtyards with pathways abutting the home offices and café/retail space at the corner of the site. These areas will be landscaped and provide a public amenity for pedestrians and visitors along the public sidewalks in the vicinity. 3. There are several ODS that relate to openings and transparency of first and second floors. The project includes deviations to the following standards related to transparency and openings: a. Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(c) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – First Floor Windows) of the NBMC requires that windows and/or glass doors cover at least 50% of the first-floor elevation along street frontages. b. Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(d) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – Upper Floor Windows) of the NBMC requires at least 25% of the surface area of each upper floor façade be occupied by windows. c. 20.48.185(S)(2)(a)(ii) (First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards – Minimum Opening Standard) of the NBMC requires that 50% of first floor multi-unit building frontages (with commercial uses that front a street/courtyard/paseo) be comprised of transparent glazed door and window openings. Although the project requires deviations to these standards, the design includes a significant amount of glass and windows along the upper floors, and the ground floor of the nonresidential spaces as well as courtyards that soften the appearance of the building. Additionally, the grade differential along San Miguel is notable under both existing and proposed conditions, creating fewer opportunities for windows since a portion of the building/podium is set below the street level. Extensive plantings along the street frontages also soften corners of buildings where there are fewer windows. 4. Section 20.48.185(R)(2)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Width of Recesses) of the NBMC requires that all recesses or projections are a minimum of 20 feet in width. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections 23 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 23 including lower floors and upper floors. The Project includes balconies on every side of the residential towers, including on the edges where the balconies soften the appearance of the structure. Some of the proposed balconies are slightly less than the minimum 20-foot width, with the smallest being approximately 14 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient width of recesses and projections so that the building faces are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project’s recesses are less than 20 feet in width, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks and extensive balconies to create architectural interest and soften the perceived bulk of the buildings. The Project provides additional width for other recesses and projections features which ensures that the building height is less visually obtrusive. Lastly, the Project divides the development into two towers, reducing the bulk and increasing the visual interest of the overall project. 5. Section 20.48.185(T)(2)(a)(iv) (Lobby Entrances – Prohibited Entry from Driveway) of the NBMC prohibits primary lobby entrances from driveways, at-grade parking lots, parking structures, or alleys unless required due to topographic conditions. The Project includes a main lobby entrance for residents and visitors that fronts the motor court inside the private gate and away from the street. The main lobby provides access to the residential towers, private amenity spaces, and garages. A gated entry is typical for this Project type. The pedestrian and vehicular gates are located far up the driveway and concealed from view of the public realm. The distance to the lobby from the public realm is further de-emphasized by the substantial landscaping that surrounds the building. Although the project requests minor deviation of five objective design standards, the project still complies with the intent; therefore, the deviations are appropriate. Figure 10 below provides a color elevation of the façade of the building as viewed from the corner of San Miguel Drive and Newport Center Drive. Figure 10, Colorized elevations of the buildings 24 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 24 Conditional Use Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits – Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The facts in support of findings for the conditional use permit are similar to the facts in support of findings for the Major Site Development review (refer to the previous section). Detailed findings are also provided in the draft resolution. The NBMC allows the Planning Commission to reduce a parking requirement, through review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit, provided the applicant: 1. Provides sufficient data to indicate the actual parking demand would be less than the number of parking spaces required by the code, and 2. A parking management plan is prepared to mitigate potential impacts. The applicant has included a parking analysis and parking management plan (Exhibit “D” of Attachment No. PC 1), which demonstrates that the 343 parking spaces provided to serve the project would be sufficient given the proposed use of the non-residential spaces and management of the proposed parking supply. Residents would be required to register all their vehicles and would either be assigned a parking space or would utilize the 24- hour-a-day valet service. Visitors would be required to use the valet service. The study notes the office space would only be occupied by owners of the residential units, thus would not generate their own parking demand. Potential visitors to the office suites could use the visitor spaces intended for the residents’ guests. Conditions of approval also require the Homeowners Association (HOA) to actively manage parking and limit potential staff of the home offices to ensure the 12 surplus residential parking spaces allocated to staff of the building are sufficient. 25 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 25 The retail/café is in proximity to other uses and would only be accessible via the public sidewalk. As conditioned, Café staff would be granted access to the staff parking spaces in the structure. Customer trip generation for the retail/café would be from foot or bicycle traffic, local employees in the vicinity, and residents of the development. The retail/café space includes a bike rack. The parking management plan describes how the entrance to the Property and parking will be managed. In the future, the retail/café may be used as a private amenity to the residents; therefore, the parking waiver assumes the most conservative scenario as a retail/café space that is open to the public. The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the parking analysis and parking management plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a Vesting Tentative Tract Map: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code; B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision; 26 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 26 F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land; G. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5, (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area; H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act; I. That the subdivision is consistent with California Government Code Sections 66412.3 and 65584 regarding the City’s share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Staff believes facts to support the findings exist to approve the VTTM. These facts are discussed in detail in the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The key facts in support of findings are summarized in the following paragraphs. The project proposes to merge the four underlying legal lots to create one lot to develop the project. The VTTM is essential to develop the Property with a condominium project as it is required to allow for the individual sale of residential and nonresidential units. Because the project includes for-sale residential units, the project applicant is required to pay in-lieu park dedication fees pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees) of the NBMC, for park and recreational purposes. The existing parcel does not include residential development. As such, an in-lieu park fee will be required for each of the 150 new dwelling units ($59,575 per dwelling unit). 27 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 27 The Property is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the Property has been designed to accommodate the proposed project. A water demand study was prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated April 2025 and a sewer demand study was prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated October 2025. The studies concluded that no infrastructure upgrades are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is not required for Project. The Property does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Furthermore, the project is not expected to result in any public health or safety concern to residents in this area or throughout the City. All improvements associated with the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC. Correspondence Several public comments were submitted regarding the project and are included Attachment No. PC 3. The comments primarily relate to concerns regarding traffic and congestion, affordable housing needs, and loss of the existing theater. The staff report addresses traffic and congestion under the Nonresidential Consistency section and affordable housing needs under the Residential Consistency (i.e., “no net loss”). Lastly, the existing theater is not considered a historic resource that requires protection pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and a detailed analysis is provided in Exhibit B of Attachment PC 1. Environmental Review Pursuant to CEQA, as set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and its implementing guidelines, set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, thereby certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 (“PEIR”), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC, which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. The project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to PRC Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, which limit environmental analysis to impacts peculiar to a specific project that have not been previously mitigated by regulatory requirements when that project is consistent with the general plan and zoning for which a prior EIR had been certified. Specifically, Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: 28 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 28 a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: i. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; ii. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; iii. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which: i. Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and ii. The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken. 29 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 29 e. An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additionally, further CEQA review is only triggered if the Project’s new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed 15183 CEQA consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated February, 2026, and peer reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. The consistency analysis is provided as Exhibit “B” to the draft resolution. Both the consistency analysis and peer review conclude that the project would not create any new significant impacts or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR and therefore no further environmental review is required. SUMMARY Staff believes the required findings for project approval are substantiated, as demonstrated by Attachment No. PC 1 to this report. The project is consistent with the intent of the HO-4 Subarea and is consistent with the policies of the General Plan Housing, Land Use, and Circulation Elements. If approved, the project will provide a net increase of 150 for-sale attached single-unit dwellings, which further diversifies the City’s housing stock and helps increase the supply of housing in Newport Beach. ALTERNATIVES Should the Planning Commission’s review and evaluation of this project not coincide with City staff’s recommendation, then the following alternative options are available to the Planning Commission: 1. For projects that are fully consistent with objective general plan, zoning (including objective design standards), and subdivision standards, Housing Accountability 30 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 30 Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), restricts the City’s ability to deny, reduce density of, or make infeasible housing developments, unless specific findings can be made. In this case, the Project does not meet all objective standards because it includes waivers to the ODS and nonresidential parking requirements. Therefore, should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to support one or more of the findings for approval for the requested ODS waivers or parking waiver, the Planning Commission may propose modifications to the Project or deny the application and provide facts in support of denial of the site development review or conditional use permit. 2. The Planning Commission may propose modifications or conditions to alleviate concerns; however, the proposed modifications should not result in the reduction of dwelling units. If the proposed modifications are substantial, the item could be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 3. In the case of denial or imposing a condition that the project be developed at a lower density or with any other conditions that would adversely impact feasibility of the proposed project, the Planning Commission must articulate the factual basis (burden of proof on the City) to justify denial or reduction in density for making the following findings and direct staff to return with a revised resolution incorporating the articulated findings and factual basis for the decision: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening public rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject Property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. 31 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission, March 5, 2026 Page 31 Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: ____________________________ Liz Westmoreland, AICP Principal Planner BMZ/law Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 General Plan Consistency Analysis PC 3 Public Comments PC 4 Project Plans 32 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 33 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 34 RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING MOVIE THEATER AND HEALTH/FITNESS FACILITY AND CONSTRUCT 150 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS, A CAFÉ, AND HOME OFFICES LOCATED AT 210 AND 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE AND APNS 442-091-12 AND 442-161-16 (PA2025-0102) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Rich Morrison of Related California (“Applicant”), on behalf of Edwards Affiliated Holdings, LLC, Joan E. Randolph Three, LP, and Ruoff Properties, LLC (“Owners”), with respect to property located at 210 and 300 Newport Center Drive and Accessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 442-091-12 and 442-161-16 and legally described in Exhibit “A” of the Resolution (“Property”). 2. The Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,134-seat, six-screen movie theater (“Regal Edwards Big Newport”), 6,400-square-foot health/ fitness facility (“Body Design”), and adjoining surface parking lot to develop two 22-story residential buildings consisting of 150 condominium units, for-sale home offices, a 1,950-square-foot retail/café space, and 343 parking spaces. The development will include two-, three-, and four-bedroom units and two-penthouse units. The condominium units range from approximately 2,127 square feet to 6,419 square feet. The development will provide resident-serving amenities including two outdoor pool decks on the podium levels as well as indoor amenity spaces such as a gym, dog spa, and lounge. Primary pedestrian and vehicular access to the Property will be taken from Newport Center Drive, with additional loading and delivery access provided along its rear (“Project”). 3. The following approvals are required from the City of Newport Beach (“City”) to implement the Project: • Major Site Development Review (“SDR”): A major site development review is required in accordance with Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) for five or more units with a tentative tract map and to waive certain requirements of the Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC; • Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”): A conditional use permit is required to waive 58 parking spaces for the proposed offices and retail/café component; and 35 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 2 of 48 • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (“VTTM”): A tentative tract map is requested to consolidate four lots into one 4.17-acre lot and to allow for an airspace subdivision of the individual residential units and nonresidential units for condominium purposes, pursuant to Chapter 19.12 (Tentative Map Review) of the NBMC. 4. On September 24, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2024-16 and 2024-17, approving amendments to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC to establish the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts in Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) (“Housing Overlay”) and to create multi-unit objective design standards in Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC. The new sections serve to implement Policy Actions 1A through 1G and 3A in the 6th Cycle Housing Element (“Housing Element”). The Property was identified as a housing site in the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Overlay. 5. Subsequently, on June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2025-10, approving an amendment to Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) and Section 20.80.025 (Housing Opportunity Overlay Districts Maps) of the NBMC to revise the height limits for several properties within the HO-4 Subarea of the Housing Overlay. This amendment adjusted the height limitation for certain properties within the HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Overlay to accommodate potential residential development with the intended prescribed density range of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The maximum height allowed for the Property was increased to 270 feet. 6. The Property is designated Regional Commercial Office (CO-R) by the General Plan Land Use Element and within Anomalies 36 and 37. It is located within the Office – Regional (OR) Zoning District and HO-4 (Newport Center) Subarea of the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts (“Housing Overlay”). 7. The Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 8. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the Property was not included in the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory to support compliance with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities; therefore, this approval is consistent with the State’s no net loss provisions. 9. A public hearing was held on March 5, 2026, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et 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 public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 36 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 3 of 48 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), as set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., and its implementing guidelines, set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-50 on July 23, 2024, thereby certifying Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2023060699 (“PEIR”), approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the implementation of the Housing Element involving amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC, which are available at: Housing Implementation Program EIR. 2. The Project is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, which limit environmental analysis to impacts peculiar to a specific project that have not been previously mitigated by regulatory requirements when that project is consistent with the general plan and zoning for which a prior EIR had been certified. 3. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part: a. Projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b. In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: i. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; ii. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; iii. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or iv. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. 37 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 4 of 48 c. If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. d. This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which: i. Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and ii. The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken. e. An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. 4. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the PEIR. Additionally, further CEQA review is only triggered if the Project’s new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in PEIR such that major revisions to the PEIR would be required. A detailed CEQA consistency analysis has been prepared by T & B Planning, Inc., dated February 2026, and peer reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” to this resolution and hereby incorporated by reference. 5. Therefore, in accordance with Section 21083.3 of the PRC and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. The Planning Commission determines: 38 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 5 of 48 a. The Project’s proposed density of 35.97 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the permitted density of 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the PEIR was certified; b. There are no significant environmental effects that are peculiar to the Project or the parcels on which the Project would be located; c. There are no significant environmental effects of the Project that were not analyzed as significant effects in the PEIR; d. There are no potentially significant off-site impacts or cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the PEIR; and e. There are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior PEIR. 6. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Major Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews – Findings and Decisions) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject Zoning District. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is located within the HO-4 (Newport Center Area) Subarea of the Housing Overlay. Pursuant to Section 20.28.050(B) (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts – Uses Allowed) and Table 2-16 (Development Standards for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of the NBMC, in addition to the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the base zoning district, multi-unit residential development that meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement shall be permitted within the HO Overlay Zoning District. The Project will create a 4.17-acre lot and proposes 150 39 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 6 of 48 condominium units, 35.97 units per acre, which meets the density requirement of the HO-4 Subarea. 2. The Project complies with the development standards and regulations of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC. The HO-4 subarea provides a zero-foot front, side, streetside, and rear setback. However, Footnote No. 3 of Table 2-16 of Section 20.28.050 of the NBMC requires that any portion of a building that is over 20 feet in height shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way. The Property is bound by Newport Center Drive to the north and San Miguel Drive to the east. The Project proposes two 270-foot-tall residential tower buildings with varying setbacks between 15 and 30 feet from Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive in compliance with the setback requirements. The front setback along Newport Center Drive and street side setback along San Miguel Drive are approximately 30 feet minimum, complying with the additional 20-foot requirement for buildings over 20 feet in height along streets. 3. Table 2-16 also establishes a maximum height for the HO-4 Subarea consistent with the base zone, unless otherwise identified on the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps listed in Section 20.80.025 of the NBMC. The Property is within the Office – Regional (OR) Zoning District which would typically allow a maximum height of 32 feet for a flat roof and 37 feet for a sloped roof. However, the Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning Districts maps for HO-4 Newport Center Area allows a base height limit for the Property of 270 feet. The Project proposes a maximum height of 270 feet to the top of the residential tower building, inclusive of any rooftop appurtenances, when measured from established grade. Additionally, consistent with Footnote 7 of Table 2-16, the Project is not located on a parcel subject to the Sight Plane Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1371 and Ordinance No. 1596). 4. Table 2-17 (Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements for Housing Opportunity Overlay Zones) of Section 20.28.050 (Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning Districts) of the NBMC provides parking requirements for residential projects. Further, Table 3-10 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) of Section 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC provides parking requirements for non-residential uses. Based on the proposed development and the NBMC requirements, the required parking is as follows: Use Units/Size Parking Standard Parking Required 2 Bedroom Units 70 1.8 spaces/unit 126 3+ Bedroom Units 80 2.0 spaces/unit 160 Visitor Parking 150 0.3 spaces/unit 45 Residential 331 Office 9,450 net square feet (SF) 1 space/250 net SF 38 Cafe 1,950 SF 1 space/100 SF 20 Nonresidential 58 Total 389 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 7 of 48 The Project proposes 343 parking spaces within a parking structure to serve the residential uses, where 331 are required for residential use. Therefore, the Project includes 12 surplus spaces to serve the residential uses. However, because the Project does not provide 58 parking spaces required by the NBMC to support the non-residential uses, a parking waiver pursuant to Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the NBMC is required. Findings in support of the CUP to waive parking is provided in Findings K and L. Because the required findings for a waiver can be made, the Project would be consistent with the parking requirements identified in the NBMC. 5. Pursuant to Section 20.48.185 (Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards) of the NBMC, multi-unit objective design standards are applicable to any residential project with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. These standards ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for new multi-unit developments throughout the City. Section 20.48.185(C) of the NBMC authorizes the Planning Commission to allow deviations from any objective design standards through the approval of a SDR if the Applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the objective design standards and that the project possesses compensating design and development features that meets or exceeds the intent of the objective design standards. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated by reference, the Project deviates from the following five objective design standards: (1) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(c) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – First Floor Windows); (2) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(d) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – Upper Floor Windows); (3) 20.48.185(R)(2)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Width of Recesses); (4) 20.48.185(S)(2)(ii) (First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards – Minimum Opening Standard); and (5) 20.48.185(T)(2)(a)(iv) (Lobby Entrances – Prohibited Entry from Driveway). The facts in support of the required findings are included in Findings D and E. 6. The HO-4 Subarea requires a minimum building separation of 10 feet. The Project includes a single building podium with multiple structures attached; therefore, this standard does not apply. 7. The HO-4 Subarea requires that at least 75 square feet of common space to be provided per dwelling unit throughout the Project with a minimum length and width of 15 feet. The Project is therefore required to provide a minimum of 11,250 square feet of common open space. Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines common open space as the land area within a residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use and that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all the residents and their guests including but not limited to areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas, turf areas, and habitat areas. The Project provides a total of 11,250 square feet of common open space within 41 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 8 of 48 the podium amenity decks. The Project therefore complies with the minimum common open space requirement. 8. The HO-4 Subarea requires that at least 5% of the proposed gross floor area per unit be dedicated to private open space. Qualifying areas of private open space shall have a dimension of at least 6 feet in length and width. Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the NBMC defines private open spaces as outdoor or unenclosed areas directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests including but not limited to a balcony, deck, porch or terrace. The Project requires an aggregate of 24,923 square feet for all dwelling units (5% of gross floor area each) and provides approximately 54,450 square feet of private open space (balconies) for the development. A condition of approval is included to ensure that each individual dwelling unit maintains at least 5% of gross floor area as common open space consistent with the dimensional requirements. Finding: B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is categorized as Regional Commercial Office (CO-R) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is within General Plan Anomalies 36 and 37. However, as indicated in Land Use Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities), residential use of any property including within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category. In this case, the HO-4 Subarea would allow residential development on the 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 9 of 48 Property in addition to the uses allowed in the underlying Regional Commercial Office (CO-R) land use category and Office – Regional (OR) Zoning District. 2. The Project is consistent with the following General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Circulation Element policies that establish fundamental criteria for the formation and implementation of new residential development, including, but not limited to the following: a. Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs and configurations. See LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices) below. b. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City’s Housing Element. The Property is within in the Newport Center subarea, and according to Housing Element Policy 1C could accommodate 2,439 dwelling units across all income categories. The Project proposes 150 dwelling units at a density of 35.97 units per acre, which is consistent with the HO-4 Subarea and the densities envisioned by the Housing Element. This Project would diversify the City’s housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City’s efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. c. Land Use Element Policy LU 3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re-use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach’s share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The underutilized Property currently includes a movie theater, health and fitness business, and large surface parking lot. The Project would replace these uses with 150 dwelling units that assist the City in meeting its share of RHNA and accommodating additional growth in the community. These new homes are in a job-rich area, supporting reduced commute times. Furthermore, the Project is an appropriate scale for the Newport Center area, which contains a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings with varied 43 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 10 of 48 architectural styles. The Project is projected to result in fewer average daily trips than the existing uses. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the NBMC), and no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. For example, a portion of a development site may be developed at a higher density than specified by Policy 4.4 provided other portions of the site are developed at lower densities such that the average does not exceed the maximum. Density calculations and total units identified in LU 4.4 do not include units identified as pipeline units or units permitted pursuant to State density bonus law. The Project is in the HO-4 Subarea, which allows residential development between 20 and 50 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes 150 residential condominiums on a 4.17-acre parcel, which would yield 35.97 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of HO-4 Subarea. e. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family Residential) Require that multi-family dwellings be designed to convey a high-quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal façades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path-facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. 44 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 11 of 48 Ground Floor Treatment Set ground-floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of- way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground-floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground-floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units’ architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated by reference, the Project complies with the majority (47 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations to 5 objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU 5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU 5.1.9. The Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species, with the exception of driveway and sidewalks. The front setback along Newport Center Drive and street side setback along San Miguel Drive are approximately 30 feet minimum, complying with the additional 20-foot requirement for buildings over 20 feet in height along streets. Loading areas and trash enclosures are located to the rear of the building to screen them from view from the rights-of-way. f. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. 45 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 12 of 48 The Project is located in the Newport Center area, which contains a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. The Project consists of two high-rise buildings that have a height of 270 feet. The high-quality architectural design blends a contemporary design with soft features (rounded corners, undulating balcony edges, landscaping) to create a resort like feel. The addition of increased step-backs for the higher floors results in a development that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the surrounding area. The street facing property lines are significantly landscaped and include pedestrian connections from the Property to the public right of way creating a compatible interface between the Property and other areas. g. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. See LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development) above. h. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. A condition of approval requires the Applicant to prepare a photometric study, in conjunction with a final lighting plan, which shows that lighting values are 1.0 foot-candle or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. i. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4 (Development Scale) Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. The project would be lower in height than the existing high rise structures along the northeasterly section of Newport Center including buildings at 520 Newport Center Drive (315 feet), 650 Newport Center Drive (299 feet), and 610 Newport Center Drive (273 feet). Additionally, the Property is at a lower elevation than the properties along San Joaquin Hills Road and the proposed 46 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 13 of 48 270 story structures would appear lower in elevation than the existing development, consistent with the original design concept. j. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs-generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re-use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 – California Energy Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water-efficient landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within the Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The Project will also be accessible via bicycle and public transit, with bike racks provided at the café and the Orange County Transit Authority transit center is within walking distance of the property. k. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. A condition of approval is included requiring the applicant to submit a final construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. l. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices) above. The Project is located in an established mixed-use environment and would be accessible via bus, bicycle, or walking. 9. Facts 1 through 9 in Support of Finding A are hereby incorporated by reference. 47 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 14 of 48 10. The Property is not located within a specific plan area. 11. The Project proposes an efficient arrangement of structures through the use of similar towers that are connected via a three-story podium that includes a central lobby and amenity decks. The combination of the quality architectural design and landscaping would provide a development that is harmonious with surrounding uses. 12. The Project is located in the Newport Center area, which contains a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. The Project consists of two high-rise buildings that have a height of 270 feet. This high-quality architecture design of the buildings combined with increased step-backs for the higher floors results in a development that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the surrounding area. 13. The Project has been designed to minimize aesthetic impacts to the surrounding mixed-use neighborhood to the greatest extent possible by providing an architecturally pleasing contemporary architecture. The Project design includes substantial building articulation and modulation of volume, softening the appearance of the high-rise development. For example, the Project design includes one and two-story podium levels adjacent to the public streets that support the two high rise towers. The high-rise towers are set back to the interior of the site allowing for a more gradual transition from the street level. Additionally, the widest sections of the building are located near the base of the towers, with the narrowest width at the top of the tower. 14. As conditioned, the Project’s landscaping will comply with Chapters 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping) and 20.36 (Landscaping Standards) of the NBMC. Additionally, the Project will comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (“WELO”), which requires the installation and maintenance of drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species. The Project’s varied setbacks, ranging from 15 to 30 feet, allow for substantial perimeter landscaping, with enhanced treatments along Newport Center Drive that improve the pedestrian experience. Landscaping is also integrated throughout the Property, including on the podium deck amenity areas to enhance the residential experience. 15. Vehicular access to the Project is provided from Newport Center Drive via a driveway and motor court that leads through a gate to the central lobby and parking levels. Two loading areas for moving and delivery trucks are located along the rear and sides of the building. The primary loading entrance is located at the rear of the property and accessible via a driveway easement from San Miguel Drive. A third loading area for trash pickup is also provided at the rear of the property. Emergency access and staging are provided at various locations throughout the Property. Pedestrian access is provided from Newport Center Drive along a sidewalk through a pedestrian gate. The separation of vehicles, pedestrians, and loading facilities provides efficient and safe access to the site. 16. Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) of the NBMC protects public views of specific scenic resources as outlined on General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views). The Project 48 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 15 of 48 is near MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive, which are classified as coastal view roads. However, the Property is not located between MacArthur Boulevard and the view of the coastline that is visible from the public right-of-way due to intervening structures and tall vegetation. Additionally, the portion of Newport Center Drive that is designated as a coastal view road provides views towards the coastline, and the Project is not located between the road and the coastline. Finding: C. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Fact 13 in support of Finding B is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Project has an appropriate mass and scale for the Newport Center area, which includes a range of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. There are several existing high-rise buildings that wrap around Newport Center Drive, including buildings at 520 Newport Center Drive (315 feet), 650 Newport Center Drive (299 feet), and 610 Newport Center Drive (273 feet). The Project height is approximately 270 feet consistent with the pattern of development within Newport Center and would not be detrimental to persons living or working in the area. 3. The Project has been designed to have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the Project within driveways, parking, and loading areas. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the Project is provided directly from the central lobby and parking levels to Newport Center Drive via separate driveways and sidewalks. Loading areas for large box trucks are provided on the Property, ensuring that project operations such as moving and deliveries do not obstruct access within public right-of- way. Fact 14 in support Finding B is incorporated by reference. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, a traffic study is required for projects that generate 300 or more new average daily trips (“ADTs”). A Trip Generation Assessment was prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated November 6, 2025, that analyzed the existing and proposed ADTs for the Project. The Trip Generation Assessment concluded that even under the most conservative assumptions, the Project would result in fewer ADTs than the existing movie theater and health/fitness facility uses. Because the Project results in fewer than 300 ADTs, no traffic study is required and the Project is consistent with Chapter 15.40 of the NBMC. 5. Section 20.30.060 (E) (Airport Environs Land Use Plan [AELUP] for John Wayne Airport and Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements) of the NBMC includes requirements for projects that are over 200 feet in height citywide. The Project is approximately 270 feet high and requires approval from the Federal Aviation 49 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 16 of 48 Administration (“FAA”) and notification to the Airport Land Use Commission. The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the Project dated February 10, 2026. Accordingly, a condition of approval is included requiring the applicant to comply with all conditions of the FAA determination. Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards Deviation In accordance with Section 20.48.185(C) of the NBMC, the Project is seeking to deviate from the following Multi-Unit Objective Design Standards (“ODS”): (1) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(c) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – First Floor Windows); (2) Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(d) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed- Use Projects – Upper Floor Windows); (3) 20.48.185(R)(2)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Width of Recesses); (4) 20.48.185(S)(2)(ii) (First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards – Minimum Opening Standard); and (5) 20.48.185(T)(2)(a)(iv) (Lobby Entrances – Prohibited Entry from Driveway). An SDR can authorize such deviations only after making all the following findings: Finding: D. The strict compliance with the standards is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this section. 1. The purpose of the ODS is to ensure the highest possible design quality and provide a baseline standard for all new-multi-unit development in the City. The intent of the standards is to promote quality design that builds on context, contributes to the public realm, and provides high quality and resilient buildings and public spaces. The design standards were developed to address the most typical forms of multi-unit and mixed-use development such as townhome developments and larger apartment buildings with potential commercial uses on the ground floor. As demonstrated by the illustrative diagrams included in Section 20.48.185 of the NBMC, the design standards were not specifically developed to address high rise development. Nonetheless, the Project complies with 47 out of 52 standards demonstrating that the Project provides the high- quality design that was anticipated. 2. Although there are minor deviations to several standards, the Project promotes a quality public realm through the provision of meaningful Publicly Accessible Open Space (“PAOS”) in the form of courtyards with pathways abutting the home offices and café/retail space at the corner of the Property. These areas will be landscaped and provide public amenity for pedestrians and visitors along the public sidewalks in the vicinity. 3. Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(c) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – First Floor Windows) of the NBMC requires that windows and/or glass doors 50 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 17 of 48 cover at least 50% of the first-floor elevation along street frontages. The design includes a significant amount of glass and windows along the ground floor of the nonresidential spaces as well as courtyards that soften the appearance of the building. Additionally, the grade differential along San Miguel is notable under both existing and proposed conditions, creating fewer opportunities for windows since a portion of the building/podium is set below the street level. Extensive plantings along the street frontages also soften corners of buildings where there are fewer windows. 4. Section 20.48.185(J)(1)(d) (Storefronts for Ground Floor Commercial in Mixed-Use Projects – Upper Floor Windows) of the NBMC requires at least 25% of the surface area of each upper floor façade to be occupied by windows. Refer to Fact 3 in Support of Finding D. 5. Section 20.48.185(R)(2)(d) (Horizontal Modulation – Minimum Width of Recesses) of the NBMC requires that all recesses or projections are a minimum of 20 feet in width. The Project proposes a variety of different recesses and projections including lower floors and upper floors. The Project includes balconies on every side of the residential towers, including on the edges where the balconies soften the appearance of the structure. Some of the proposed balconies are slightly less than the minimum 20-foot width, with the smallest being approximately 14 feet. The intent of this requirement is to allow for sufficient width of recesses and projections so that building faces are sufficiently modulated. While some of the Project’s recesses are less than 20 feet in width, the Project provides large upper floor setbacks and extensive balconies to create architectural interest and soften the perceive bulk of the buildings. The Project provides additional width for other recesses and projections features which ensures building height is less visually obtrusive. Lastly, the Project divides the development into two towers, reducing the bulk and increasing the visual interest of the overall project. 6. Section 20.48.185(S)(2)(a)(ii) (First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards – Minimum Opening Standard) of the NBMC requires that 50% of first floor multi-unit building frontages (with commercial uses front a street/courtyard/paseo) be comprised of transparent glazed door and window openings. Refer to Fact 3 in Support of Finding D. 7. Section 20.48.185(T)(2)(a)(iv) (Lobby Entrances – Prohibited Entry from Driveway) of the NBMC prohibits primary lobby entrances from driveways, at-grade parking lots, parking structures, or alleys unless required due to topographic conditions. The Project includes a main lobby entrance for residents and visitors that fronts the motor court inside the private gate and away from the street. The main lobby provides access to the residential towers, private amenity spaces, and garages. A gated entry is typical for this Project type. The pedestrian and vehicular gates are located far up the driveway and concealed from view of the public realm. The distance to the lobby from the public realm is further de-emphasized by the substantial landscaping that surrounds the building. Finding: 51 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 18 of 48 E. The project possesses compensating design and development features that offset impacts associated with the modification or waiver of standards. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. All facts in support of Finding D are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. Facts 2 and 11 through 13 in support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Project includes enhanced vertical modulation that exceeds the minimum standards of the NBMC. The Project also includes significant landscaping to buffer and soften the appearance of the structure as viewed from the public realm. The architecture includes elements that are consistent with the surrounding mixed-use development, which creates a distinct yet cohesive appearance. Although the building is over 200 feet high, there is a podium level that interfaces at the pedestrian scale and the two residential towers include significant modulation, articulation, and architectural treatment to ensure a high-quality design. Conditional Use Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits – Findings and Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: F. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A and B are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: G. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A and B are hereby incorporated by reference. Finding: H. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 52 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 19 of 48 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Project is located in the Newport Center area, which includes a variety of residential, office, and commercial uses. The Project would provide 150 new dwelling units, home offices, and a new café, which is consistent with the development and uses of the Project vicinity. Finding: I. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A and B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Project has been reviewed by the Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments to ensure there would be no impact to emergency response, public services, and utilities. Finding: J. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings B, C, and I are hereby incorporated by reference. Off-Street Parking Reduction In accordance with Section 20.40.110(B) (Reduction of Required Off-Street Parking) of the NBMC, off-street parking requirements may be reduced with the approval of a conditional use permit in compliance with Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) as follows: Finding: K. The applicant has provided sufficient data, including a parking study if required by the Director, to indicate that parking demand will be less than the required number of spaces 53 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 20 of 48 or that other parking is available (e.g., City parking lot located nearby, on-street parking available, greater than normal walk-in trade, mixed-use development); and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Fact 4 in Support of finding A is incorporated by reference. 2. A parking analysis and parking management plan (“Parking Study”) prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc, dated January 29, 2026, is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” The parking analysis and parking management plan were provided to support the waiver of 58 parking spaces for the nonresidential component of the Project. 3. The Project includes 343 parking spaces to support the residential uses, where the requirement is 331 parking spaces including visitors. The 12 surplus parking spaces provided for the residential use would be used primarily as staff parking to support the residential use (i.e., concierge, valet, security, and maintenance staff) ensuring that the 45 visitor parking spaces are available for guests of the residential building. 4. The home office space requires a total of 38 parking spaces. The Project does not allocate any parking spaces to the nonresidential uses on site including the home office spaces. However, pursuant to the conditions of approval, the resident home office spaces would only be sold in conjunction with the sale of residential condominium units, reducing or eliminating the parking demand for those uses. A condition of approval is also included to prohibit subleasing. Unlike a typical office which requires parking for commuters, support staff, and clients, the home offices are expected to have limited clients onsite and residents will park in their assigned residential parking spaces. Potential clients or visitors will park in one of the 45 visitor parking spaces for the residential use. Lastly, a conditional of approval is included to prohibit staff from working at home offices unless additional parking is provided. 5. The NBMC requires 20 parking spaces for the café. According to the Parking Study, the proposed café use would not generate substantial parking demand given the context of the Project and size of the café (approximately 1,950 square feet). The café is located on the corner of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive, near the public sidewalk and open space areas. Visitors are expected to be primarily pedestrians given the mixed use environment and the City’s policies that support the pedestrian character of Newport Center. Additionally, bicycle racks are provided near the cafe to facilitate convenient access for cyclists. Lastly, the Orange County Transit Authority transit center is in the vicinity of the Project, providing another option for accessing the site without a personal vehicle. 6. A condition of approval is included to ensure that staff of the café will have access to the 12 surplus residential parking spaces (planned for use by staff of the building) ensuring sufficient parking is provided onsite and staff members do not park off-site. The café may ultimately be constructed as a private amenity to the residents or a public retail use; therefore, this resolution analyzes the Project based on the most conservative scenario. 54 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 21 of 48 7. The Project is in an area with significant dining, working, living, and leisure opportunities. Therefore, the café is not expected to serve as an independent destination for visitors outside of Newport Center. The Parking Study concludes that the characteristics of the Project’s proposed nonresidential uses and site context suggest there would be substantially lower parking demand than the NBMC requires and onsite parking is sufficient to serve the Project. Finding: L. A parking management plan shall be prepared in compliance with subsection (C) of this section (Parking Management Plan). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Finding K are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Parking Study includes sufficient detail to allow for efficient access and parking management on the Property including valet, delivery, loading, and visitor access. The residential parking spaces will include self-parking and valet options. A turnaround is provided at the entry to the gate to ensure there is adequate space for vehicles to turn around and exit without impacting the public right of way. Vesting Tentative Tract Map In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the NBMC, the following findings, and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: M. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is for 150-unit residential condominiums, 11 nonresidential (home office and café ) condominiums. 2. Facts in Support of Findings A and B are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The map would combine the four existing lots into a single parcel and provide for the airspace subdivision of dwelling units, café, and home offices (i.e., airspace condominiums). 4. The Applicant will provide an in-lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. The existing parcel contains nonresidential development; 55 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 22 of 48 therefore, the in-lieu park fee will be required for 150 new dwelling units. The park fee does not apply to nonresidential condominiums. 5. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and found it consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Finding: N. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Facts in Support of Findings A and B are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The 4.17-acre Property is irregular in shape, slopes towards the northeast, and is not within a zone subject to seismically induced liquefaction potential. The Project is adequality sized to accommodate the proposed density in compliance with all applicable requirements of the HO-4 subarea. 3. The Property is suitable for the type and density of the development in that the infrastructure serving the Property has been designed to accommodate the Project. A water demand study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated April 2025 and a sewer demand study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering dated October 2025 concluded that no infrastructure upgrades are required to accommodate the Project. The Project does not result in more than 500 dwelling units; therefore, a Water Supply Assessment is not required for Project. 4. The Project has been reviewed by the Building, Fire, and Public Works Department and must comply with all Building, Fire, and Public Works Codes and City ordinances. Finding: O. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report Facts in Support of Finding: 1. As detailed in the CEQA Consistency Analysis, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference, the Property does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community or wetlands. The Project would not have any specific effects 56 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 23 of 48 which are peculiar to the Project or the Property. Additionally, there are no project-specific significant impacts that were not analyzed in the General Plan Housing Implementation Program (“GPHIP”) Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GPHIP PEIR, and no substantial new information not known at the time the GPHIP PEIR was certified that shows that the proposed Project’s effects would be more severe than discussed in the GPHIP PEIR. Finding: P. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The VTTM is for a condominium subdivision of residential development with home offices and a retail/café space. All improvements associated with the Project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC and Section 66411 (Local agencies to regulate and control design of subdivisions) of the California Government Code. The Project will conform to all City ordinances and Conditions of Approval. 2. The Project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures of the GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Analysis which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference. 3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will generate any serious health problems. Finding: Q. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed VTTM and determined that the design of the development will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at 57 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 24 of 48 large, for access through, or use of the Property within the proposed development because no public easements are located on the Property. Finding: R. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is not subject to the Williamson Act. The Property is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area. 2. The Project is within the HO-4 Subarea which is intended for development of a multi- story residential project. The intended use is not for residential development that is incidental to commercial agricultural use. Finding: S. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project, and (2) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this Project is not considered a “land project” as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the Project does not contain 50 or more parcels of land. 2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area. Finding: T. That, solar access, and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code, which requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency 58 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 25 of 48 standards depending on location and climate. The City’s Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: U. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City’s share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed 150 dwelling unit Project yields a density of 35.97 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the HO-4 subarea. 2. The Project does not include the construction of affordable housing. However, the Property was not included in the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory to support compliance with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”). The Housing Element contains adequate other sites suitable for affordable housing opportunities, therefore, this approval is consistent with the State’s no net loss provisions. 3. The Project is further consistent with Section 66412.3 and Section 65584 of the California Government Code as the Project results in a net increase in 150, for-sale, residential dwelling units which contributes to the City’s assigned above-moderate income housing in the 6th Cycle RHNA. Finding: V. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Wastewater discharge from the Project into the existing sewer system has been designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 2. A Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) has been prepared for the Project and reviewed by the Building Division. 3. Fact 3 in Support of Finding N is incorporated by reference. Finding: 59 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 26 of 48 W. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Fact in Support of Finding: 1. The Project is not located in the Coastal Zone; therefore, compliance with the Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) and the Coastal Act is not applicable. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. In accordance with Section 21083.3 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project is consistent with the development density, intensity, and use characteristics established by the City’s General Plan Housing Implementation Program as analyzed by the PEIR, and the required determinations can be made, as detailed in Exhibit “B”; therefore, the Planning Commission finds that no additional environmental review is required to approve the Project. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Major Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map filed as PA2025-0102, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “E,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. The action on the Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), of the NBMC. 4. The action on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions), of the NBMC. 60 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 27 of 48 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026. AYES: __________________________________________________________ NOES:__________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN:________________________________________________________ ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Tristan Harris, Chair BY:_________________________ Jon Langford, Secretary Attachments: Exhibit “A” – Legal Description Exhibit “B” – CEQA Consistency Analysis Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc. dated February 2026 Exhibit “C” – Objective Design Standards Checklist Exhibit “D” – Parking Analysis and Parking Management Plan prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated January 29, 2026 Exhibit “E” – Conditions of Approval 61 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 62 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 28 of 48 Exhibit “A” Legal Description 63 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 29 of 48 64 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 30 of 48 65 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 66 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 31 of 48 Exhibit “B” CEQA Consistency Analysis Prepared by T & B Planning, Inc. dated February 2026 Available via link due to size: https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/Browse.aspx?id=3223578&dbid=0&repo=CNB 67 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 68 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 32 of 48 Exhibit “C” Objective Design Standards Checklist 69 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 70 Objective Design Standards Checklist Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 / Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3204 www.newportbeachca.gov Name of applicant: ______________________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________________________ Project Address: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Application # (City staff to fill out) _____________________________________________________ Development Type: Multi Family Unit Residential Mixed Use Development Project Site Context (check all that apply) Situated adjacent to existing residential development Situated next to existing commercial development Situated adjacent to designated historical structure Other ____________________________________________ 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference A. General Standards 1: Multi-unit development orientation a. Development color scheme (8+ buildings) b. Development color scheme (30+ buildings) c. Pedestrian walkways and linkages d. Architectural variety and features e. Structured parking visibility f. Corner lot loading docks/service areas g. Parking facility entrances 2: Mixed-use buildings orientation a. Commercial unit entrances b. Residential unit entrances B. Orientation 1. Orientation to primary public street 2: Screening of parking areas 1 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 2 | P a g e 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference 3: Multi-unit projects across from single-family 4: Building arrangement for outdoor space C. Parking Standards 1: Parking compliance with NBMC 20.40.070 a. Parking lot placement b. Landscaped area 2: Residential garages a. Street facing garage door i. Consistent garage and building architecture ii. Arbor or other similar feature 3. Parking structures and loading bays a. Shielding of parked vehicles b. Minimize blank concrete facades D. Common Open Space (C.O.S) 1: Common recreation area requirement 2: Residential entry distance from C.O.S. 3: Pedestrian walkway connection points 4: Open space location 5: Usable open space grade 6: Seating and lighting E. Recreation Activities 1: Play area location and visibility 2: Senior housing areas of congregation 3: Recreational amenities per unit count F. Landscaping 1: Min. 8% of total site landscaped 2: Landscaping materials a. Ground cover b. Nonliving decorative landscaping c. Turf areas for recreation 3: Landscaping and irrigation 72 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 3 | P a g e 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference G. Frontage Types and standards 1: Storefronts a. Ground floor elevation location b. Entrance using one of given methods c. Windows and/or glass doors coverage d. Upper floor facade window coverage e. Floor to floor height (15 ft) f. Awnings or marquees min/max height 2: Live work/office fronts a. Ground floor elevation location b. Entrance for ground floor tenant c. Entrance for upper floor tenants d. Ground floor facade coverage e. Upper-level facade coverage f. Ground floor to ceiling height g. Awnings or marquees min/max height h. Setbacks 3: Residential fronts a. Ground floor elevation i. Garage length of building facade ii. Entrance for ground floor tenants iii. Entrance for upper-floor tenants iv. Ground and upper floor facade coverage v. Setbacks H. Walls and Fences 1: Community perimeter and theme walls 2: Wall materials 3. Wall style conformance with architecture 4. Exterior perimeter wall depth I. Utilities 1: Utility locations and placement 2: Mechanical equipment screening (if needed) 73 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 4 | P a g e 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference 3: Utility rooms (if feasible) for certain equipment a. If not feasible, incorporated into design J. Private Street Standards 1: Private street right-of-way width a. Without on-street parallel parking (41 ft) b. With on-street parallel parking (50 ft) 2: Private street zones a. Street zone (SZ) design standards b. Sidewalk zone(SWZ) design standards c. Landscaping and paving zone (LPZ) design standards K. Private Driveway Zones 1: Private driveway right-of-way (dimensions) 2: Driveway zones a. Driveway zone (DZ) b. Landscape and paving zone (LPZ) L. Publicly Accessible Open Space (PAOS) Standards 1: Required PAOS 2: Site area calculations 3. PAOS Design Standards a. PAOS minimum width b. PAOS access M. Façade Modulation Standards 1: Density and building typology N. Vertical Modulation 1: Components a. Base b. Middle c. Top 2: Changes in facade material and/or color a. Banding b. Floor heights c. Fenestration d. Cladding material 74 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 5 | P a g e 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference 3. Additional vertical modulation standards a. First floor height i. Density less than 30 units/acre ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (residential only) iii. Density greater than 30 units/acre (commercial units on ground floor) b. Vertical variation i. Density less than 30 units/acre ii. Density greater than 30 units/acre O. Horizontal Modulation 1: Building standards for developments with density of less than 30 units/acre a. Maximum building length b. Required minimum modulation area c. Minimum depth d. Maximum number 2: Building standards for developments with density of 30 units/acre or greater a. Maximum facade length b. Required minimum modulation area c. Minimum depth d. Minimum width e. Maximum number P. First Floor Opening and Transparency Standards 1: Building standards for development with density less than 30 units/acre a. Minimum opening standard 2: Building standards for development with density of 30 units/acre or more a. Minimum opening standard i. For any at-grade or above-grade first floor unit fronting a street or paseo ii. For any mixed-use multi-unit building with a first-floor commercial use fronting a street, courtyard, or paseo Q. First Floor Entry Standards 1: Individual residential unit entrances a. Residential front door standards i. Minimum entry sidewalk width ii. Entry stoop, terrace and patio area 75 City of Newport Beach Objective Design Standards Checklist 6 | P a g e 20.48.185 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference 2: Lobby Entrances a. Location standards and accessibility i. Sidewalk entry width ii. Entry landing area iii. Prohibited primary entries 76 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 33 of 48 Exhibit “D” Parking Analysis and Parking Management Plan prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated January 29, 2026 77 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 78 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Riley, P.E., T.E. Transportation Manager/City Traffic Engineer Public Works Department City of Newport Beach FROM: Jonathan Chambers, P.E. DATE: January 29, 2026 RE: Parking Analysis for the 300 Newport Center Drive Project Newport Beach, California Ref: J2181 Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. prepared a parking analysis for the 300 Newport Center Drive Project (Project) located at 300 Newport Center Drive (Project Site) in the City of Newport Beach (City). This memorandum summarizes the parking supply and demand for the Project and includes a calculation of the parking requirement according to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Code). The analysis results justify a reduction in the parking requirement in accordance with Code Section 20.40.110(B), which requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and preparation of a parking management plan (PMP). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would develop 150 residential condominium units with 11 resident offices comprising approximately 9,450 net square feet (sf) (18,060 gross1 sf) and a 1,950 sf corner café. The café is expected to be open from approximately 7 AM to 3 PM on weekdays, with a reduced schedule on weekends. It would serve coffee, refreshments, and light meals and snacks, with staffing based on demand. The project would consist of two 22-story towers connected by a three-story podium containing the lobby, parking garage, building support, and amenity spaces. It would provide 343 parking spaces for residents and visitors. Vehicular access would be provided at the existing Project Site driveway on Newport Center Drive connecting to a motor court. There would also be service access from San Miguel Drive and through an adjacent surface parking lot to the south. The Project Site plan is shown in Figure 1. The Project would remove the existing uses at the Project Site, including a movie theater (Regal Edwards Big Newport, with approximately 1,143 seats and six screens, encompassing 73,892 sf of floor area) and a 6,400 sf Pilates studio. 1 The gross total includes access corridors and vertical circulation, which is not leased area. 79 Kevin Riley, P.E., T.E. January 29, 2026 Page 2 The Project Site is located in the Newport Center area, a mixed-use commercial district. The Fashion Island shopping center, with many surface and structured parking spaces, is directly across Newport Center Drive. A medical office plaza, with many more surface and structured parking spaces, is directly across San Miguel Drive to the northeast. There is more surface parking adjacent to the Project Site serving the other commercial uses which would remain. All this parking is free of charge and uncontrolled at the access points. CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS The City identifies general off-street parking requirements for the Project’s proposed land uses in Code Section 20.40. However, the Project Site is located in a Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District and, thus, the residential units are subject to alternative (reduced) parking requirements identified in Code Section 20.28.050. Parking requirements for the resident office space and café are unaffected by this zoning district. Table 1 summarizes the Code parking rates and associated requirements for the Project. As shown, the Project is required to provide 331 spaces for the residential use (including resident and visitor parking) and 389 spaces overall (i.e., 58 spaces for the commercial uses), assuming that full Code parking requirements were applied to the resident offices and the café. Allowed Reduction of Required Parking Code Section 20.40.110(B) allows residential and non-residential parking requirements to be reduced through the approval of a CUP under the following conditions: 1. The Project applicant provides sufficient information to demonstrate that parking demand will be less than the parking requirement or there is nearby parking available. 2. A PMP is prepared in compliance with Code Section 20.40.110(C). As demonstrated below, the Project meets both of these conditions. PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND As discussed above, the Project proposes to provide 343 parking spaces, which exceeds the Code requirement of 331 spaces for the residential use, including 45 spaces for visitors. It does not propose providing Code-required parking for the resident offices or the café. However, there are numerous reasons that (a) the incremental parking demand for those uses would be far lower than the Code rates would suggest, and (b) there is ample available parking supply in the area to meet the needs of the Project, as required for a reduced parking requirement under Code Section 20.40.110(B). Further, the provision of a reduced parking supply would help support the City’s goals and policies for transformation of the Newport Center area into a pedestrian-oriented district. 80 Kevin Riley, P.E., T.E. January 29, 2026 Page 3 Low Parking Demand The resident offices would only be available to be leased to Project residents. They are anticipated to be used as work-from-home office space or studio / workshop spaces. Residents occupying these offices would not generate additional parking demand. The café would be located on the corner of Newport Center Drive & San Miguel Drive, directly adjacent to the public sidewalk and a proposed public square. Much of its visitation would come from foot traffic, as well as from Project residents, thereby generating low parking demand. Additionally, the location of the Project Site lends itself to the use of non-automobile trips. It is located in a mixed-use commercial district with foot traffic from the shopping center, medical office plaza, and other commercial uses nearby. The area provides good pedestrian infrastructure in the form of wide sidewalks with landscaped parkways buffering pedestrians from the street. There is also strong bicycle connectivity to surrounding residential areas in the form of bicycle lanes on many of the streets leading to Newport Center Drive (including on San Miguel Drive) and wide striped buffers between the curb and travel lanes on Newport Center Drive itself. The Project would provide on-site bicycle parking, facilitating visits by bicycle, including short-term bicycle parking adjacent to the café. Additionally, multiple bus routes operated by Orange County Transportation Authority stop on Newport Center Drive directly across the street from the Project Site. Therefore, the characteristics of the Project’s proposed commercial uses and the Project’s location suggest there would be substantially lower parking demand than Code requirements for typical office and café uses. Available Parking Supply The Project proposes to provide 12 spaces above the Code requirement for residential parking. Café staff members and any non-resident office employees would be allowed to park at the Project Site in these additional spaces. Additionally, the Code-required parking for the Project’s residential units includes 45 spaces to be reserved for visitors. Because the resident offices are only allowed to be leased to residents, any visitors to these offices could be considered guests of residents and could thus park in on-site visitor parking. Additionally, there are thousands of parking spaces serving Fashion Island, the medical office plaza, and the commercial uses adjacent to the Project Site, all within short walking distances of the café and resident office spaces. Many visits to the Project Site are likely to made by people already visiting those surrounding uses, who could park once and visit multiple destinations. As a result, there is no shortage of available parking to serve the small commercial demand the Project may generate. Parking Management Plan Approval of a reduced parking requirement requires the preparation of a PMP in accordance with Code Section 20.40.110(C). A PMP was prepared by the Applicant and is provided in the Attachment. As described therein, the Project parking would be for residents and their guests and would include self-parking and valet parking options. 81 Kevin Riley, P.E., T.E. January 29, 2026 Page 4 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY GOALS AND POLICIES The City’s General Plan identifies various goals and policies that support the provision of a reduced parking supply at the Project Site. Policy Land Use (LU) 3.3, Opportunities for Change, identifies Newport Center as an area for development of a mix of uses, including residential, to provide jobs and services in close proximity to housing. Page 3-97 of the General Plan provides an overview of General Plan policies for Newport Center: “emphasis is placed on the improvement of the area’s pedestrian character by improving connectivity among the ‘superblocks,’ installing streetscape amenities, and concentrating buildings along Newport Center Drive and pedestrian walkways and public spaces.” LU 6.14.5 and LU 6.14.6 encourage development that fronts Newport Center Drive and improves pedestrian access and connections to encourage pedestrian activity. Similarly, the concentration and diversity of land uses around the Project Site helps support City goals related to reduction of trips and vehicle miles traveled (park once and walk to multiple uses), safety (reducing vehicular trip-making), and land use efficiency (not providing too much parking). Policy Circulation Element 8.1.11, Parking Requirements for Pedestrian-Oriented and Local-Serving Uses, suggests “[revising] parking requirements for small-scale neighborhood-serving commercial uses in areas that derive most of their trade from walk-in business, especially where on-street or other public parking is available.” The Project’s proposed commercial uses fit the definition of “small-scale neighborhood-serving commercial uses,” and the City’s goal is to develop Newport Center into an area with high pedestrian connectivity. Therefore, the Project, and the proposed reduced parking supply, aligns with these policies. CONCLUSION The Project proposes 150 residential units along with resident office space and a public-facing café in an area designated by the General Plan for encouraging more pedestrian connectivity and a mix of land uses to put jobs, services, and housing in close proximity. It proposes providing more parking (343 spaces) than required by Code (331 spaces) for the residential uses. These additional spaces could be used by café and non-resident office employees, and office visitors could park in Project visitor parking as guests of resident office lessees. The Project meets the criteria for a reduced parking supply through the approval of a CUP under Code Section 20.40.110(B). The resident office space and café would generate substantially less parking demand than the 58 spaces Code would require for standard office and restaurant space. Many of the visits to the resident office space and café would be by pedestrians or bicyclists or by people already parked in one of the many alternative parking options in the immediate vicinity. 82 PROJECT SITE PLAN 1FIGURE © 2 0 2 5 R O B E R T A . M . S T E R N A R C H I T E C T S , L L P NEW P O R T C E N T E R D R S A N M I G U E L D R AN A C A P A D R I V E TOWER A TOWER B N 0 16’ 32’ 64’ MAIN ENTRY PARKING ENTRY LOADING ENTRY Source: Robert A.M. Stern Architects, October 2025. ETBACK + 1 ' BUF FE 15'S5'S5' SETB FFERUFFFFEFFE TOWER ATOWER AELEVATORELEVATORLOBBYLOBBY FFEFFEER ResidentOffice ResidentOffice 83 TABLE 1 NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Land Use Parking Ratio [a]Units or Size Required Parking Residential [b] 2 Bedroom Units 1.8 spaces per unit 70 units 126 3+ Bedroom Units 2.0 spaces per unit 80 units 160 Visitor Parking 0.3 spaces per unit 150 units 45 Residential Subtotal 331 Office 1 space per 250 net sf 9,450 net sf 38 Café 1 per 100 sf 1,950 sf 20 Commercial Subtotal 58 Total Parking Requirement 389 Notes: sf = square feet. [a] Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Sections 20.40, except as noted. [b] Parking requirements for the residential units are found in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.28.050 for projects within a Housing Opportunity Overlay Zoning District. 84 Attachment Parking Management Plan 85 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 86 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA NOVEMBER 5, 2025 RELATED CALIFORNIA 11601 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 2020 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 87 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 88 Proposed Project The proposed project consists of 150 residences located in two twenty-two story towers connected by a podium. It is located in Newport Center, in the City of Newport Beach, California. As shown in Figure 1, the project site will have an access driveway from Newport Center Drive. The main access driveway will be guard-gated entry for the residents and visitors. Secondary loading entrances will be in the rear of the podium. Loading Entrance #1 will access the Lower Level via a parking lot which has access oƯ Anacapa Drive and is intended for deliveries, moving trucks, and service vehicles intended for Tower A. Loading Entrances #2 and #3 will access the Ground Level via a parking lot which has access oƯ San Miguel Drive. Loading Entrance #2 and is primarily intended for trash removal while Loading Entrance #3 is intended for deliveries, moving trucks, and service vehicles intended for Tower B. Gate Operations Main Arrival Gate The Main arrival area is designed with two entry lanes. This entry will have a guard house and privacy rolling gates. The guard house will be staƯed with 24 hours a day, 7 days a week security. All guests will be required to use the lane leading to the right of the guard house for veriﬁcation of identity and authorization to enter the site. A turn-around area is located directly behind the guard house and in advance of the entry gate which provides for vehicles which are not cleared to enter the community. The residents will be able to bypass the guard house and enter the site by activating the gate with a transponder. The proposed entry with the turn-around area in advance of the gates will facilitate an eƯicient traƯic ﬂow to avoid any queuing onto Newport Center Drive. Guard staƯ shall monitor vehicular queue and prohibit vehicles from queuing onto Newport Center Drive. Loading Entrances Access to the loading entrances will have roll-up security gates and be regulated by the on- site management staƯ. Service deliveries and trash service will be scheduled through the property management oƯice and personnel will be present at the gates to accommodate and monitor the entry and exit at the gate. The loading entrances will also serve as the delivery locations for moving trucks, furniture delivery, fedex, UPS, and emergency services. For emergency services, at least one of the loading entrances will be designed in conjunction with the ﬁre department to accommodate adequate access to the building in the case of emergency. Parking Per The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 20.28.050(D)(3), Table 2-17, 286 parking stalls are required for the 150 residential units. Additionally, 45 stalls are required for visitor parking. The total number of required parking stalls is 331. The project is providing 348 total stalls. The resident and visitor spaces are located within a partially subterranean three-level podium under the residential towers. This parking facility will include 164 spaces in a tandem conﬁguration and 186 single spaces. The proposed parking facility will include the required ADA Accessible and ADA Van Accessible spaces as required by the applicable codes. Further information detailing the location of resident parking, guest parking, employee parking and ADA parking is provided in Figures 2-4. Pursuant to the City requirements, all residences will be assigned two spaces. Residents will be given the option of self-parking their vehicles or utilizing the valet. The exact amount of self-parking for the residents is not known at this time and will be based on demand. The project has estimated 199 spaces of the residential parking spaces for self-parking. StaƯ parking will also be self parked. The remaining 136 spaces will be valet parked and will be available for residents and visitors alike. The garage entrance located prior to the gate and under Tower A will be for self-parking staƯ and residents only. The garage entrance located oƯ of the motor court and under Tower B will be for self-parking residents and the valet. Bicycle parking will be provided at the café space at the corner of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive. 131 Parking Operations and Management, Valet Operations Procedures and StaƯing for 300 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach Overview Parking Plan The project is proposed to be parked by a combination of valet parking and self-parking by residents and staƯ. The exact amount of self-parked spaces will be based on the demand of the residents and is not known at this time. All residents will be required to register their vehicles with the building management oƯice. All resident vehicles will be issued clearly identiﬁable window stickers for quick identiﬁcation by the management and security personnel. Residents and visitors arriving at the site will be greeted by a full time (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) valet service upon arrival at drop oƯ, which is adjacent to the lobby entrance at the motor court. Residents choosing to self-park will proceed into the garage to their assigned space. Visitors and residents choosing the valet service will leave their vehicle at the motor court. Once visitors are past the gate, additional signage will alert them to continue to the valet stand. Valet staƯ can also accommodate the arriving guests and visitors with disabilities or guide them to the ADA parking stalls in the parking garage located within the parking garage. Additional details on the Valet parking operation are provided below. Employee Parking Employees will park onsite and will access to the garage via the entrance located under Tower A. Employees and are required to park in designated spaces in the on-site garage on the lower level. Motor Court / Valet Drop OƯ Design The Motor Court / Valet Drop OƯ is located outside of the lobby of the building. The motor court is designed with enough width for a large SUV to bypass an idle vehicle. There is also ample room for the staging of cars in case the valet stand needs to temporarily stage a vehicle to help another resident or guest. Valet Plan Details Arrival • All valet arrivals will take place at the drop oƯ location adjacent to the lobby in the motor court. • Cars can be temporarily parked in a car staging area at the motor court if the valet staƯ is busy. • Additionally, the motor court geometry allows for cars to maneuver around idle cars in the event the valet is busy. • The 300 Newport Center Drive staƯ will be trained to recognize the residents of the building and their vehicles. • The staƯ shall assist guests with opening vehicle door and welcoming them home. • If the valet does not recognize the visitor, they are instructed to ask the guest who they are visiting for their ﬁrst and last name. • StaƯ shall complete valet tickets with guest’s ﬁrst and last name, vehicle make, model, color and license plate information (state and plate number). • StaƯ shall hand guest valet claim ticket, point out the call down extension and Text Number as options for retrieval and explain vehicles cannot be released without the claim ticket. Secure vehicle keys to key tag portion of the valet ticket, also marked with guest’s ﬁrst and last name and vehicle information. • Secure keys on valet’s carabiner until keys can be locked in secured key room. • Complete detailed damage check on the valet ticket. • Scan the ticket into the system, recording guest’s arrival date and time, entering the same information as entered on the valet ticket - Guest’s ﬁrst and last name, vehicle make, model, color, license plate information and damage check. • Escort guest to concierge associate who will escort the guest to the resident who they are visiting. • Park guest’s vehicle in designated parking location. Some of these spaces may be tandem. Departure • All valet departures will take place at the lobby entrance in the motor court of 300 Newport Center Drive. • Guest and Residents may utilize the call down extension or the Text Number to alert valet of their departure. • Valet warmly greets the guest upon arrival to the valet and ask how their stay was using the guest’s last name at least twice. • If guest did not utilize the call down or text options, valet will take valet claim ticket from guest to retrieve vehicle. Retrieval time at this residences is estimated at ﬁve (5) minutes or less. • Valet will use the service staircase of building to return to the appropriate garage level to retrieve the resident’s car. • Upon returning to the valet, where guest is waiting for their vehicle, valet will park the vehicle, turn the vehicle oƯ, and take the keys out of the ignition. INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 94 164 166 168 196 194 176 208 234 300 202 198 194 196 200 204 192 190 188 186 184 182 180 178 176 174172 170 PRO P E R T Y L I N E SET B A C K L I N E +228 ' +228 ' +228 ' +21 2 ' +212 ' +21 2 ' POO L AME N I T Y DEC K GAR D E N OPE N T O BEL O W +172' +188' +192' +192' +228' +212' TOWER B GARDENMOTOR COURT LANSCAPED YARD GARDEN LOADING ENTRANCE #2 LOADING ENTRANCE CURB CUT +192' +192' LOADING ENTRANCE LOADING ENTRANCE #3 LOADING ENTRANCE #1 +228 ' +22 4 ' +21 2 ' TOWER A A B+204 ' SITE PLAN N 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0" 10/08/2025 ATOWER 42' - 0 " M I N LOWER LEVEL LOADING DOCK: DELIVERIES AND MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUTSIZED FOR (2) 26' BOX TRUCKSROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY LEVEL 1 LOADING DOCK: DELIVERIES AND MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUT SIZED FOR (2) 26' BOX TRUCKSROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY MAIN TRASH ROOM: 741 SF TRASH ROOM FORSTAGING OF BINS, TO BEMOVED OUTSIDE FOR PICK-UP.ROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY. * ** ** MAIL ROOM LOBBY CIRCULATION - DELIVERIES / LOADING / MOVING - TRASH PICK UP - MAIL - RESIDENT (PEDESTRIAN) - RESIDENT / VISITOR (CAR) - VALET 42' - 0 " M I N ATOWER 42' - 0 " M I N 30 ' - 0 " 30' - 0 " 30'-0" 15 ' - 0 " 15' - 0 " 15'-0" 15' - 0 " 15' - 0 " 15'-0 " 7.5% S L O P E SLO P E P E R CIVI L D W G S 10/24/2025 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIE LFIGURE 1 - CIRCULATION PLAN 01/29/2026 95 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LOADIN G ENTRAN C E #1 TOWER A ELEVATORLOBBY BUILDING FOOTPRINT ABOVE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PARKING +172' TOWER A ELEVATORLOBBY FIRE WATER TANK FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE LOADING DOCK MEP ROLL UP GATE ATGARAGE ENTRY STAIR 2-A STAIR 1-A STAIR B-3 HOME OFFICES GENERATOR HOME OFFICES COURTYARD LOBBY+182.33 FIRE WATER TANK 31' - 0 " N LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA UP TO L1 18'- TYP. 18'- TYP. 18'- TYP. '- '- '- '- '- '- R 1'- '- '- DRIVE AISLE2'- 2' BO; TRUCK 2' BO; TRUCK 18'- TYP. '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18 ' - 18' - '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18' - 18'- 18'- 18'- 18' - 2 ' - 2 ' - 2'- 2'- 7.1 PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 1 1 LEVEL 2 7 38 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION:Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/or detectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.: Trash rooms are designed to accommodate the separation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal andstate waste diversion requirements. Dedicatedcontainers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants. 1222 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FIGURE 2 - LOWER LEVEL PLAN PARKING LEGEND RESIDENT VALET PARKING ADA PARKING VISITOR PARKING (VALET ONLY) STAFF PARKING RESIDENT ASSIGNED SELF PARKING PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUN LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 1 1 LEVEL 2 3 PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 1 12 LEVEL 2 33 01/29/2026 A A 15 ' S E T B A C K + 1 ' B U F F E R LOADING ENTRANCE #3 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BOH +172' TOWER B ELEVATOR LOBBY T O W E R B A B O V E T O W E R A A B O V E GALL E R Y GALL E R Y LOADING ENTRANCE #2 GARDEN GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' PARKING PARKING PARKING LOBBY WAITING LOBBY GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' 2 0 8 1 9 8 1 9 4 1 9 6 1 9 2 1 9 0 1 8 8 1 8 6 1 8 4 1 8 2 1 8 0 1 7 8 1 7 6 1 7 4 17 2 COURTYARD RETAIL STAIR A-2 TOWER AELEVATOR LOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR A-1 GATE AT LANDING TO INDICATE DISCHARGE LEVEL TRASHROOM TOWER B ELEVATORLOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR B-2 STAIR B-1 STAIR B-1 EGRESS FROMSTAIR B-1 MAIL TRANSFORMER VAULT MAIN ELEC FIRE PUMP ROOM MECH ROOM STAIR B-3 ROLL UP GATE AT GARAGE ENTRY FIRE COMMAND CENTER GENERATOR TRASHROOM 741SF NOTE: TRASH ROOM FORSTAGING OF BINS, TO BE MOVED OUTSIDE FOR TRASH PICKUP. MECH ROOM HOME OFFICE OFFICES OFFICES LOBBY+194' MEP GATE PER LANDSCAPDRAWING HOME OFFICE LOBBY +195' +202' HOME OFFICE HOME OFFICE LOBBY +202'COURTYARD TRASH 31'- 0 " 31' - 0 " RAMP MEP GROUND FLOOR PLAN 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 10/08/2025 7<3 7<3 7 < 3 7<3 7<3 127(75A6+5220)2567A*,1*2)%,1672%(029(' 2876,'()2575A6+3,&.83 02725&2857 1 1 6 250(5 /7 03 (*5(66 )52067A,5A A7( 86( 52//83*A7(A7*A5A*((175( 5A0372/2:(5/(9(/3A5.,1* %(/2: *A7(3(5 /A1'6&A3('5A:,1*6 9A/(7 67A*,1* 9A/(7 '5232)) 3,&.83 52//83 *A7(A7 *A5A*( (175< 13A5.,1*6&+('8/( /(9(/ 3A5.,1*&2817 /(9(/% /(9(/ /(9(/ PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION:Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/or detectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.: Trash rooms are designed to accommodate the separation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal andstate waste diversion requirements. Dedicatedcontainers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants. *A7( +286( RESIDENT PARKING ADA PARKING VISITOR PARKING STAFF PARKING ),*85(*5281'/(9(/3/A1 %2;758&. %2;758&. PARKING LEGEND RESIDENT VALET PARKING ADA PARKING VISITOR PARKING (VALET ONLY) STAFF PARKING RESIDENT ASSIGNED SELF PARKING 3A5.,1*6&+('8/( /(9(/ 3A5.,1*&281 /(9(/% /(9(/ /(9(/ 3A5.,1*6&+('8/( /(9(/ 3A5.,1*&2817 /(9(/% /(9(/ /(9(/ 01/29/2026 BRIDGE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE TOWER BELEVATOR LOBBY TO W E R B A B O V E GAL L E R Y GALL E R Y MOTOR COURT BELOW +212' LANDSCAPED AMENITY DECK OPEN TO BELOW +212' +212' +212' PARKING PARKING POOL 21' x 75' AMENITY DECK AMENITY DECK GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW +212' +212' 6'-0" MIN . TOWER A ELEVATOR LOBBY YOGA DOG SPA MULTI-SPORT SIMULATION SCREENING PLAYROOM GYM LOCKER RM POOL LOUNGE SPA +204' PR PR LOCKERRM SPA SPA SPALOUNGE STOR. PR PR GALLERY +212' STAIR B-1 STAIR B-3 STAIR B-4 STAIR B-2 STAIR B-1 FSAE FSAE FSAE LOBBY TRASH OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES OPEN TOBELOW OFFICES FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAETRASHROOM STAIR A-2 STAIR A-1 31' - 0 " 31'- 0 " LOBBY +212' LOBBY +212' 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 10/08/2025 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 1'-0 TYP. '-0'-0'-0 '-0'-0'-0 1'-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 1'-0 '-0 1 ' - 0 '-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0 1'-0 1'-0 '-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0 1'-0 1'-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 1 ' - 0 1 ' - 0 2'-0 2'-02'-0 2 ' - 0 7.5 1520'-0 24'-0 1'-0 PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 01 145 LEVEL 02 7 34 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION:Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/or detectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.: Trash rooms are designed to accommodate the separation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal andstate waste diversion requirements. Dedicatedcontainers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants. 10242025 FIGURE 4 - LEVEL 2 PLAN PARKING LEGEND RESIDENT VALET PARKING ADA PARKING VISITOR PARKING (VALET ONLY) STAFF PARKING RESIDENT ASSIGNED SELF PARKING PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUN LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 01 14 LEVEL 02 34 PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 01 142 LEVEL 02 5 343 01/29/2026 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 34 of 48 EXHIBIT “E” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the floor plans or square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the Project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the parking, Objective Design Standards, and density range under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. 2. Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3. The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach (“City”) and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may cause the revocation of this approval. 5. The use of the home office condominiums shall be subject to the following restrictions: a. Sale and ownership shall only be limited to those persons who own a condominium unit within the building. b. The home offices shall not be subleased to another user. c. Customers and clients shall not visit the home offices without a prior appointment. Any customers or clients of the home offices shall park on-site within one of the visitor parking spaces. d. No staff shall be permitted for the home offices unless additional parking is provided. e. The HOA shall be responsible for monitoring use of the home offices and shall restrict use of the home offices if parking is determined to be inadequate to accommodate the needs of the home office uses in the future. The use of the home offices shall remain consistent with the assumptions identified in the Parking Study prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated January 29, 2026. f. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs)for the property shall include the aforementioned restrictions. Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide proof that this condition has been incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Property. 99 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 35 of 48 5. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the FAA or ALUC, as applicable. The City’s approval of the Project does not relieve the Applicant of compliance with other State or Federal regulations. 6. Use of the future retail/café space shall be subject to the requirements of NBMC Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements). Future conversion of the retail/café space to a residential amenity would be substantially conforming to this approval. 7. A portion of the 12 surplus parking spaces for residential use shall be made available for use by staff of the proposed retail/café use. Conversion of the retail/café space to another use shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with this condition. This condition may be waived if the proposed use of the retail/café space is modified and results in a lower parking demand. 8. All staff of the Project (e.g. valet, maintenance, concierge, etc.) shall park on-site. 6. This Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2026-004 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407 as provided in Condition No. 16. 7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “E” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 8. The proposed residential component of the development shall consist of 150 condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. 9. The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 270 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or mechanical equipment shall exceed 270 feet. 10. The on-site residential amenities such as the outdoor decks and pools; and the publicly accessible open space areas as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Property as required by the HO-4 subarea. The Project shall also maintain at least 5,445 square-feet of publicly accessible open space as labeled on the approved plans. The square footage of on-site resident-serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. 100 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 36 of 48 11. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 14. The Applicant shall provide an in-lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in-lieu park fee of $59,575 per unit. 15. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIFs) in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 16. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2026-004. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought-tolerant planting and water-efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 18. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Property to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 19. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 101 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 37 of 48 20. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall require that garages be used for vehicles and shall prohibit storage of personal items that would otherwise impede parking of vehicles within the required garage spaces. The CC&Rs shall prohibit residents from parking in guest or staff parking spaces within the development. The HOA shall enforce this condition. 21. Prior to issuance of final building permits, the Applicant shall record a deed notification with the County Recorder’s Office, approved as to form by the Office of the City Attorney, consistent with NBMC Section 20.48.130.I (Deed Notification). The Deed Notification shall state that residential units are located in a mixed-use project or in a mixed-use zoning district and that an owner may be subject to impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring on the project or zoning district (e.g. noise, late night hours, live entertainment, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.). The deed notification language contained in this condition shall be copied into the CC&R’s for the project. 22. Prior to building permit final, the Applicant shall prepare a written disclosure statement. The written disclosure statement shall be provided to owners and tenants prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in the proposed mixed-use development consistent with Section 20.48.130.H (Notification to Owners and Tenants) of the NBMC. 23. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are “1” or less at all property lines. 25. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 26. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 27. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity- Noise Regulations) of the NBMC, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday. 102 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 38 of 48 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. All staging, material storage, and deliveries shall be located entirely on- site. Construction parking shall not be permitted within the public right-of-way. 29. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 30. All trash bins shall be stored within the building and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin/receptacles, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14 (Water and Sewers) of the NBMC, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 31. Trash receptacles for patrons of the cafe shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right-of-way. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 33. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.42 (Signs) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 34. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the Property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 35. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 36. Deliveries and refuse collection for the nonresidential uses shall be prohibited between the hours of 10p.m. and 7a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10p.m. and 9a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development, and may require an amendment to this Use Permit. 103 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 39 of 48 37. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 38. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on-site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 39. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures of the GPHIP PEIR MMRP, as specified within Attachment A of the CEQA Consistency Analysis which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 40. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA2025-0102). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 41. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 42. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures (“BACMs”) to reduce construction-related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. 104 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 40 of 48 • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off-Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10% soil moisture content in the top 6-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 43. If required by the Building Division, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project’s impact on water quality. 44. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 45. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 46. Site specific seismic parameters shall be reviewed prior to permit issuance. 105 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 41 of 48 47. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with chapter 705 of the California Building Code. 48. Smoke control system for High Rise Building shall comply with code requirements. Plans shall provide vestibule dimension and minimum dimensions shall comply with 909.20 of California Building Code. Plans shall include rational analysis for the smoke control system. 49. Exit discharge shall comply with chapter 1028 of California Building Code. 50. Two exits are required for common space that has more than 49 occupant load. 51. Exit discharge shall comply with 1028 of California Building Code. 52. Provide barrier/gate at interior exit stairs to indicate exit discharge level. The barrier/gate shall have its own landing. 53. High rise building shall comply with section 403 of the California Building Code. 54. Elevator hoistway enclosure and lobby shall comply with Chapter 30 of California Building Code. 55. Performance based structural design requires a peer review. 56. OC Health approval is required for public pool. 57. Accessible path of travel is required from the public right of way and parking. 58. Residential and common areas serving the residents and guest shall comply with chapter 11A of California Building Code. Commercial spaces, leasing office or any space where public will be served shall comply with 11B of California Building Code. Provide table for required accessible parking. 59. Electrical Vehicle shall Comply with Residential and Non-residential portion of Cal Green Code. Provide table for required accessible EV charging. Note that accessible EV and regular accessible parking shall be counted separately. 60. Separate circulation path to vehicular way per Section 11B-250.1. Show required detectable warnings and curb ramps. Detectable warning cannot be on access aisle, door maneuvering clearances and vehicular way. Public Works Department 61. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction. The map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit 106 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 42 of 48 to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City’s CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 62. Prior to the recordation of the tract map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. Monuments (1-inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 63. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Subdivision Code Section 19.36.010 (Improvement Agreement [California Government Code Section 66462]) of the NBMC. 64. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100% of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right of way and public facilities, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right of way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off-site improvements required as part of the project. 65. A Warranty Bond for a minimum of 10% of the engineer’s cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) to be released one-year after the improvements have been completed and accepted. 66. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 67. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 68. A final parking management and valet plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to the same unit or both spaces shall be valet parked. 69. Parking layout and vehicular ramps shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle shall provide adequate turnaround area. Design of the turnaround 107 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 43 of 48 area and final parking layout shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 70. The applicant shall reconstruct all damaged/broken curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Road frontages per City Standards. 71. The proposed new driveway along the Newport Center Drive frontage shall be reconstructed per City standard. 72. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on-site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right of way. 73. The motor court area shall have a minimum 42-foot-wide radius and parking or staging of vehicles is not permitted within the motor court area. 74. Driveways and loading areas shall provide adequate sight distance according to the City standard and Code requirements. 75. The on-site sewer and water system shall be privately owned and maintained. Commercial uses shall have separate water and sewer services. Final design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works and Utilities Departments during plan check. 76. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. Final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. Final design of the storm drain improvements within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Fire Department 77. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area (903.2.8 Group R). 78. Fire alarm systems and smoke alarms shall be installed in Group R-2 and R-2.1 occupancies as required in Sections 907.2.9.1 through 907.2.10.2.1.1. Group R-2.2 shall be equipped throughout with an automatic fire alarm system and shall have a manual fire alarm pull station at the 24-hour staff watch office (907.2.9 Group R-2, R-2.1 and R-2.2). 79. In Group R-2 occupancies required by Section 907 to have a fire alarm system, each story that contains dwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided with the future capability to support visible alarm notification appliances in accordance with NFPA 72. Such capability shall accommodate wired or wireless equipment (907.5.2.3.3). 108 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 44 of 48 80. In other than Group R-3 and R-3.1 occupancies, Class III standpipe systems shall be installed throughout at each floor where any of the following occur (905.3.1): • Buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. • Buildings that are four or more stories in height. • Buildings where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. • Buildings that are two or more stories below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. 81. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility (503.1.1). 82. Fire department access roads shall comply with Newport Beach Fire Guidelines C.01, C.02, and D.08. 83. Any fire department access roads that exceed 150 feet will require an approved turn around for fire apparatus. 84. Addressing shall meet the requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code 9.04.170. 85. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. New buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based on the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems utilized by the jurisdiction, measured at the exterior of the building (503.1.1). This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. See Newport Beach Fire Guideline D.05. 86. Emergency responder radio coverage systems. Standby power shall be provided for emergency responder radio coverage systems as required in Section 510.4.2.3. The standby power supply shall be capable of operating the emergency responder radio coverage system for a duration of not less than 24 hours (203.2.3). 87. A two-way communication system complying with Sections 1009.8.1 and 1009.8.2 shall be provided at the landing serving each elevator or bank of elevators on each accessible floor that is one or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge (1009.8 Two-way communication). 88. Directions for the use of the two-way communication system, instructions for summoning assistance via the two-way communication system and written identification of the location shall be posted adjacent to the two-way communication system (1009.8.2 109 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 45 of 48 Directions). Signage shall comply with Chapter 11A, Section 1143A of the California Building Code requirements for visual characters. 89. Directional signage complying with Chapter 11B, Section 11B-703.5, indicating the location of all other means of egress and which of those are accessible means of egress shall be provided at the following (1009.10 Directional signage): • At exits serving a required accessible space but not providing an approved accessible means of egress. • At elevator landings. • Within areas of refuge. 90. Buildings will require an emergency generator. 91. Standby power shall be provided for elevators and platform lifts as required in Sections 606.2, 1009.4.1, and 1009.5 (1203.2.2 Elevators and platform lifts). 92. Emergency power shall be provided for exit signs as required in Section 1013.6.3. The system shall be capable of powering the required load for a duration of not less than 90 minutes (1203.2.5 Exit signs). 93. In buildings and structures where standby power is required or furnished to operate an elevator, the operation shall be in accordance with Section 1203 of the California Fire Code and Sections 3003.1.1 through 3003.1.5 of this code (3003.1 Standby power). 94. Standby power shall be manually transferable to all elevators in each bank (3003.1.1 Manual transfer). 95. Where only one elevator is installed, the elevator shall automatically transfer to standby power within 60 seconds after failure of normal power (3003.1.2 One elevator). 96. Where two or more elevators are controlled by a common operating system, all elevators shall automatically transfer to standby power within 60 seconds after failure of normal power where the standby power source is of sufficient capacity to operate all elevators at the same time. Where the standby power source is not of sufficient capacity to operate all elevators at the same time, all elevators shall transfer to standby power in sequence, return to the designated landing and disconnect from the standby power source. After all elevators have been returned to the designated level, not less than one elevator shall remain operable from the standby power source (3003.1.3 Two or more elevators). 97. Elevators shall be provided with Phase I emergency recall operation and Phase II emergency in-car operation in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 6, Elevator Safety Orders (3003.2 Fire fighters’ emergency operation). 98. Elevator hoistways shall have a floor number not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height, placed on the walls and/or doors of the hoistway at intervals such that a person in a stalled elevator, upon opening the car door, can determine the floor position. 110 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 46 of 48 99. All automatic elevators shall have not less than one sign at each landing printed on a contrasting background in letters not less than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) high to read: IN CASE OF FIRE USE STAIRWAY FOR EXIT. DO NOT USE ELEVATOR (3003.2.1.1 Fire signs). 100. Automatic passenger elevators shall have call and car operation buttons within 60 inches (1524 mm) of the floor. Emergency telephones shall also be within 60 inches (1524 mm) of the floor (3003.2.1.2 Call and car operation buttons). 101. All elevators shall be equipped to operate with a standardized fire service elevator key in accordance with the California Fire Code (CFC) (3003.3 Standardized fire service elevator keys). 102. Elevator car shall accommodate ambulance stretcher. Where elevators are provided in buildings four or more stories above, or four or more stories below, grade plane, not fewer than one elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134 mm) with not less than 5-inch (127 mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist-way door frame. 103. The elevator(s) designated the medical emergency elevator shall be equipped with a key switch to recall the elevator nonstop to the main floor (3002.4.3a Elevator recall). For the purpose of this section, elevators in compliance with Section 3003.2 shall be acceptable. 104. Medical emergency elevators shall be identified by the international symbol (Star of Life) for emergency medical services (3002.4.4a Designation). 105. The symbol shall not be less than 3 inches (76 mm) in size (3002.4.5a Symbol size). 106. A symbol shall be permanently attached to each side of the hoistway door frame on the portion of the frame at right angles to the hallway or landing area. Each symbol shall be not less than 78 inches (1981 mm) and not more than 84 inches (2134 mm) above the floor level at the threshold (3002.4.6a Symbol location). 107. Fire Master Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Division for approval. The plan shall include information on the following (but not limited to) subjects: fire department vehicle access to the Project, secondary emergency vehicle access, firefighter access (hose pull) around structures, fire lane identification, location of fire hydrants and other fire department appliances, and the location and type of gates or barriers that restrict ingress/egress. 111 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 47 of 48 108. All portions of the perimeter of all structures shall be located within 150 feet of a fire lane as measured along an approved route. A portion of the proposed structure exceeding this distance is considered “out of access” and shall be corrected during plan review by one of the following methods: • Provide additional fire lanes to bring the entire structure “in access” • Propose an alternate form of mitigation via the Alternate Methods and Materials provisions of the fire code for the Fire Marshal’s review. There is no guarantee that the Alternate Methods and Materials proposal will be approved as proposed. 109. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises (507.1). Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by Appendix B of the 2022 CFC. 110. Fire hydrants shall be spaced along fire department access roads in compliance with the 2022 CFC Appendix C. 111. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. 112. A secondary water supply shall be required for each building complying with 2022 CFC 914.3.2. 113. Smoke control systems shall be required in all high-rise buildings per 2022 CFC 909 and 914.3.8.1. 114. Smokeproof exit enclosures shall be required per 2022 CFC 914.3.8.2 115. List all items on title sheet of plans that will be a deferred submittal. 116. The motor court shall comply with the requirements for Fire Department access for turning radius, width, grade complying with NBFD guideline C.01 and D.08. 117. The porte-cochere shall have a minimum clearance height of 13 feet 6inches for fire apparatus to maneuver underneath. 118. Fire pumps shall be required for both buildings per 2022 CFC 913. 119. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, Applicant shall provide a disclosure statement in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney in consultation with the Fire Chief or his appointed deputy, at the time of purchase contract to each prospective tenant/owner of one of the residential units on the site advising of the State and local fire codes which require that all fire and life safety systems be regularly inspected, tested, and maintained to ensure they function properly at all times. The Applicant shall provide proof that this condition has been incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Property. 112 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2026-004 Page 48 of 48 To comply with these laws, the HOA shall be responsible for making sure that all fire protection systems in the community are routinely serviced by licensed professionals. Tenants, owners, and other responsible parties must cooperate with the HOA and its contractors by allowing access to units, common areas, or building systems whenever inspection, testing, or maintenance is scheduled. Some fire protection components are located within private residential units, so entry may be necessary to complete the required work. The HOA will always provide reasonable notice—typically a minimum of thirty (30) days—before any scheduled inspection, testing, or maintenance activity. Notice will be delivered through appropriate methods, such as mail, email, or on-site postings. It is essential that all residents cooperate with these requests. Failure to grant access or delayed responses can lead to code violations, increased liability, and potential safety risks to the entire community. If access is denied or if cooperation is not provided when requested, the HOA may impose fines, penalties, or take other enforcement action as permitted by the governing documents. 113 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 114 Attachment No. PC 2 General Plan Consistency Analysis 115 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 116 General Plan Policy Consistency General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Housing Element Policy 3.2. Encourage housing developments to offer a wide spectrum of housing choices, designs, and configurations. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.3 (Range of Residential Choices). Provide opportunities for the development of residential units that respond to community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City’s Housing Element. The Property is within in the Newport Center subarea, and according to Housing Element Policy 1C could accommodate 2,439 dwelling units across all income categories. The Project proposes 150 dwelling units at a density of 35.97 units per acre, which is consistent with the HO-4 Subarea and the densities envisioned by the Housing Element. This Project would diversify the City’s housing stock, accommodate a variety of household sizes, respond to market demand, and support the City’s efforts to increase the supply of housing throughout the City. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re-use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach’s share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The underutilized Property currently includes a movie theater, health and fitness business, and large surface parking lot. The Project would replace these uses with 150 dwelling units that assist the City in meeting its share of RHNA and accommodating additional growth in the community. These new homes are in a job-rich area, supporting reduced commute times. Furthermore, the Project is an appropriate scale for the Newport Center area, which contains a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings with varied architectural styles. The Project is projected to result in fewer average daily trips than the existing uses. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the 300 average daily trip threshold of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the NBMC), and no additional traffic analysis is required. Additionally, the Public Works Department reviewed the submitted sewer and water demand study and found that no additional sewer system or water line improvements are required to accommodate the Project, as adequate infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity. Land Use Element Policy LU 4.5 (Residential Uses and Residential Densities). Residential use of any property included within an established housing opportunity overlay zoning district is allowed regardless of and in addition to the underlying land use category or density limit established through Policy LU 4.1, Table LU 1 and Table LU 2, or any other conflict in the Land Use Element. A general plan amendment is not required to develop a residential use within an established housing opportunity zoning overlay district. The maximum density specified for the various overlay districts specified in Policy LU 4.4 is an average over the entire property or project site. The Project is in the HO-4 Subarea, which allows residential development between 20 and 50 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes 150 residential condominiums on an 4.17-acre parcel, which would yield 35.97 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the allowed density of HO-4 Subarea. 117 General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Land Use Element Policy LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family Residential) Require that multi-family dwellings be designed to convey a high- quality architectural character in accordance with the following principles: Building Elevations Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal façades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume Provide street- and path-facing elevations with high-quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Ground Floor Treatment Set ground-floor residential uses back from the sidewalk or from the right-of-way, whichever yields the greater setback to provide privacy and a sense of security and to leave room for stoops, porches and landscaping. Raise ground-floor residential uses above the sidewalk for privacy and security but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking space. Encourage stoops and porches for ground- floor residential units facing public streets and pedestrian ways. Roof Design Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. Parking Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units’ architecture. Open Space and Amenity Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. As detailed in the Objective Design Standards Checklist, included as Exhibit “C” to Attachment No. PC 1, the Project complies with the majority (47 of 52) of the applicable objective design standards and in some cases exceeds the intent of the standards. However, the Applicant requests minor deviations to 5 objective design standards. The Objective Design Standards were developed to implement Land Use Policy LU 5.1.9, therefore compliance with these standards with negligible deviation ensures that the Project is consistent with Land Use Policy LU 5.1.9. The Project includes large setback areas that are thoroughly landscaped with drought tolerant and noninvasive plant species, with the exception of driveway and sidewalks. The front setback along Newport Center Drive and street side setback along San Miguel Drive are approximately 30 feet minimum, complying with the additional 20-foot requirement for buildings over 20 feet in height along streets. Loading areas and trash enclosures are located to the rear of the building to screen them from view from the rights-of-way. 118 General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The Project is located in the Newport Center area, which contains a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings. The Project consists of two high-rise buildings that have a height of 270 feet. The high-quality architectural design blends a contemporary design with soft features (rounded corners, undulating balcony edges, landscaping) to create a resort like feel. The addition of increased step-backs for the higher floors results in a development that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the surrounding area. The street facing property lines are significantly landscaped and include pedestrian connections from the property to the public right of way creating a compatible interface between the Property and other areas. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. A condition of approval requires the Applicant to prepare a photometric study, in conjunction with a final lighting plan, which shows that lighting values are “1.0” foot-candle or less at all property lines. The Project has also been conditioned to allow the Community Development Director to order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4 (Development Scale) Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway The project would be lower in height than the existing high- rise structures along the northeasterly section of Newport Center including buildings at 520 Newport Center Drive (315 feet), 650 Newport Center Drive (299 feet), and 610 Newport Center Drive (273 feet). Additionally, the Property is at a lower elevation than the properties along San Joaquin Hills Road and the proposed 270 story structures would appear lower in elevation than the existing development, consistent with the original design concept. Land Use Policy LU 6.15.23 (Sustainability Development Practices). Require that development achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, water, The Project is required to comply with the provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR, Title 24, Parts 6 – California Energy Code) and the Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement water-efficient 119 General Plan Goal or Policy Consistency and natural resources. This may be accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs-generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re-use of storm water on-site, water conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements that reduce heat gain and loss landscaping, water quality best management practices and low impact development practices. The Project is within the Newport Center commercial and office developments and would provide housing near this employment center. The project will also be accessible via bicycle and public transit, with bike racks provided at the café and the Orange County Transit Authority transit center is within walking distance of the property. Circulation Element Policy CE 7.1.7 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternate Modes). Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. See LU 6.15.23 (Sustainable Development Practices) above. The Project is located in an established mixed-use environment and would be accessible via bus, bicycle, or walking. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.3.3 (New Development Maintained Responsibility). Ensure minimization of traffic congestion impacts and parking impacts and ensure proper roadway maintenance through review and approval of Construction Management Plans associated with new development proposals in residential neighborhoods. A draft construction management plan has been reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments. This ensures that any traffic congestion impacts associated with the construction process is minimized to the greatest extent possible. The project has been conditioned to require the applicant to provide a final CMP to be reviewed and approved by Community Development, Fire, and Public Works Departments 120 Attachment No. PC 3 Public Comments 121 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 122 From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: February 20, 2026 6:12 PM To: Westmoreland, Liz Subject: FW: Please don’t take way regal! Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: KYLE THEODORE <kyletheodore@cox.net> Sent: February 20, 2026 6:10 PM To: Planning Commission <planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Please don’t take way regal! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Regal is a landmark building and a wonderful part of our. Newport community! We don’t need 200 more door we need a fantastic movie theater! Kyle Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: February 23, 2026 8:02 AM To: Westmoreland, Liz Subject: FW: Regal Cinema Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Denise Bonner <denisembonner@gmail.com> Sent: February 22, 2026 11:39 PM To: Planning Commission <planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Regal Cinema [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. So sad! Now we will only have the Lot in Newport Beach. The Port and Lido Cinema do not show recent films. Dr. Denise Bonner Sent from my iPhone From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: February 23, 2026 5:17 PM To: Westmoreland, Liz Subject: FW: Regal theaters property Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Smith <blasiarsmith@icloud.com> Sent: February 23, 2026 5:13 PM To: Planning Commission <planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Regal theaters property [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. I am voicing my concern over approval of this project with no affordable housing units included. They are able to bypass the Green Light initiative because of our governors mandate. I believe every large multi unit project should include this mandate until our local control on building is restored. Sent from my iPhone From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: February 20, 2026 3:02 PM To: Westmoreland, Liz Subject: FW: twin 22 story condominium buildings Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: David Rose <david@melroseind.com> Sent: February 20, 2026 2:32 PM To: Planning Commission <planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: twin 22 story condominium buildings Importance: High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Commission members, I strongly oppose the construction of the above proposed at the Regal Cinima location. Newport Beach is becoming more & more congested losing its character that we long time residents have enjoyed (& paid for) for a long time. In addition to the added congestion this will cause, these luxury condos will add nothing to the need for affordable housing so often cited by our elected officials. Therefore, please do not approve this project. Rgds, David Rose 318 Amethyst Ave Newport Beach, CA 92662 Attachment No. PC 4 Project Plans 127 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 128 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS NEWPORT BEACH 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVENEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A0.00 11/24/2025 COVER SHEET SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 12/15/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 01/23/202602/04/2026 129 CONDOMINIUMS PORT CENTER DRIVE RT BEACH, CA 92660 A0.10 02/04/2026 PROJECT INFORMATION VICINITY MAPPROJECT CONTACTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX BUILDING INFORMATION LOT AREA, LOT AREA COVERAGE AND SETBACKS AREA SUMMARY PARKING SUMMARY OWNERSHIPRELATED CALIFORNIA1430 5TH STREET, SUITE 101SANTA MONICA, CA 92660TEL: 310.359.0030CONTACT: PETER GAROFALOEMAIL: PETER.GAROFALO@RELATED.COM ARCHITECT OF RECORDSTEINBERG HART818 W. 7TH STREET, SUITE 1100LOS ANGELES, CA 90017TEL: 213.532.4405CONTACT: JONATHAN BENSICKEMAIL: JBENSICK@STEINBERGHART.COM DESIGN ARCHITECTROBERT A. M. STERN ARCHITECTS1 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10016TEL: 212.967.5100CONTACT: CHEN-HUAN LIAO CIVILFUSCOE ENGINEERING16795 VON KARMAN, SUITE 100IRVINE, CA 92606CONTACT: ORIANA SLASORTEL: 858.794.7204 LANDSCAPEBURTON STUDIO307 S. CEDROS AVESOLANA BEACH, CA 92075CONTACT: MATT UYEDATEL: 858.794.7204 FIRE / LIFE SAFETY PLANNINGFIRESAFE PLANNING 28506 AIROSO STREETRANCHO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92679CONTACT: JERRY CANALESTEL: 949-240-5911 CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE I-A, FULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING HEIGHT: MAX. HEIGHT ALLOWED: 270 FT PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 270 FT(CALCULATED FROM AVERAGE GRADE PLANE TO ROOF) BUILDING OCCUPANCY:R-2, RESIDENTIALA-2, ASSEMBLYB, BUSINESSM, RETAILS-1, STORAGES-2, PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE ADDRESS:300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 GOVERNING AGENCY:CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APN:442-091-16442-161-16442-091-12 ZONING:OR - OFFICE - REGIONAL COMMERCIALHO-4 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT SITE AREA:181,495 SF (4.17 AC) THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 2 MULTI-STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS CONNECTED BY A PODIUM. THE PODIUM IS 3 STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND INCLUDES PARKING, BUILDING AMENITIES, SMALL OFFICE AND RETAIL PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS MECHANICAL AND SERVICE SPACES. THE TWO CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS ABOVE THE PODIUM ARE 22 STORIES ABOVE GRADE AND CONTAIN 150 UNITS. THE BUILDING WILL BE FULLY SPRINKLERED, NON-COMBUSTIBLE TYPE I CONSTRUCTION. NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE ANACAPA DRIVE MACARTHUR BOULEVARDAVOCADO AVENUENEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SAN MIGUEL DRIVESAN NICOLAS DRIVESAN JOAQIUN HILLS ROAD PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CIVIC CENTER DRIVE PROJECT SITE LOT AREA:181,495 SF (4.17 AC) LOT COVERAGE:LOT COVERAGE AREA: 104,830 SF (2.41 AC)PERCENTAGE: 57.8 % SITE SETBACKS:REQUIRED SETBACKS BASED ON PROJECT LOCATION IN HOUSING OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY ZONE HO-4 REQUIRED PROVIDEDFRONT: 10'-0"30'-0"REAR:0'-0"15'-0"SIDE: 0'-0"15'-0"STREET SIDE: 0'-0"30'-0" UNIT MIX EV CHARGING STATIONS (10% OF PARKING PROVIDED)35 STALLS EV READY (40% OF PARKING PROVIDED)140 STALLS ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED * 8 RESIDENTIAL SPACES PER CBC 11A, 1 CONDO STAFF PER CBC 11B TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED:343 STALLS STAFF PARKING 12 STALLS ACCESSIBLE*9 STALLS STANDARD 322 STALLS NOTE: ALL PARKING PROVIDED IS ASSIGNED OR VALETPARKING PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:331 STALLS VISITOR 0.3 SPACE / UNIT 150 45 STALLS 3+ BR 2.0 SPACE / UNIT 80 160 STALLS 2 BR 1.8 SPACE / UNIT 70 126 STALLS 1 BR 1.5 SPACE / UNIT 0 0 STALLSRESIDENTIAL(OWNERSHIP) STUDIO 1.1 SPACE / UNIT 0 0 STALLS USE UNIT TYPE PARKING REQ UNIT COUNT REQ'D PARKING PER NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 20.28.050(D)(3), TABLE 2-17PARKING REQUIRED TOTAL UNITS:150 100.0% PENTHOUSE 2 1.3% 4 BEDROOM 6 4.0% 3 BEDROOM 72 48.0% 2 BEDROOM 70 46.7% DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED * FLOOR AREA, GROSS PER N.B. MUN. CODE 21.70.020GRAND TOTAL GSF:708,850 SF PARKING AREA:158,750 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):3.0 FLOOR AREA, GROSS:550,100 SF LOWER LEVEL 8,100 SF 55,250 SF LEVEL 1 26,000 SF 75,800 SF LEVEL 2 28,000 SF 27,700 SF LEVEL 3 18,000 SF -LEVEL 4 28,000 SF -LEVEL 5 28,000 SF -LEVEL 6 28,000 SF -LEVEL 7 28,000 SF -LEVEL 8 25,000 SF -LEVEL 9 25,000 SF -LEVEL 10 25,000 SF -LEVEL 11 25,000 SF -LEVEL 12 25,000 SF -LEVEL 13 25,000 SF -LEVEL 14 25,000 SF -LEVEL 15 25,000 SF -LEVEL 16 25,000 SF -LEVEL 17 25,000 SF -LEVEL 18 25,000 SF -LEVEL 19 22,000 SF -LEVEL 20 22,000 SF -LEVEL 21 22,000 SF -LEVEL 22 17,000 SF - LEVEL FLOOR AREA,GROSS *PARKING AREA AREA SUMMARY TMENT 94-16, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF HOWN ON A DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 2, 1995 AS CIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF , MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER AME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE NG, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFORE AND STORING IN LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO L AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED S AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF IPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND YOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES; WITHOUT, , STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR FACE OF THE LAND, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE N, RECORDED MAY 1, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-289968, OF ND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT IGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE, AND TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER RIGHTS OR Y OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER NG, APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, RACTUAL; BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON XERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE ORATION, RECORDED MAY 1, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-289968 , IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE FILED IN BOOK 283, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OF SAID COUNTY. L OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, ANY LL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY ETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, ORE AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM D HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, ACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR NELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND S; WITHOUT, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, HE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF CORDED NOVEMBER 30, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-0690632 OF ND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT IGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE AND TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER, RIGHTS OR Y OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER NG, APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, RACTUAL; BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON XERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED NO. 94-0690632 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ENT LLA-88-6 RECORDED JUNE 21, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. , MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER AME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE NG, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFORE AND STORING IN LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO L AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED S AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF IPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND YOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, TORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE E OF THE LAND, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE N, RECORDED MAY 1, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-289968, OF ND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT IGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE, AND TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER RIGHTS OR Y OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER NG, APPRORIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, RACTUAL; BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON XERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE ORATION, RECORDED MAY 1, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-289968 F0.01 FIRE ACCESS EXHIBITFIRE / LIFE SAFETY PLANNING VTTM VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPC-06 AVERAGE GRADE PLANEC-05 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLANC-04 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLANC-03 SECTIONSC-02 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANC-01 EXISTING CONDITIONSC-00 CIVIL COVER SHEETCIVIL L0.05 LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLANL0.04 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTEL0.03 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLANL0.02 SITE CIRCULATION PLANL0.01 LANDSCAPE PAVING PLANL0.00 LANDSCAPE COVER SHEETLANDSCAPE A8.01 TRASH CHUTE DETAILSA4.02 RENDERINGA4.01 RENDERINGA4.00 RENDERINGA3.01 BUILDING SECTIONA3.00 BUILDING SECTIONA2.04 BUILDING ELEVATION - EASTA2.03 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTHA2.02 BUILDING ELEVATION - WESTA2.01 BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTHA1.20 CIRCULATION PLANA1.08 LEVEL 22 FLOOR PLANA1.07 LEVEL 19-21 FLOOR PLANA1.06 LEVEL 9-18 FLOOR PLANA1.05 LEVEL 4-8 FLOOR PLANA1.04 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLANA1.03 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLANA1.02 GROUND FLOOR PLANA1.01 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANA1.00 SITE PLANA0.10 PROJECT INFORMATIONA0.00 COVER SHEETARCHITECTURAL SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW UMMARY = 11,250 SFCODE, SECTION 20.28.050, TABLE 2-16 11,250 SF ON ROOFTOP AMENITY TERRACES (LEVELS 2 & 3) (PAOS) REQUIRED: 181,495 SF GROSS SITE AREA x 3% = 5,445 SF(PAOS) PROVIDED: 6,284 SF(REF. LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) OR AREA, RESIDENTIAL) x 5% = 24,923 SFCODE, SECTION 20,28.050, TABLE 2-16 54,450 SF 53,825 SF42,388 SF 97,113 SF *** AMENITIES SERVING RESIDENTIAL... ** RETAIL CAN BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE SUCH AS FLEX SPACE OR LOBBY GRAND TOTAL GSF 708,850 SF PARKING AREA 158,750 SFFLOOR AREA, GROSS 550,100 SF RESIDENTIAL 498,469 SFAMENITY***31,621 SFRETAIL**1,950 SFOFFICE18,060 SF PROGRAM AREA SUMMARY 02/04/2026 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 116130 PRO P E R T Y L I N E SET B A C K L I N E +22 8 ' +22 8 ' +228 ' +212 ' +212 ' +21 2 ' POO L AME N I T Y DEC K GAR D E N OPE N T O BELO W +172' +188' +192' +192' +228' +212' TOWER B GARDENMOTOR COURT % S L O P E LANSCAPEDYARD GARDEN LOADING ENTRANCE #2 LOADINGENTRANCE CURB CUT +192' +192' LOADING ENTRANCE LOADINGENTRANCE #3 LOADING ENTRANCE#1 +228 ' +22 4 ' +21 2 ' TOWER A A B+204 ' STAIR B - 3 HOME O F F I C E S 164 166 168 196 194 176 208 234 300 202 198 194 196 200 204 192 190 188 186 184 182 180 178 176 174172 170 PRO P E R T Y L I N E SET B A C K L I N E +22 8 ' +22 8 ' +228 ' +212 ' +212 ' +21 2 ' POO L AME N I T Y DEC K GAR D E N OPE N T O BELO W +172' +188' +192' +192' +228' +212' TOWER B GARDENMOTOR COURT % S L O P E LANSCAPEDYARD GARDEN LOADING ENTRANCE #2 LOADINGENTRANCE CURB CUT +192' +192' LOADING ENTRANCE LOADINGENTRANCE #3 LOADING ENTRANCE#1 +228 ' +22 4 ' +21 2 ' TOWER A +204 ' STAIR B - 3 HOME O F F I C E S SITE PLAN N 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.00 N SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0" 10/08/2025 ATOWER 40' - 0 " M I N 30 ' - 0 " 30'- 0 " 30'-0" 15' - 0 " 15' - 0 " 15'-0" 15'- 0 " 15'-0 " .5% S L O P E SLO P E P E R CIVI L D W G S EXIT DISCHARGE NOTE: Exit discharge design, construction, and location comply with CBC §1028, including: direct discharge to the public way or an approved exterior area of assisted rescue (CBC1028.5); unobstructed width, slope, and surface requirements (CBC 1028.3 & 1028.4);lighting, marking, and signage per CBC 1028.6 ± 1028.8; and accessibility provisions of CBC Chapter 11B where applicable. SHEET NOTE: Perimeter walls are masonry wall with decorative screening 8' STAIR B - 3 +228' STAIR B - 3 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23 +204 ' HOME O F F I C E S 25' - 0 " PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEWSITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEWSITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23 12/15/2025 SITE PLAN-ACK DEANPRICE -R. C - 20327 103121 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 103125103127 26'- 0 " M I N 6'-0" MIN 01/23/20260204202 131 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE LOADIN G ENTRAN C E #1 TOWER AELEVATOR LOBBY BUILDING FOOTPRINT ABOVE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE PARKING +172' TOWER AELEVATOR LOBBY FIRE WATERTANK FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE LOADING DOCK MEP ROLL UP GATE AT GARAGEENTRY STAIR 2-A STAIR 1-A STAIR B-3 HOME OFFICES GENERATOR HOME OFFICES COURTYARD LOBBY +182.33 FIRE WATERTANK 31 ' - 0 " N LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 1' SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 04/25/2025 A1.01 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 1 1 LEVEL 2 7 38 A1.1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW2 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. 3SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW23 UP T O L 1 18'- T Y P . 18'- T Y P . 18'- T Y P . '- '- '- '- '- '- R 1'- '- ' - DRIVE A I S L E 2'- 2' BO; T R U C K 2' BO; T R U C K 18'- T Y P . '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- '- '- '- ' - ' - ' - ' - '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18 ' - 18'- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18' - 18'- 18'- 18' - 18' - 2 ' - 2 ' - 2'- 2'- 7.1 2 ' - -ACK DEANPRICE -R. C - 2327 13121 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 131213127 12122 A 1 ' S E 7 % A C . 1 ' % 8 F F E R 7 2 : ( 5 $ $ % 2 9 ( 3$5.,N* 67$,5$ 72:(5$(/(9$725 /2%%<)6$( /2%%< )6$( )6$( 67$,5$ *$7($7/$N',N*72,N',&$7(',6&+$5*( /(9(/ 75$6+5220 +20( 2)),&(6 +20( 2)),&(6 /2%%< 0(3 *RO8N' FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 18'- TYP. 18'- TYP. '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- '- '- 11'-8 '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- 18'- 18'- 18' - '- '- '- '- 2'- 2'- 2'- 2'- 2'- 2'- A 1 ' S E 7 % A C . 1 ' % 8 F F E R 7 2 : ( 5 $ $ % 2 9 ( 3$5.,N* 67$,5$ 72:(5$(/(9$725 /2%%<)6$( /2%%< )6$( )6$( 67$,5$ *$7($7/$N',N*72 ,N',&$7(',6&+$5*( /(9(/ 75$6+5220 +20( 2)),&(6 +20( 2)),&(6 /2%%< 0(3 *RO8N' FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 18'- T Y P . 18'- T Y P . '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- '- '- 11 ' - 8 '- '- '- '- '- '- '- '- 18'- 18'- 18'- 18'- 18'- '- '- '- '- 2'- 2'- 2'- 2'- 2 ' - 2'- 2 8 1 1 8 1 7 8 1 7 7 HOME OFFICES HOME OFFICES LOBBY +1' 2 8 1 1 8 1 7 8 1 7 7 01/23/2026 HOMEHOME 1 8 1 8 2 1 8 1 7 8 1 7 7 HOME 1 8 1 8 2 1 8 1 7 8 1 7 1 7 1 7 2 PLAN 222 132 A A 15 ' S E T B A C K + 1 ' B U F F E R LOADING ENTRANCE #3 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BOH +172' TOWER B ELEVATOR LOBBY T O W E R B A B O V E T O W E R A A B O V E GALL E R Y GALL E R Y LOADING ENTRANCE #2 GARDEN GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' MOTOR COURT PARKING PARKING PARKING LOBBY WAITING LOBBY GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' COURTYARD STAIR A-2 TOWER A ELEVATOR LOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR A-1 GATE AT LANDING TO INDICATE DISCHARGE LEVEL TRASHROOM TOWER B ELEVATOR LOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR B-2 STAIR B-1 STAIR B-1 EGRESS FROMSTAIR B-1 MAIL TRANSFORMERVAULT MAIN ELEC FIRE PUMP ROOM MECH ROOM STAIR B-3 ROLL UPGATE AT GARAGE ENTRY FIRE COMMANDCENTER GENERATOR TRASHROOM 741SF NOTE: TRASH ROOM FOR STAGING OF BINS, TO BE MOVED OUTSIDE FOR TRASH PICKUP. MECH ROOM EGRESS FROMSTAIR A-1 GATE HOUSE HOME OFFICE HOME OFFICES HOME OFFICES LOBBY+194' MEP ROLL-UP GATE ATGARAGE ENTRE RAMP TO LOWER LEVEL PARKINGBELOW GATE PER LANDSCAPEDRAWINGS HOME OFFICE LOBBY +195' HOME OFFICE HOME OFFICE LOBBY+202'COURTYARD TRASH 31' - 0 " 31'- 0 " RAMP VALETDROP-OFF / PICK-UP MEP CANOPY HT : 13'-6" COURTYARD GROUND FLOOR PLAN N SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 7<3 7<3 7 < 3 7<3 7<3 %2;758&. %2;758&. A A 15 ' S E T B A C K + 1 ' B U F F E R LOADING ENTRANCE #3 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE BOH +172' TOWER B ELEVATORLOBBY T O W E R B A B O V E T O W E R A A B O V E GAL L E R Y GALL E R Y LOADING ENTRANCE #2 GARDEN GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' MOTOR COURT PARKING PARKING PARKING LOBBY WAITING LOBBY GARDEN +192' +192' +192' +192' +192' COURTYARD RETAIL STAIR A-2 TOWER AELEVATOR LOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR A-1 GATE AT LANDING TOINDICATE DISCHARGE LEVEL TRASHROOM TOWER B ELEVATOR LOBBY FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAE STAIR B-2 STAIR B-1 STAIR B-1 EGRESS FROM STAIR B-1 MAIL TRANSFORMERVAULT MAIN ELEC FIRE PUMP ROOM MECH ROOM STAIR B-3 ROLL UP GATE AT GARAGE ENTRY FIRE COMMAND CENTER TRASH ROOMGENERATOR TRASH ROOM 741SF NOTE: TRASH ROOM FORSTAGING OF BINS, TO BE MOVED OUTSIDE FOR TRASH PICKUP. MECH ROOM EGRESS FROMSTAIR A-1 GATEHOUSE HOME OFFICE HOME OFFICES HOME OFFICES LOBBY +194' MEP ROLL-UP GATE ATGARAGE ENTRE RAMP TO LOWER LEVEL PARKINGBELOW GATE PER LANDSCAPEDRAWINGS HOME OFFICE LOBBY +195' +200' HOME OFFICE HOME OFFICE LOBBY+202'COURTYARD TRASH 31'- 0 " 31'- 0 " RAMP VALET DROP-OFF/ PICK-UP MEP CANOPY HT : 13'-6" COURTYARD GROUND FLOOR PLAN N SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" %2;758&. %2;758&. 52//83 *A7(A7 *A5A*( (175< 3A5.,1*6&+('8/( /(9(/ 3A5.,1*&2817 /(9(/% /(9(/ /(9(/ *A7(+286( 7 < 3 7 < 3 7 < 3 7 < 3 7 < 3 %2;758&. %2;758&. PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION:Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/or detectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY:High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibules and stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate the separation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicatedcontainers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill and recyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. 127(5(7A,/&A1%(86(')25 5(6,'(17,A/86(68&+A6)/(;63A&(25/2%%< 127(6&(,/,1*+(,*+7 0,1 5(7A,/&A1%(86(' )255(6,'(17,A/86( 68&+A6)/(;63A&(25/2%%< 52//83 *A7(A7*A5A*( (175< 5(7A,/ 0 , 1 0 , 1 %2;758&. %2;758&. 3523(57</,1 ( +20( 2)),&(6 +20( 2)),&(6 /2%%< PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. 1&'&21'20,1,806 1(:3257&(17(5'5,9( 1(:3257%(A&+&A 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(:A *5281')/2253/A1 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(: 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(: 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(:2 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(: 6,7('(9(/230(175(9,(:23 A *5281')/2253/-A&.'(A135,&(-5 & 5(1(:A/'A7(6 17A7(2)& A / , )25,A A5 & +&&/7( ' 7,,16(( 3A5.,1*6&+('8/( /(9(/ 3A5.,1*&2817 /(9(/% /(9(/ /(9(/ 5A0 3 7 2 / ( 9 ( / 01/2/2026 BRIDGE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE TOWER BELEVATOR LOBBY TO W E R B A B O V E GAL L E R Y GALL E R Y MOTOR COURT BELOW +212' LANDSCAPED AMENITY DECK OPEN TO BELOW +212' +212' +212' PARKING PARKING POOL 21' x 75' AMENITY DECK AMENITY DECK GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW +212' +212' 6'-0" MI N . TOWER A ELEVATORLOBBY YOGA DOG SPA MULTI-SPORT SIMULATION SCREENING PLAYROOM GYM LOCKER RM POOL LOUNGE SPA +204' PR PR LOCKER RM SPA SPA SPA LOUNGE STOR. PR PR GALLERY +212' STAIR B-1 STAIR B-3 STAIR B-4 STAIR B-2 STAIR B-1 FSAE FSAE FSAELOBBY TRASH HOME OFFICES HOME OFFICES FSAE LOBBY FSAE FSAETRASHROOM STAIR A-2 STAIR A-1 31' - 0 " 31 ' - 0 " LOBBY +212' LOBBY +212' HOMEOFFICES HOMEOFFICES WALKWAY N LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" PARKING SCHEDULE LEVEL PARKING COUNT LEVEL B1 13 LEVEL 01 142 LEVEL 02 5 343 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.03 AN300 NCD CONDOMINIUMSSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW23 A1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLA-ACK DEANPRICE -R. C - 20327 103121 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 103125103127 12152025 OPEN TORETAIL BELOW MIN CEILINGHEIGHT 15'-0 2 ' - 0 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. 21'-0 75 ' - 0 1'-0 TYP. '-0'-0'-0'-0 '-0 1'-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 1'-0 '-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0 1'-0 '-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0'-0 1'-0 1'-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 1 ' - 0 1 ' - 0 2'-0 2'-02'-0 2 ' - 0 7.5 15 1'-0 1'-0 2'-0 '-0 24'-0 '-0'-0 '-0 '-0 2'-0 5'-0 01/23/20260204202 134 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A1.04 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 10/24/2025 PLAN NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: Pedestrian circulation paths in garage will beseparated from vehicular way via curbs and/ordetectable warnings per CBC 11B-250.1. 2. LIFE SAFETY: High rise stairs are pressurized with vestibules tocomply with CBC 909.20. see plan for vestibulesand stair pressurization shaft locations. 3. TRASH ROOMS, TYP.:Trash rooms are designed to accommodate theseparation of organics, recyclables, and landfill waste in compliance with local municipal and state waste diversion requirements. Dedicated containers for organic waste will be provided andmaintained for tenants on each floor; landfill andrecyclable waste will be collected via trash chute on each floor. Separated waste streams are collected in main trash room on Level 1. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW23 A1.04 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN A1 LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLA TOWER AELEVATOR LOBB< PROPERT< LINE SETBAC. LINE TOWER B ELEVATORLOBB< T O W E R B A B O V E T O W E R A A B O V E AMENIT< 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' 212' 212' POOL LANDSCAPED AMENIT< DEC. AMENIT< DEC. LANDSCAPED AMENIT< DEC. AMENIT< DEC. 22'AMENIT< 15 ' - 0 " 212' OUTDOOR LOUN*E CLUB ROOM DININ* 224' LOUN*E PR PR PR PR OFFICE OFFICE CONF. OFFICE OFFICE OFFICEOUTDOOR LOUN*E CLUB ROOM DININ* LOUN*E RR RR PR PROFFICE OFFICE CONF. OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE CHAN*IN * RM CONF. .ITCHEN .ITCHEN 22' FSAE LOBB< FSAE FSAETRASHROOM TRASHROOM FSAE LOBB< FSAE FSAE STAIR B2 STAIR B1 STAIR A2 STAIR A1 STAIR B3 31' - 0 " 31' - 0 " LEVEL 2 BELOW 204' 212' LEVEL 2 BELOW N LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" -AC. DEANPRICE, -R. C 2032 10/31/21 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/2 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/202 135 GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW FSAE FSAE FSAE LOBBYTRASH ROOM FSAE FSAE FSAE LOBBYTRASHROOM 2 BR 2,277 SF 2 BR 2,230 SF 2 BR 2,282 SF 2 BR 2,150 SF 2 BR 2,408 SF 2 BR 2,277 SF 2 BR 2,230 SF 2 BR 2,282 SF 2 BR 2,150 SF 2 BR 2,408 SF LEVEL 4-7 PLATE SIZE: 13,500 SF (EXCLUDING BALCONIES) STAIR 1-A STAIR 2-B STAIR 1-B STAIR 2-A 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G0.02 04/01/2025 SHEET INDEX LEVEL 4-7 N 32 - 4 32 - 4 PROPERTY LINE LEVEL 4-7 FLOOR PLAN A1.05 08202025 LEVEL 4-7 PLATE SIZE: 13,500 SF (EXCLUDING BALCONIES) -AC. DEANPRICE, -R C - 20327 103121 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 103125103127 01/23/20260204202 13 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G0.02 04/01/2025 SHEET INDEX LEVEL 8-18 N LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN A1.05LEVEL 8-18 FLOOR PLAN A1.06 0/20/20250/2/202510/24/2025 GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A 3 BR 2,5 S) 3 BR 2,54 S) 2 BR 2,12 S) 3 BR 2,45 S) LEVEL 1 PLATE SI=E 11,00 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES 3 BR 2,5 S) 3 BR 2,54 S) 2 BR 2,12 S) 3 BR 2,45 S) LEVEL 1 PLATE SI=E 11,00 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES -AC. DEANPRICE, -R. C 2032 10/31/21 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEO)C A L I )ORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/2 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/202 13 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G0.02 04/01/2025 SHEET INDEX LEVEL 19-21 N LEVEL 19-21 FLOOR PLAN A1.07 0/20/20250/2/202510/24/2025 GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A 3 BR 2,55 S) 4 BR 3,104 S) LEVEL 121 PLATE SI=E 10,500 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES 3 BR 2,55 S) 3 BR 2,55 S) 4 BR 3,104 S) 3 BR 2,55 S) LEVEL 121 PLATE SI=E 10,500 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES -AC. DEANPRICE, -R. C 2032 10/31/21 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEO)C A L I )ORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/2 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/202 13 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G0.02 04/01/2025 SHEET INDEX LEVEL 22 N LEVEL 22 FLOOR PLAN A1.08 0/20/20250/2/202510/24/2025 GARDEN OPEN TO BELOW STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A STAIR 2A )SAE )SAE STAIR 1A PH ,41 S) LEVEL 22 PLATE SI=E ,500 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES LEVEL 22 PLATE SI=E ,500 S) EXCLUDING BALCONIES PH ,41 S) -AC. DEANPRICE, -R. C 2032 10/31/21 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEO)C A L I )ORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/2 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/202 13 PRO P E R T Y L I N E SET B A C K L I N E +22 8 ' +22 8 ' +228 ' +212 ' +212 ' +21 2 ' POO L AME N I T Y DEC K GAR D E N OPE N T O BELO W +172' +188' +192' +192' +228' +212' TOWER B GARDENMOTOR COURT 3.5 % S L O P E LANSCAPEDYARD GARDEN LOADING ENTRANCE #2 LOADINGENTRANCE CURB CUT +192' +192' LOADING ENTRANCE LOADINGENTRANCE #3 LOADING ENTRANCE#1 +228 ' +22 4 ' +21 2 ' TOWER A A B+204 ' STAIR B - 3 HOME O F F I C E S 164 166 168 196 194 176 208 234 300 202 198 194 196 200 204 192 190 188 186 184 182 180 178 176 174172 170 PRO P E R T Y L I N E SET B A C K L I N E +22 8 ' +22 8 ' +228 ' +212 ' +212 ' +21 2 ' POO L AME N I T Y DEC K GAR D E N OPE N T O BELO W +172' +188' +192' +192' +228' +212' TOWER B GARDENMOTOR COURT 3.5 % S L O P E LANSCAPEDYARD GARDEN LOADING ENTRANCE #2 LOADINGENTRANCE CURB CUT +192' +192' LOADING ENTRANCE LOADINGENTRANCE #3 LOADING ENTRANCE#1 +228 ' +22 4 ' +21 2 ' TOWER A +204 ' STAIR B - 3 HOME O F F I C E S SITE PLAN N 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0" ATOWER 42'- 0 " M I N 30 ' - 0 " 30'- 0 " 30'-0" 15' - 0 " 15' - 0 " 15'-0" 15'- 0 " 15'-0 " 7.5 % S L O P E SLO P E P E R CIVI L D W G S 8' STAIR B - 3 +228' STAIR B - 3 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23 +204 ' HOME O F F I C E S 25' - 0 " SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEWSITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEWSITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW2 SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW SITE DE9ELOPMENT RE9IEW23 LOWER LEVEL LOADING DOCK:DELIVERIES AND MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUT SIZED FOR (2) 26' BOX TRUCKS ROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY LEVEL 1 LOADING DOCK:DELIVERIES AND MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUT SIZED FOR (2) 26' BOX TRUCKS ROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY MAIN TRASH ROOM:741 SF TRASH ROOM FORSTAGING OF BINS, TO BE MOVED OUTSIDE FOR PICK-UP. ROLL-UP GATE AT ENTRY. MAIL ROOM LOBBY CIRCULATION - DELIVERIES / LOADING / MOVING - TRASH PICK UP - MAIL - RESIDENT (PEDESTRIAN) - RESIDENT / VISITOR (CAR) - VALET A1.00 SITE PL A1.20 CIRCULATION PLA A1.20 CIRCULATION PLA-ACK DEANPRICE -R. C - 20327 103121 RENEWAL DATE S NTATEOFC A L I FORIA AR C HCCL TE D TIINSEE 103125103127 1215202501/23/20260204202 140 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVENEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A2.01 BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH 04/25/202508/20/202508/20/202508/26/2025 SOUTH ELEVATION 10/24/202511/24/202512/10/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/2026141 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVENEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04/25/2025 A2.02 BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST 08/20/202508/26/2025 WE S T E L E V A T I O N 10/24/202511/24/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/2026142 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVENEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04/25/2025 A2.03 BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH 08/20/202508/26/2025 NORTH ELEVATION 10/24/202511/24/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/2026143 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVENEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04/25/2025 A2.04 BUILDING ELEVATION - EAST 08/20/202508/26/2025 EAS T E L E V A T I O N 10/24/202511/24/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 12/15/202501/23/202602/04/2026144 AMENITY TERRACEPOOL AMENITY TERRACE SAN MIGUEL DR PARKING PARKING PARKING / MEP 270' FROM GRADE MAX BLDG HEIGHT LEVEL 2 +20' +172' 270' FROM GRADE MAX BLDG HEIGHT 10 ' - 0 " EXISTINGPARKING LOT ROOF +260' 18 ' - 0 " LEVEL 20 +225' LEVEL 19 +214' LEVEL 18 +203' LEVEL 17 +192' LEVEL 16 +181' LEVEL 15 +170' LEVEL 14 +159' LEVEL 13 +148' LEVEL 12 +137' LEVEL 11 +126' LEVEL 10 +115' LEVEL 9 +104' LEVEL 8 +93' LEVEL 7 +82' LEVEL 6 +71' LEVEL 5 +60' LEVEL 4 +49' LEVEL 21 +236' LEVEL 22 +247' 13' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " LOBBY 20 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " AMENITY 11 ' - 0 " 13' - 0 " PARKING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 10 ' - 0 " AMENITY 16' - 0 " AMENITY LEVEL 3 +36' 11 ' - 0 " 13' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 11 ' - 0 " 20' - 0 " +192' ESTABLISHED GRADE LEVEL 1 +0' ROOF +260' LEVEL 20 +225' LEVEL 19 +214' LEVEL 18 +203' LEVEL 17 +192' LEVEL 16 +181' LEVEL 15 +170' LEVEL 14 +159' LEVEL 13 +148' LEVEL 12 +137' LEVEL 11 +126' LEVEL 10 +115' LEVEL 9 +104' LEVEL 8 +93' LEVEL 7 +82' LEVEL 6 +71' LEVEL 5 +60' LEVEL 4 +49' LEVEL 21 +236' LEVEL 22 +247' RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL +200' 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BUILDING SECTION - A BUILDING SECTION A3.01 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" //////10/24/2025// -ACK DEANPRICE -RC //RENEWAL DATESNTATEO)C A L I )ORIA AR C +C CL TE D TIINSEE //// //01/2/2026// +185' NEWPORT CENTER DR GARDEN PARKINGLOBBY/WAITINGMOTOR COURT LEVEL 2 +20' LEVEL 3 +36' +192' ESTABLISHED GRADELEVEL 1 +0'+192' AMENITY TERRACE AMENITY TERRACE 270' FROM GRADE MAX BLDG HEIGHT LANDSCAPE 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BUILDING SECTION - B BUILDING SECTION A3.02 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0252025082020250826202510/24/20251122025 -A&. DEA13RI&E -R & 20327 103121 RE1E:AL DATE S 1TATEOF& A L I FORIA AR & H&&L TE D TII1SEE 103125103127 1215202501/23/20260202026 16 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 A4.00 RENDERING 04/25/202508/20/202508/26/202510/24/2025 .M . S T E R N A R C H I T E C T S , L L P AERIALGVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 11/24/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 12/15/20251L4,34,1,902/04/2026 147 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 A4.01 RENDERING 04/25/202508/20/202508/26/202510/24/2025 A . M . S T E R N A R C H I T E C T S , L L P VIEWGFROMGNEWPORTGCENTERGDRIVEGANDGANACAPAGDRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 11/24/202512/15/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 1L4,34,1,902/04/2026 148 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 A4.02 RENDERING 04/25/202508/20/202508/26/202510/24/2025 A.M . S T E R N A R C H I T E C T S , L L P MOTORGCOURTGVIEW SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 11/24/202512/15/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 1L4,34,1,902/04/2026 149 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 A4.02 RENDERING 04/25/202508/20/202508/26/202510/24/2025 VIEWGFROMGNEWPORTGCENTERGDRIVEGANDGSANGMIGUELGDRIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A4.03 11/24/202512/15/2025 JACK DEANPRICE, JR.C - 20327 10/31/21RENEWAL DATES NTATEOFC A L I FO RIA AR CHCCLT EDTIINSEE 10/31/2510/31/27 1L4,34,1,902/04/2026 150 N 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A8.01 TRASH CHUTE DETAILS 08/20/2025 6+((7N27(6 5(6,'(N7,$/75$6+7(50,N$7,2N5220 1. TRASH COLLECTION ROOM IS PART O) 2HR )IRERATED TRASH CHUTE SHA)T RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION 12H[W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE O)ALL NONCONCRETE WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL THE CURB AROUNDTHE COMPACTORS/BISORTER OR POWER PAC.S. PERARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL DRAWIN*S.3. 8'0 ROLL UP DOOR AND 3)T E;IT DOOR. PER ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL DRAWIN*S. . ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALL< VENTILATED WITH 1 C)M/)T PER201 CBC. PER ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL DRAWIN*S.5. 2 30 *RAVIT< CHUTE WITH COMPACTORS )OR WASTE REC<CLIN*. PROVIDE 2C< )L COMPACTOR CONTAINERS )OR WASTE REC<CLIN*. CHUTES SHALL TERMINATE AT 5' A)).. PP COMPACTOR POWER PAC.S SHALL BE )LOORMOUNTED. 2 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/0V. 30A DISCONNECTS 0 A)). . MCP CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALLMOUNTED0 A)). MUST ALLOW LOC. DOWN O) CHUTE INTA.ES )ORE;CHAN*IN* CONTAINERS AND WASHIN* CHUTES. RE4UIRES 120V15A DEDICATED SERVICE.8. HB HOT AND COLD HOSE BIB SHALL BE WALLMOUNTED 0 A)). . CHUTE DISCHAR*E DOOR T<PEA, HORI=ONTALL< INSULATED SLIDIN*STEEL DOOR, HELD OPEN B< 15 ) )USIBLE LIN..10. 5HP 3PHASE, 208/230/0V )OR THE POWER PAC.S RE4UIRED. &+87(,N7$.(9(67,%8/(6 /(9(/611. CHUTE INTA.E VESTIBULES SHALL BE 1HR )IRERATED WITH 1HR )IRERATED DOOR 5'0 MIN RE4UIRED PER ADA STANDARDS RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. PROVIDE 2 SEL) CLOSIN* 15[18 BOTTOMHIN*ED, ELECTRICALL< INTERLOC.ED, INTA.E DOORS TO DISPOSETRASH AND REC<CLIN* INTO COMPACTORS PER CBC 13.13.1.POWER TO INTA.E DOORS SUPPLIED B< MCP. SEE DETAIL 1TR2.0. *(N(5$/N27(6 1. AN< DESI*NS OR DESI*N SOLUTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS DRAWIN*OR SPECI)ICATION, WHICH ARE DIRECT OR IMPLIED, INCLUDIN*NARRATIVES, DRAWIN*S, OR DIA*RAMS, ARE HEREB< CLARI)IED ASE;AMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESI*NS OR DESI*NS SUITABLE )OR CONSTRUCTION. 2. OMISSIONS )ROM DRAWIN*S OR SPECI)ICATIONS, OR THEINACCURATE DESCRIPTION O) DETAILS O) WOR., WHICH AREMANI)ESTL< NECESSAR< TO CARR< OUT THE INTENT O) THEDRAWIN*S AND SPECI)ICATIONS, OR WHICH ARE CUSTOMARIL<PER)ORMED, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR )ROMPER)ORMIN* SUCH OMITTED OR INACCURATEL< DESCRIBED DETAILS O) THE WOR.. WOR. SHALL BE PER)ORMED AS I) )ULL< AND CORRECTL< SET )ORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWIN*SAND SPECI)ICATIONS.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL )IELD VERI)< ALL DIMENSIONS ANDCONDITIONS PRIOR TO START O) CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECTSHALL BE NOTI)IED IMMEDIATEL< O) ALL E;ISTIN* )IELD CONDITIONS AND AN< DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. 0$62N%5$5('028N75(48,5('7<3 :$7(5/,N()25:$6+'2:N5,6(5,)N273529,'('$%29(+,*+(67,N7$.(7%'%<3/80%,N* 635,N./(55,6(5 7%'%<),5(635,N./(5 '(6,*N(5 &2N'8,7)25$,5 &2035(6625 +2/(67<3 (0772:$6+'2:N 62/(N2,'$%29(+,*+(67 ,N7$.(237,2N$/ (07)25/2:92/7$*(32:(5 &+0(7$/678'&+ 86*6+$)7:$//)5$0,N*6<67(02&7<3%<27+(5 -58NN(5-67587-5 86*6+$)7:$//)5$0,N*6<67(0&+$NN(/$7723$N'%27720%<27+(5 7+,&.*<3680/,N(53$N(/ 8/7<3(6/;70%<27+(5 $&2867,&$/,N68/$7,2N5()(572$&2867,&$/5(3257)25/2&$7,2N50,N%$77 ,N68/$7,2N3(563(&,),&$7,2N6$7&2N',7,2N('$5($6%<27+(5 /$<(567<3(;*:%25,5(5$7('02/'$N'02,6785(5(6,67$N7*<3%'#%$7+6 .,7&+(N6$N''(N$5025#78%/2&$7,2N6%<27+(5 86*6+$)7:$//)5$0,N* 6<67(0(678'(67<3$7($&+6,'(2):$//%<27+(5 DO NOT INSTALL THIS )RONT PORTION O)THE WALL UNTILA)TER CHUTES ARE INSTALLED. 0,N,080&+87( 6(3$5$7,2N<285 &+87(6+$)70$<9$5< :$67(5(&<&/,N* 757<3 *$/9$N($/&+87( 75$6+5220/(9(/ /(9(/ 6(&7,2N$$&+ N2&2N7$&7%7:N*<3%2$5')5$0,N* &+87(6($/*$3:)/(;,%/($&2867,&5$7('),5(&$8/.,N*$73(N(75$7,2N7+528*+:$// 6+$)7$//$528N' ),5(5$7('$&2867,&)/(;,%/(6($/$N7 7$3(,N7(5,252)&+87(6+$)77235(9(N72'25286$,5/($.6 233+$N' 7<35(6,'(N7,$//(9(/ &2N&6/$%:+(5(2&&85666' &/ &+87(,N7$.('2250$;23(N,N*)520)2:$//6(('(7$,/ $)/2256833257)5$0(6((3/$N +5),5(5$7(':$//3(56&+('8/(6$' +5),5(5$7(':$//3(56&+('8/(6$' NOTE FOR ALL TYPICAL TRASH ROOMS: TRASH ROOMS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE SEPARATION OFORGANICS, RECYCLABLES, AND LANDFILL WASTE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL MUNICIPAL AND/OR STATE WASTE DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS.DEDICATED CONTAINERS FOR ORGANIC WASTE WILL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED FOR TENANT WASTE. &+87(6:;648$5()/22523(N,N*67<3 6(/)&/26,N* [%+,N7$.('2253(5&%& W R 3FTEXIT DOOR (50$,'6/,0-,0&20326772%( (''$,/<,N72+&2//(&7,2N 0&203267$,N(5WNER) CHUTE SHAFT AT INTAKE SECTIONPLAN 3'-0" WIDEDOOR NOTE: SHEET FOR REFERNCE ONLY 10/24/2025 -$&.'($N35,&(-5 & 5(N(:$/'$7(6 N7 $7(2)& $ / , )25,$ $5 & +&&/7( ' 7,,N6(( 01/2/2026 02/04/2026 152 01/23/202602/04/2026 139153 01/23/202602/04/2026 154 01/23/202602/04/2026 141155 01/23/202602/04/2026 156 01/23/202602/04/2026 157 NEW P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E SA N M I G U E L AN A C A P A D R I V E SHEET INDEX ABBREVIATIONS & LEGEND BASIS OF BEARINGS CIVIL ENGINEER SITE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FLOOD ZONE VICINITY MAP OWNER/DEVELOPER SITE 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 TITLE SHEET C-00 EARTHWORK 158 NEWPO R T MIG U E L NAP NAP NAP NAP ANA C A P A DRIVECENTER SA N DRIV E 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-01 LEGEND 159 FF=192.00 AC-03 BC-0 3 CC-03 PODIUM LEVEL 2 = 212.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFFSUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL = 172.00 GFF PODIUM LEVEL 3 = 228.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 2 = 212.00 GFFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFF NEWPO R T MIG U E L ANA C A P A DRIVECENTER SA N DRIV E DC-0 3 EC-03 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C-02160 ASECTIONC-03 BSECTIONC-03 CSECTIONC-03 DSECTIONC-03 ESECTIONC-03 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 SECTIONS C-03161 NEWPO R T MIG U E L NAP NAP NAP NAP ANA C A P A DRIVECENTER SA N DRIV E 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C-04 LEGEND 162 NEWPO R T MIG U E L ANA C A P A DRIVECENTER SA N DRIV E 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 AVERAGE GRADE PLANE C-05163 NAP LOT 1 NEW P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E SA N M I G U E L NAP NAP PODIUM LEVEL 3 = 228.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 2 = 212.00 GFFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFF AN A C A P A D R I V E PODIUM LEVEL 2 = 212.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFFSUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL = 172.00 GFF fuscoe.com 949.474.196015535 Sand Canyon Ave Irvine, California 92618 RF U L L C I R C L E T H I N K I N G E N G I N E E R I N G FUSCOE Suite 100 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19407FOR LOT MERGER AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SITE ADDRESS CIVIL ENGINEER LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS FLOOD ZONE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19407IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA(FOR LOT MERGER AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES) GENERAL NOTES UTILITY NOTES VICINITY MAP SITE EXISTING EASEMENTSABBREVIATIONS OWNER/SUB-DIVIDER LEGEND 164 16' X 75 ' FDC STA G I N G 10' X 50' F I R E COMMAN D S T A G I N G 16' X 7 5 ' LADD E R S T A G I N G 1 6 ' X 7 5 ' L A D D E R S T A G I N G 16' X 7 5 ' LADD E R S T A G I N G PAR K I N G G A R A G E ENT R Y A T L E V E L 1 LOAD I N G E N T R Y AT LE V E L 1 E X I S T I N G S A N M I G U E L D R I V E EXIS T I N G P A R K I N G L O T EXIS T I N G P A R K I N G L O T PARKING GARAGEAT LEVEL 1 PARKING GARAGEAT LEVELS 1 & 2 LOBBY PARKING GARAGEAT LEVEL 1 3.5% R O A D G R A D E A TOWER BELEVATOR LOBBY 58' 53' AMENITY AREAAT LEVEL 2 AMENITY AREAAT LEVEL 2 AMENITY AREAAT LEVEL 3 PROJECTBOUNDARY PROJECTBOUNDARY PROJECTBOUNDARY WALK-IN ACCESS GATE ATGRADE WITH KNOX BOX LIMITS OF TOWER'A' ABOVE EXIST I N G N E W P O R T CENT E R D R I V E 46 ' 10' BUILDING ENTRYTO LOWER LEVEL BUILDING ENTRYTO GROUND LEVEL BUILDING ENTRYTO SECOND LEVEL 26' END OF FIREACCESS SIGN 14 9 ' 117' HO S E P U L L EXTE N S I O N EXISTING PUBLIC FIREHYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING DDC AND FDCFOR 200 NEWPORTCENTER DRIVE EXISTING 200 NEWPORTCENTER DRIVENOT A PART EXISTING 202 NEWPORTCENTER DRIVENOT A PART 8' 32' 23' 34' 44' TOWER AELEVATOR LOBBY STAIR ACCESSAT GRADE VEHI C U L A R S E R V I C E / GAR A G E E N T R Y ENT R Y A T L E V E L 1 VEHICULAR SERVICE /GARAGE ENTRY AT LEVEL 1 117' H O S E P U L L EXTE N S I O N PROJECTBOUNDARY VEHICULAR SERVICE / GARAGEENTRY LOWER LEVEL 16' X 7 5 ' LADD E R S T A G I N G 39 ' EXTERIOR ACCESS PROVIDEDINTO STAIRS TO PODIUM LEVEL SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP PARKING GARAGEAT LEVELS 1 & 2 61' 24' EGRESS FROMSTAIR B-1 LIMITS OF TOWER'B' ABOVE FIRE COMMANDCENTER AMENITYAREAAT LEVEL 3 20' GARDEN OPENTO BELOW 8' STAIR ACCESS AT3RD LEVEL PODIUM STAIR ACCESS AT2RD LEVEL PODIUM STAIR ACCESS BETWEENPODIUM LEVELS R4 0 ' M I N . PORTECOCHERE SAN MIGUEL DR PARKING AMENITY PARKING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL +203' 270' FROM GRADE MAX BLDG HEIGHT ROOF +260' LEVEL 20 +225' LEVEL 19 +214' LEVEL 18 +203' LEVEL 17 +192' LEVEL 16 +181' LEVEL 15 +170' LEVEL 14 +159' LEVEL 13 +148' LEVEL 12 +137' LEVEL 11 +126' LEVEL 10 +115' LEVEL 9 +104' LEVEL 8 +93' LEVEL 7 +82' LEVEL 6 +71' LEVEL 5 +60' LEVEL 4 +49' LEVEL 21 +236' LEVEL 22 +247' 10'- 0 " 18' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 13' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11'- 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 0 " 11'- 0 " 11' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 11' - 0 " 7'-9" 5 2 ° 53' 100' AVO C A D O A V E . CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AN A C A P A D R I V E NEWPORT C E N T E R D R I V E SA N M I G U E L D R I V E 28506 AIROSO STREETRANCHO MISSION VIEJO, CA 92679OFFICE: (949) 240-5911 PREPARED BY: A 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA F0.01 01/08/2025 SHEET INDEX PRELIMINARY FIRE ACCESS LAYOUT 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 inch = ft. 30'60' 30 SECTION A SCALE: 1" = 20' LEGEND INDICATED FIRE DEPARTMENT STAGING AREA EXISTING PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH BLUEMARKER. INDICATES STAIR LOCATIONS INDICATES ELEVATOR LOCATIONS INDICATES INTERIOR PORTIONS OF PROPOSEDBUILDING AT LEVEL 1 INDICATES PARKING GARAGE AT LEVEL 1 INDICATES PORTE COCHERE INDICATES BUILDING LOBBY ENTRY AT GRADE INDICATES FIRE COMMAND STAGING AREA INDICATES AERIAL TRUCK LADDER STAGINGLOCATIONS, TWO (2) FOR EACH TOWER PROPOSED FIRE ACCESS ROADWAY MEETINGNBFD WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF 72,000LBS PROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 150' HOSE PULL REACH FROM FIREACCESS DRIVES ACCESS PATH BEYOND 150' HOSE PULL INDICATES SECTION LOCATIONS INDICATES LIMITS OF THE TOWERS ABOVE OFF-SITE FIRE DEPARTMENT DRIVABLE ACCESS PROPOSED ENTRY THAT IS NOT A PART OFFIRE ACCESS, BUT SHALL MEET NBFDWEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF 72,000LBS INDICATES FIRE DEPARTMENT PATH OF TRAVEL WITHA 20' INSIDE TURNING RADII AND 40' OUTSIDE RADII NOT TO SCALE INDICATES FIRE DEPARTMENT DRIVABLE PATHOF TRAVEL THROUGH EXISTING PARKING LOTS PROPOSED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT WITH BLUEMARKER. PROPOSED DEDICATED FIRE ACCESS LANES MEETINGNBFD WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF 72,000LBS INDICATES PROPOSED 4" MOUNTABLE CURBMEETING NBFD WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED WALKABLE FIRE FIGHTER PATH OFTRAVEL AT GRADE. FINAL DESIGN SHALL BEPROVIDED AS PART OF A FUTURE FIRE MASTERPLAN AS A DEFERRED SUBMITTALPROPOSED PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT WITH BLUEMARKER. SP PROPOSED WET STANDPIPES PROVIDED ON 2ND AND3RD LEVEL PODIUM DECKS. FINAL DESIGN ANDLOCATIONS AS PART OF A DEFERRED SUBMITTALWITH STANDPIPES LOCATED NO MORE THAN 200'APART MEASURED ALONG A WALKABLE PATH 01/23/202602/0/2026 165 INT E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K P A G E 166 From: Sent: To: Subject: Nick Geoghegan <nicholasgeoghegan@gmail.com> March 02, 2026 7:13 PM Planning Commission Protect Big Newport! Commissioners, I am devastated to see the proposed demolition of the Big Newport cinema. I have been going to this theater my whole life, and have come to see it as a landmark of Newport Beach history. This is a vital community space, open to and beloved by the public. The last thing we need is 150 more expensive private condos, let alone directly at the entrance to an already congested mall. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) I have attached an aerial photo of Fashion Island from 1970. Big Newport has stood proudly as a local landmark for almost 60 years. This is one of the oldest commercial buildings in the area still standing! We ought to preserve places like these before we lose them all. Please reject any plans to demolish it, and certainly not just for some apartments. Nicholas Geoghegan Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100 | Irvine, CA 92614 | P 949.476.2242 | F 949.476.0443 | www.ocbc.org City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 March 3, 2026 Dear Chairman Harris and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission, On behalf of the Orange County Business Council (OCBC), I write in strong support of Related California’s proposed residential development at 300 Newport Center Drive. Orange County’s long-term economic competitiveness depends on its ability to produce housing at all income levels. Employers across industries consistently cite housing affordability and availability as primary challenges in attracting and retaining talent. Addressing this imbalance is essential to sustaining job growth, investment and workforce stability in the nation’s sixth largest economy. The proposal at 300 Newport Center Drive represents the type of strategic infill development that aligns with both local planning objectives and state housing requirements. Located within Newport Center a highly centralized, mixed-use district with established office, retail, dining and recreational amenities, this 4.2-acre site is well positioned to accommodate residential density in a manner that leverages existing infrastructure and reduces sprawl. Importantly, this site was identified in the City’s Amended General Plan as an “opportunity” location to support compliance with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations. Advancing this project demonstrates the City’s commitment to meeting its housing targets through thoughtful land use planning rather than reactive measures. In addition to delivering needed housing supply, the project will generate significant community benefits, including nearly $14 million in impact fees to support public safety facilities, water and sewer infrastructure and parks and open space improvements. This is a meaningful reinvestment into the community while advancing broader housing goals. Related California has a long-standing track record of delivering complex mixed-use and mixed-income communities throughout the state, including transformative projects in Orange County that strengthen the local tax base and enhance quality of life. For these reasons, OCBC respectfully urges the Planning Commission to determine that the project, as proposed, is consistent with the City’s adopted plans, zoning regulations and environmental policies, and to advance this important housing opportunity. Orange County’s economic vitality depends on predictable, forward-looking land use decisions that support both housing production and business competitiveness. This project advances both objectives. Sincerely, Jeffrey Ball President & Chief Executive Officer Orange County Business Council Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Sent: To: Subject: Maurice Mandel II <mmandel2@aol.com> March 03, 2026 10:17 PM Planning Commission Regal Towers and NBPD Dear Council members and Michelle Barto in particular: As a resident of Newport since the 1970's, I have watched a lot of development without comment but the replacement of the Regal Cinemas with high density luxury towers is really obscene. The Planning commission should nix this proposal and reserve this for an entertainment space, which is needed in the Center. The negative effect on traffic in the area, with many elderly drivers (like myself) using the medical buildings across the street poses new risks to life and safety. As for relocating the NBPD to the people's park between civic center and MacArthur, I am completely against this as a boondoggle. $160million? It did not cost that to build Fashion Island. I was there. The right thing to do is relocate the fire station and expand NBPD into that lot. Country folk have this old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Too bad city council's fail to comprehend this wisdom, or follow it. $160million from a bedroom community? Even the most expensive bedrooms. The relocation of the NBPD will create huge traffic problems and access problems at MacArthur. The current site is well located for vehicles to get out via Jamboree in all directions, or via San Miguel to the hills, or via 73 to the Coast. I was in the library on Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Monday and saw many people walking through that garden. Have visited it and its many varied and iconic sculptures over the years with my daughter, who is only 17 now. We recall the matchstick, and the big rabbit, swirling butterflies and much more. I was always a lovely walk and we need that kind of open space. Plus, if you put in the Regal towers (to make a developer into a new billionaire) they would like to have a nice park to access by foot, it is only a block away. These two things are tied together, and neither are good for the people of Newport. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation on this matter. Counsel: Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6, we request that all represented parties serve documents electronically. Sincerely, MMII Maurice Mandel II PO Box 411 Newport Beach, CA 92662 USA 1949-874-2002 mobile Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Sent: To: Subject: mariah <mariahpaez@hotmail.com> March 04, 2026 7:56 AM Planning Commission Luxury Tower Proposal -Old Movie Site [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Why would this movie site not be the perfect spot for the new PD site? Can we buy it? It’s a highly visible site ; PD at it would set a strong message to everyone. I remember that NB mayor Williams O’Neill, I believe it is, said that he was attending all the court hearings to represent New Zealand tourist Patricia McKay’s family. This would be an excellent next step to cement the values and reputation of the city. Please slow these plans down so we can properly review them the RIGHT way and make sure that it will marry well with our beautiful Newport Beach community. It’s not just about space or availability. It’s about the tone that we are trying to create and our legacy. There isn’t a lot of space here, as well, and the priority should be confirming that all rules are being followed in order to maintain the openness and views. Environmental impact studies must be implemented without bias and offered to the community for review. There is no rush for anyone but the developers and their lenders, so Let’s do this right. We can turn any negative into a positive, at least at this point. Thank you Mariah Paez (714)414-7788 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Elizabeth Hansburg P4H <elizabeth@peopleforhousing.org> Sent: March 04, 2026 12:10 PM To: Westmoreland, Liz <LWestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Support Letter -- Condos @ 300 Newport Center Dr. Dear Ms. Westmoreland, Please find attached our support letter for the addition of new condos at 300 Newport Center Drive. We support reusing this previously developed land as a way to add additional housing stock, which is essential to maintaining the community's vitality. Could you please relay this letter to the Planning Commission? Thank you very much, -- Elizabeth Hansburg Co-Founder & Director 714-872-1418 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 March 4, 2026 RE: Support for new condos by Related at 300 Newport Center Drive Dear Chairman Harris and Planning Commission Members, People for Housing OC was founded in 2017 with a mission to advocate for more home building in Orange County to end the chronic housing shortage. Housing is an essential component of every community and having a vibrant community depends upon having a sufficient housing supply. Every new housing unit added to a community’s housing inventory helps to make room for current and future residents, to expand our local economy, and maintain a jobs-housing balance. Our advocacy is for all types of housing at all income levels in our county. Newport Beach, like cities across the County, is required to comply with the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations to build several thousand more units within the city by 2030. Related California’s proposed residential project at 300 Newport Center Drive represents the type of strategic infill development that aligns with both local planning objectives and state housing requirements. This proposal would deliver up to 150 new condominiums in two towers on a 4.2-acre site in an established mixed-use district in the heart of Newport Beach, where office, retail, hospitality and other multi-family residential already exists and thrives. To achieve the state’s critical housing goals, cities need to think differently and more imaginatively to attract and build projects that increasingly are denser and more vertical and produce more housing on smaller footprints. This is a departure from the tract home developments that for fifty 1 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) years were the standard housing option to meet demand from a rapidly expanding workforce to relocate and settle in Orange County. Related California is one of the largest developers of mixed-use, mixed-income and affordable housing in the state. They have a long-standing track record of delivering complex projects in urban centers, including transformative projects in Orange County that strengthen the local tax base and enhance quality of life. In addition to delivering needed housing, 300 Newport Center Drive will generate significant community benefits, including nearly $14 million in impact and parkland fees to support public safety facilities, water and sewer infrastructure and parks and open space improvements citywide. This is the type of project that needs to move forward because it is both a meaningful reinvestment into the community and its advances broader housing goals. I urge you to determine that the project, as proposed, is consistent with the City’s adopted plans, zoning regulations and environmental policies. Thank you for your consideration, Elizabeth Hansburg Cofounder & Director Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org 2 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Natalie Rose <rosenatalie01@yahoo.com> Sent: March 04, 2026 4:22 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Save Big Edwards!!! Good afternoon, I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the possibility of Big Edwards being replaced with luxury towers. I grew up going to this theater, and it truly feels like a classic Newport staple. Even though I now live in Los Angeles and have an AMC A-List membership because there are so many locations there, I still make a point to see movies at Big Edwards whenever I come home. It’s nostalgic and deeply familiar to me. So many places that felt like home during my childhood have already been replaced with something “nicer,” and it would genuinely break my heart to see this theater go too. Big Edwards represents more than just a movie theater, it’s part of the community and so many people’s memories. Thank you for your time and consideration, Natalie Rose Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Anne Ima <anneima@yahoo.com> Sent: March 04, 2026 4:42 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: No More Luxury Condos/Save Big Newport [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. To Planning Commission: Big Newport Theater is an iconic part of our city and has been for decades. Generations have gone to this theater for so long. Our city does not need more luxury condos, it needs affordable housing....but even affordable housing should not be where Big Newport is. Please reconsider. Big Newport is a part of the City of Newport's history...it is so special and important to so many. It is also a critical and vibrant participant in the Newport Beach Film Festival. It would be a terrible shame if it went away. Thank you for your consideration. Anne Ima, Newport Beach Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) March 5, 2026, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE CONDOMINIUMS (PA2025-0102) This strikes me as the kind of application for a major change to the previously-designated land use for which the public, in normal times, would, quite reasonably, have expected a need for clear and deliberate action, not just by the Planning Commission, but by the City Council, including certification of an EIR, and most likely a Greenlight vote (because, prior to the implementation of the the 6th Cycle Housing Element, essentially everything the General Plan allowed in Newport Center had already been built). The staff report acknowledges the subject parcels are not identified as housing opportunity sites in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. To the best of my knowledge they are still not designated for housing in the General Plan (see separate comment on agenda Item 5), although the Land Use Element contains a vague policy that housing can be added to additional sites through zoning. Three of the four parcels appear to have been added, without any direction from the Council, to the Housing Element Implementation EIR, few may have noticed when the Council added “housing overlays” to the zoning for a great many properties in 2024, all four parcels were included (the public being focused on whether they would have a voice in the larger action through a Greenlight vote). According to the City’s case log, the preliminary application for this project followed promptly on November 4, 2024. Then last year, the Council voted to increase the height limit from 32 feet to 270 feet, but the vote was hidden among increases for many other properties, supposedly necessary to make the state-required development possible. But my understanding is that what the City needs to meet its state mandated quotas is not more luxury housing, but rather affordable, workforce housing. As I understand it, a proposal for affordable housing could have obtained a waiver to increase the height. Which made granting the height increase counterproductive to meeting the goal: with the pre-approved increase there was no longer any incentive to build affordable, workforce units. Through these little noticed, largely hidden actions, the Council has made it possible for the Planning Commission to approve, and may even now require it to approve, this application without the Council itself, save on appeal, having to consider the merits of the application and its impacts on the community, separately, if ever. I think this is wrong. As to the lack of any specific consideration of the environmental impacts of increasing the height limit for these properties form 32 to 2700 feet, the City might want to consider the recently-published California Appeals Court opinion in SAVE OUR ACCESS v. City of San Diego, 115 Cal. App. 5th, 388. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Craig Ima <craigima@yahoo.com> Sent: March 04, 2026 5:06 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Big Newport [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Dear Planning Commission, I’d like to state my concern about the Big Newport Theatre and surrounding area being replaced by condos. Our city needs to maintain its charm and not develop into a sterile luxury paradise that has lost a lot of its character. I oppose the plan to build these high rises. I understand that investors want to make money but perhaps there are some alternatives in upgrading the space and keeping some of the amenities. Thank you, Craig Ima Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Community Development Department CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner Date: March 4, 2026 Re: Item No. 2 – 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Supplemental Attachment Attached to this memo are revisions to the draft conditions of approval contained within Exhibit “E” (Conditions of Approval) of Attachment No. PC1 (Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions) of the Staff Report. Additionally, the Applicant has provided revised Civil Sheets to address minor corrections related to existing easements. These sheets would amend Attachment No. PC4 (Plans) of the Staff Report and are attached to this memo. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) EXHIBIT “E” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1.The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, landscape plan, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). Minor changes to the approved development may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project). By way of example, a change to the floor plans or square footage ranges would be considered minor changes provided the Project was within the allowed height limit, and in compliance with the parking, Objective Design Standards, and density range under the Housing Opportunity (HO) Overlay Zoning District. 2.Any substantial modification to the approved Site Development Review plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review application or the processing of a new application. 3.The Project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City of Newport Beach (“City”) and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval 4.The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. A material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be caused the revocation of this approval. 5.The use of the home office condominiums shall be subject to the following restrictions: a.Sale and ownership shall only be limited to those persons who own a condominium unit within the building. b.The home offices shall not be subleased to another user. c.Customers and clients shall not visit the home offices without a prior appointment. Any customers or clients of the home offices shall park on-site within one of the visitor parking spaces. d.No staff shall be permitted for the home offices unless additional parking is provided. e.The HOA shall be responsible for monitoring use of the home offices and shall restrict use of the home offices if parking is determined to be inadequate to accommodate the needs of the home office uses in the future.. The use of the home offices shall remain consistent with the assumptions identified in the Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Parking Study prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. dated January 29, 2026. f.The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property shall include the aforementioned restrictions. Prior to permit issuancethe issuance of Temporarya Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall provide proof that this condition has been incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Property. 6.The Applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the FAA or ALUC, as applicable. The City’s approval of the Project does not relieve the Applicant of compliance with other State or Federal regulations. 7.Use of the future retail/café space shall be subject to the requirements of NBMC Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements). Future conversion of the retail/café space to a residential amenity , lobby, or additional home office would be substantially conforming to this approval. 8.A portion of the 12 surplus parking spaces for residential use shall be made available for use by staff of the proposed retail/café use. Conversion of the retail/café space to another use shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department Director for compliance with this condition. This condition may be waived if the proposed use of the retail/café space is modified and results in a lower parking demand. 9.All staff of the Project (e.g. valet, maintenance, concierge, etc.) shall park on- site. 10.This Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit shall expire and become void unless exercised within seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2026-## -004 to coincide with the expiration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407 as provided in Condition No. 1220. 11.A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “E” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans before issuance of the building permits. 12.The proposed residential component of the development shall consist of 150 condominium units. The number of condominium units may be reduced by the Applicant provided the total number of units meets the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement under the HO Overlay Zoning District. Future reduction of units below 150 dwelling units, but within the 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre density requirement, would be substantially conforming to this approval. 13.The maximum height of the residential structures shall be 270 feet as measured from the established grade. No building or any portion of structure, architectural feature or Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) mechanical equipment shall exceed 270 feet. Future reduction of building height below 270 feet would be substantially conforming to this approval. 14. The on-site residential amenities such as the outdoor decks and pools; and the publicly accessible open space areas as illustrated on the approved plans shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the Project. The exact mix of amenities may be modified from the original approved plans subject to the approval by the Community Development Director. The Project shall maintain at least 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit on the Property as required by the HO-4 subarea. The Project shall also maintain at least 5,445 square-feet of publicly accessible open space as labeled on the approved plans. The square footage of on-site resident-serving amenities shall not be reduced so that the development no longer provides 75 square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. 15. The residential structure shall be attenuated to provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less pursuant to Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) of the NBMC. Use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double paned windows, advanced insulation systems, or other noise mitigation measures, as deemed appropriate by the City shall be incorporated in the design of the new residential structure to provide adequate noise attenuation. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable school fees for the Project. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to NBMC Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) for the Project. 18. The Applicant shall provide an in-lieu park dedication fee pursuant to Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedication and Fees), as required for park and recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of this VTTM. Therefore, the Project will be subject to an in-lieu park fee of $59,575 per unit. 1.19. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the developer shall pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIFs) in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. 2.20. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19407 shall expire seven years from the date of approval of Resolution No. PC2026-003. Pursuant to Section 19.16.010(A) (Expiration of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, an approved tentative tract map expires 24 months after the date of its approval or conditional approval. Under Section 19.16.020(A) (Extension of Tentative Maps (California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 66463.5)) of the NBMC, the subdivider shall have the right to request an extension of the map for up to five years. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 3.21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought-tolerant planting and water-efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 4.22. The Project shall include landscaping around the perimeter of the Property to adequately screen drive aisles, parking areas, and create a visual buffer between the public right-of-way and the Project. These plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 5.23. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained by the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 6.24. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall require that garages be used for vehicles and shall prohibit storage of personal items that would otherwise impede parking of vehicles within the required garage spaces. The CC&Rs shall prohibit residents from parking in guest or staff parking spaces within the development. The HOA shall enforce this condition. 7.25. Prior to issuance of final building permits, the Applicant shall record a deed notification with the County Recorder’s Office, approved as to form by the Office of the City Attorney, consistent with NBMC Section 20.48.130.I (Deed Notification). The Deed Notification shall state that residential units are located in a mixed-use project or in a mixed-use zoning district and that an owner may be subject to impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring on the project or zoning district (e.g. noise, late night hours, live entertainment, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.). The deed notification language contained in this condition shall be copied into the CC&R’s for the project. 8.26. Prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare a written disclosure statement. The written disclosure statement shall be provided to owners and tenants prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in the proposed mixed- use development consistent with Section 20.48.130.H (Notification to Owners and Tenants) of the Municipal Code. 9.27. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 10.28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are “1” or less at all property lines. 11.29. Prior to the issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. 12.30. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control), under Sections 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) and 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards), and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 13.31. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday. 14.32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. Upon approval of the plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. Unless approved by the Public Works Director, all staging, material storage, and deliveries shall be located entirely on-site.All staging, material storage, and deliveries shall be located entirely on-site. Construction parking shall not be permitted within the public right-of-way. 15.33. The exterior of the development shall be always maintained free of litter and graffiti. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris, and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 16.34. All trash bins shall be stored within the building and screened from the view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash receptacles are maintained to control odors.. This may include the provision of periodic steam cleaning of the trash bin/receptacles, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash bins shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 17.35. Trash receptacles for patrons of the cafe shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right-of-way. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 18.36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 19.37. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.42 (Signs) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 19.38. This Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the Property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 20.39. Any substantial change (as determined by the Community Development Department Director) in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans for the nonresidential component of the project, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or the processing of a new Use Permit. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 21. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) of the NBMC and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. 22.40. Deliveries and refuse collection for the nonresidential uses shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development, and may require an amendment to this Use Permit. 23.41. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. 24.42. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on-site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 25.43. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums including, but not limited to, Major Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (PA2025-0102). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Building Division 26.44. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-adopted version of the California Building Code based on the date of the building permit application. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 27.45. The applicant shall employ the following best available control measures (“BACMs”) to reduce construction-related air quality impacts: Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off-Site Impacts • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods to the extent feasible. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Fill Placement • The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. • Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve a 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 28.46. If required by the Building Division, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project’s impact on water quality. 29.47. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 30.48. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long- term post-construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 31.49. Site specific seismic parameters shall be reviewed prior to permit issuance. 32.50. Exterior wall and opening protection shall comply with chapter 705 of the California Building Code. 33.51. Smoke control system for High Rise Building shall comply with code requirements. Plans shall provide vestibule dimension and minimum dimensions shall comply with 909.20 of California Building Code. Plans shall include rational analysis for the smoke control system. 34.52. Exit discharge shall comply with chapter 1028 of California Building Code. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 35.53. Two exits are required for common space that has more than 49 occupant load. 36.54. Exit discharge shall comply with 1028 of California Building Code. 37.55. Provide barrier/gate at interior exit stairs to indicate exit discharge level. The barrier/gate shall have its own landing. 38.56. High rise building shall comply with section 403 of the California Building Code. 39.57. Elevator hoistway enclosure and lobby shall comply with Chapter 30 of California Building Code. 40.58. Performance based structural design requires a peer review. 41.59. OC Health approval is required for public pool. 42.60. Accessible path of travel is required from the public right of way and parking. 43.61. Residential and common areas serving the residents and guest shall comply with chapter 11A of California Building Code. Commercial spaces, leasing office or any space where public will be served shall comply with 11B of California Building Code. Provide table for required accessible parking. 44.62. Electrical Vehicle shall Comply with Residential and Non-residential portion of Cal Green Code. Provide table for required accessible EV charging. Note that accessible EV and regular accessible parking shall be counted separately. 45.63. Separate circulation path to vehicular way per Section 11B-250.1. Show required detectable warnings and curb ramps. Detectable warning cannot be on access aisle, door maneuvering clearances and vehicular way. Public Works Department 46.64. A Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction. The map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7- 9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City’s CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 47.65. Prior to the recordation of the tract map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 pf the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub Article 18. Monuments (one-inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 48.66. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council consistent with the Subdivision Code Section 19.36.010. 49.67. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100 percent of the estimated improvement costs for the improvements in the public right of way and public facilities, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Director, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements, street improvements, monumentation, sidewalks, striping, signage, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain systems, water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation within the public right of way, common open spaces areas accessible by the public, fire access and off-site improvements required as part of the project. 50.68. A Warranty Bond for a minimum of ten percent of the engineer’s cost estimate (final percentage to be determined by the Public Works Director) to be released 1-year after the improvements have been completed and accepted. 51.69. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 52.70. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 53.71. A final parking management and valet plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer prior to building permit issuance. Tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to the same unit or both spaces shall be valet parked. 54.72. Parking layout and vehicular ramps shall comply with the City Parking Lot Standard 805. Dead-end drive aisle shall provide adequate turnaround area. Design of the turnaround area and final parking layout shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 55.73. The applicant shall reconstruct all damaged/broken curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Road frontages per City Standards. 56.74. The proposed new driveway along the Newport Center Drive frontage shall be reconstructed per City standard. 57.75. All deliveries and move-ins/move-out shall be accommodated on-site and prohibited from parking or stopping within the public right of way. 58.76. The motor court area shall have a minimum 42-foot wide radius and parking or staging of vehicles is not permitted within the motor court area. 59.77. Driveways and loading areas shall provide adequate sight distance according to the City standard and Code requirements. 60.78. The on-site sewer and water system shall be privately owned and maintained. Commercial uses shall have separate water and sewer services. Final design of the water and sewer services is subject to further review by the Public Works and Utilities Departments during plan check. 61.79. The Project storm drain system shall be privately owned and maintained. Final hydrology and hydraulic report shall be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance. Any required improvements to downstream City infrastructure to accommodate the proposed project shall be designed and constructed by the proposed project. Final design of the storm drain improvements within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Fire Department 62.80. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area (903.2.8 Group R). 63.81. Fire alarm systems and smoke alarms shall be installed in Group R-2 and R-2.1 occupancies as required in Sections 907.2.9.1 through 907.2.10.2.1.1. Group R-2.2 shall be equipped throughout with an automatic fire alarm system and shall have a manual fire alarm pull station at the 24-hour staff watch office (907.2.9 Group R-2, R-2.1 and R-2.2). 64.82. In Group R-2 occupancies required by Section 907 to have a fire alarm system, each story that contains dwelling units and sleeping units shall be provided with the future capability to support visible alarm notification appliances in accordance with NFPA 72. Such capability shall accommodate wired or wireless equipment(907.5.2.3.3). Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 65.83. In other than Group R-3 and R-3.1 occupancies, Class III standpipe systems shall be installed throughout at each floor where any of the following occur (905.3.1): • Buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. • Buildings that are four or more stories in height. • Buildings where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. • Buildings that are two or more stories below the highest level of fire department vehicle access. 66.84. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility (503.1.1). 67.85. Fire department access roads shall comply with Newport Beach Fire Guidelines C.01, C.02, and D.08. 68.86. Any fire department access roads that exceed 150 feet will require an approved turn around for fire apparatus. 69.87. Addressing shall meet the requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code 9.04.170. 70.88. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. New buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based on the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems utilized by the jurisdiction, measured at the exterior of the building (503.1.1). This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. See Newport Beach Fire Guideline D.05. 71.89. Emergency responder radio coverage systems. Standby power shall be provided for emergency responder radio coverage systems as required in Section 510.4.2.3. The standby power supply shall be capable of operating the emergency responder radio coverage system for a duration of not less than 24 hours (203.2.3). 72.90. A two-way communication system complying with Sections 1009.8.1 and 1009.8.2 shall be provided at the landing serving each elevator or bank of elevators on each accessible floor that is one or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge (1009.8 Two-way communication). Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 73.91. Directions for the use of the two-way communication system, instructions for summoning assistance via the two-way communication system and written identification of the location shall be posted adjacent to the two-way communication system (1009.8.2 Directions). Signage shall comply with Chapter 11A, Section 1143A of the California Building Code requirements for visual characters. 74.92. Directional signage complying with Chapter 11B, Section 11B-703.5, indicating the location of all other means of egress and which of those are accessible means of egress shall be provided at the following (1009.10 Directional signage): • At exits serving a required accessible space but not providing an approved accessible means of egress. • At elevator landings. • Within areas of refuge. 75.93. Buildings will require an emergency generator. 76.94. Standby power shall be provided for elevators and platform lifts as required in Sections 606.2, 1009.4.1, and 1009.5 (1203.2.2 Elevators and platform lifts). 77.95. Emergency power shall be provided for exit signs as required in Section 1013.6.3. The system shall be capable of powering the required load for a duration of not less than 90 minutes (1203.2.5 Exit signs). 78.96. In buildings and structures where standby power is required or furnished to operate an elevator, the operation shall be in accordance with Section 1203 of the California Fire Code and Sections 3003.1.1 through 3003.1.5 of this code (3003.1 Standby power). 79.97. Standby power shall be manually transferable to all elevators in each bank (3003.1.1 Manual transfer). 80.98. Where only one elevator is installed, the elevator shall automatically transfer to standby power within 60 seconds after failure of normal power (3003.1.2 One elevator). 81.99. Where two or more elevators are controlled by a common operating system, all elevators shall automatically transfer to standby power within 60 seconds after failure of normal power where the standby power source is of sufficient capacity to operate all elevators at the same time. Where the standby power source is not of sufficient capacity to operate all elevators at the same time, all elevators shall transfer to standby power in sequence, return to the designated landing and disconnect from the standby power source. After all elevators have been returned Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) to the designated level, not less than one elevator shall remain operable from the standby power source (3003.1.3 Two or more elevators). 82.100. Elevators shall be provided with Phase I emergency recall operation and Phase II emergency in-car operation in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 6, Elevator Safety Orders (3003.2 Fire fighters’ emergency operation). 83.101. Elevator hoistways shall have a floor number not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height, placed on the walls and/or doors of the hoistway at intervals such that a person in a stalled elevator, upon opening the car door, can determine the floor position. 84.102. All automatic elevators shall have not less than one sign at each landing printed on a contrasting background in letters not less than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) high to read: IN CASE OF FIRE USE STAIRWAY FOR EXIT. DO NOT USE ELEVATOR (3003.2.1.1 Fire signs). 85.103. Automatic passenger elevators shall have call and car operation buttons within 60 inches (1524 mm) of the floor. Emergency telephones shall also be within 60 inches (1524 mm) of the floor (3003.2.1.2 Call and car operation buttons). 86.104. All elevators shall be equipped to operate with a standardized fire service elevator key in accordance with the California Fire Code (CFC) (3003.3 Standardized fire service elevator keys). 87.105. Elevator car shall accommodate ambulance stretcher. Where elevators are provided in buildings four or more stories above, or four or more stories below, grade plane, not fewer than one elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134 mm) with not less than 5-inch (127 mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall be not less than 3 inches (76 mm) in height and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoist-way door frame. 88.106. The elevator(s) designated the medical emergency elevator shall be equipped with a key switch to recall the elevator nonstop to the main floor (3002.4.3a Elevator recall). For the purpose of this section, elevators in compliance with Section 3003.2 shall be acceptable. 89.107. Medical emergency elevators shall be identified by the international symbol (Star of Life) for emergency medical services (3002.4.4a Designation). Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 90.108. The symbol shall not be less than 3 inches (76 mm) in size (3002.4.5a Symbol size). 91.109. A symbol shall be permanently attached to each side of the hoistway door frame on the portion of the frame at right angles to the hallway or landing area. Each symbol shall be not less than 78 inches (1981 mm) and not more than 84 inches (2134 mm) above the floor level at the threshold (3002.4.6a Symbol location). 92.110. Fire Master Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Division for approval. The plan shall include information on the following (but not limited to) subjects: fire department vehicle access to the Project, secondary emergency vehicle access, firefighter access (hose pull) around structures, fire lane identification, location of fire hydrants and other fire department appliances, and the location and type of gates or barriers that restrict ingress/egress. 93.111. All portions of the perimeter of all structures shall be located within 150 feet of a fire lane as measured along an approved route. A portion of the proposed structure exceeding this distance is considered “out of access” and shall be corrected during plan review by one of the following methods: • Provide additional fire lanes to bring the entire structure “in access” • Propose an alternate form of mitigation via the Alternate Methods and Materials provisions of the fire code for the Fire Marshal’s review. There is no guarantee that the Alternate Methods and Materials proposal will be approved as proposed. 94.112. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises (507.1). Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be determined by Appendix B of the 2022 CFC. 95.113. Fire hydrants shall be spaced along fire department access roads in compliance with the 2022 CFC Appendix C. 96.114. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. 97.115. A secondary water supply shall be required for each building complying with 2022 CFC 914.3.2. 98.116. Smoke control systems shall be required in all high-rise buildings per 2022 CFC 909 and 914.3.8.1. 99.117. Smokeproof exit enclosures shall be required per 2022 CFC 914.3.8.2 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 100.118. List all items on title sheet of plans that will be a deferred submittal. 101.119. The motor court shall comply with the requirements for Fire Department access for turning radius, width, grade complying with NBFD guideline C.01 and D.08. 102.120. The porte-cochere shall have a minimum clearance height of 13 feet 6inches for fire apparatus to maneuver underneath. 103.121. Fire pumps shall be required for both buildings per 2022 CFC 913. 104.122. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, Applicant shall provide a disclosure statement in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney in consultation with the Fire Chief or his appointed deputy, at the time of purchase contract to each prospective tenant/owner of one of the residential units on the site advising of the State and local fire codes which require that all fire and life safety systems be regularly inspected, tested, and maintained to ensure they function properly at all times. The Applicant shall provide proof that this condition has been incorporated into the CC&Rs for the Property. To comply with these laws, the HOA shall be responsible for making sure that all fire protection systems in the community are routinely serviced by licensed professionals. Tenants, owners, and other responsible parties must cooperate with the HOA and its contractors by allowing access to units, common areas, or building systems whenever inspection, testing, or maintenance is scheduled. Some fire protection components are located within private residential units, so entry may be necessary to complete the required work. The HOA will always provide reasonable notice—typically a minimum of thirty (30) days—before any scheduled inspection, testing, or maintenance activity. Notice will be delivered through appropriate methods, such as mail, email, or on-site postings. It is essential that all residents cooperate with these requests. Failure to grant access or delayed responses can lead to code violations, increased liability, and potential safety risks to the entire community. If access is denied or if cooperation is not provided when requested, the HOA may impose fines, penalties, or take other enforcement action as permitted by the governing documents. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) NEW P O R T MIG U E L NAP NAP NAP NAP ANA C A P A DRIVECENTER SA N DRI V E 300 NCD CONDOMINIUMS 300 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 02/04/2026 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-01 LEGEND Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) NAP LOT 1 NEW P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E S A N M I G U E L NAP NAP AN A C A P A D R I V E PODIUM LEVEL 3 = 228.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 2 = 212.00 GFFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFF PODIUM LEVEL 2 = 212.00 FFPARKING LEVEL 1 = 192.00 GFFSUBTERRANEAN PARKING LEVEL = 172.00 GFF fuscoe.com 949.474.196015535 Sand Canyon Ave Irvine, California 92618 RF U L L C I R C L E T H I N K I N G E N G I N E E R I N G FUSCOE Suite 100 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19407 FOR LOT MERGER AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SITE ADDRESS CIVIL ENGINEER LEGAL DESCRIPTION BASIS OF BEARINGS FLOOD ZONE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19407 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (FOR LOT MERGER AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES) GENERAL NOTES UTILITY NOTES VICINITY MAP SITE EXISTING EASEMENTS ABBREVIATIONS OWNER/SUB-DIVIDER LEGEND Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) ” 949.474.1960 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 fuscoe.com ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 949.474.1960 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100Irvine, California 92618 fuscoe.com Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Nicholas Rose <nickrosemd@gmail.com> Sent: March 04, 2026 7:47 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: SAVE BIG EDWARDS! Dear Planning Commission, As a Newport Beach resident for 30 years and someone who has also spent much of my childhood here, I am gravely disappointed with your decision to tear down Big Edwards Cinema and build two huge residential towers. First of all, Big Edwards is a historic landmark for most if not all Newport Beach residents and should be declared so by your commission. Many of us spent most of our lives seeing epic movies there both during our childhood and adulthood. Not only did we go to this theater as children, but we also took our own children there for years on end. The theater also hosted such epic events as Newport Beach Film Festival and The Taste of Newport. How you could even consider tearing down this iconic structure is beyond me, but I suppose money talks. More concerning is that, as a physician working in Fashion Island in the medical complex across the street from this planned construction, this is an area that is already extremely congested with traffic. Furthermore, the medical buildings across the street have many elderly patients driving in and out of the complex and there are already countless accidents along San Miguel Drive. Adding two 25 story towers to this already congested area is going to add to the traffic in this area and be a safety hazard. Finally, Newport Beach is not Miami Beach. Having two ugly towering residential buildings will spoil the view of many residents in this area and be an eyesore on the skyline. I implore you to preserve the spirit of Newport Beach and prohibit the construction of these ill- advised towers that benefit a privileged few at the cost of preserving the spirit of the Newport Beach community. Sincerely, Nicholas Rose, MD Nicholas E. Rose, MD, FACS Hand & Upper Extremity Surgery California Orthopaedic Specialists 360 San Miguel Drive, Suite 701 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Peggy Rose <pegshearose@gmail.com> Sent: March 04, 2026 10:11 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Big Edwards Theater [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. As a 29-year resident of Newport Beach and a frequent attendee of the Big Edwards theater, it breaks my heart to imagine it being torn down to accommodate two high rise residential buildings. Eliminating this theater forces a large majority of the population to go outside of Newport Beach to attend a movie — kids can’t afford to go to The Lot and the cost of their tix are price-prohibitive for many adults as well. Erecting two residential high rises will only increase the traffic around this area, which is already heavy with customers driving to Fashion Island and patients going to appointments in the medical buildings. Please reconsider this proposal before the landscape in this area is permanently scarred. Thank you. Peggy Rose (949) 422-7622 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Tammy Stern-Thieriot <tamncam@gmail.com> Sent: March 05, 2026 8:49 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: LUXURY TOWERS - NOOOOOOO [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Hello planning commission. I’m writing to share my strong opinion AGAINST replacing the Newport Edwards theatre with 270’ luxury towers. My family and I have been patrons of this theatre for decades and have shared such wonderful outings and memories there. It would be painful to have such a loss to the community and no one wants to see another monstrosity in the skyline. Orange County, especially FASHION ISLAND, doesn’t need more unaffordable housing. Please put your community’s happiness above financial gain. Sincerely, The Thieriot Family Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Leslie Reider <leslie@lozeaudrury.com> Sent: March 05, 2026 9:16 AM To: Planning Commission Cc: Rebecca Davis; Chase Preciado; Emy Lipkind Subject: Comment on 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums; March 5, 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 Attachments: 2026.03.05 SAFER Comment on 300 Newport Center Dr..pdf Dear Chair Harris, Vice Chair Salene, Secretary Langford, and Honorable Commissioners, On behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER"), please find the attached comments regarding the 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums project, which is scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission's March 5, 2026 meeting as Agenda Item 2. If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, -- Leslie Reider Legal Assistant Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 836-4200 (510) 836-4205 (fax) leslie@lozeaudrury.com Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) March 5, 2026 VIA EMAIL Tristan Harris, Chair David Salene, Vice Chair Jon Langford, Secretary Curtis Ellmore, Commisioner Michael Gazzano, Commisioner Greg Reed, Commisioner Mark Rosene, Commisioner Planning Commission Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov Re: Comment on 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums; March 5, 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 Dear Chair Harris, Vice Chair Salene, Secretary Langford, and Honorable Commissioners: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding the 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums project (“Project”), scheduled to be heard by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on March 5, 2026, as Agenda Item 2. SAFER objects to the City’s decision to exempt the Project from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning”). Further CEQA review is necessary because the Project is likely to have one or more peculiar and significant impacts not discussed or analyzed in the City’s General Plan Housing Implementation Program EIR (“GPHIP EIR”), thereby necessitating preparation of an EIR. Specifically, SAFER’s expert report prepared by Dr. Shawn Smallwood indicates the Project may result in significant impacts on biological resources that were not analyzed or mitigated by the GPHIP EIR. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A. SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission decline to approve the Project until an EIR is prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) March 5, 2026 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project includes the demolition of the Regal Edwards Big Newport movie theater and the Body Design health and fitness center. In its place, the applicant proposes construction of two 22-story residential buildings (270 feet in height), consisting of 150 market-rate condominiums, on-site amenities, for-sale home offices, retail and café space, and 343 parking spaces. The Project provides no affordable housing units. Each residential building is nearly identical and is connected through a podium that contains the home office, retail and café, amenities, parking, and building support facilities. The Project applicant is requesting a major site development review, conditional use permit, and vesting tentative tract map. LEGAL STANDARD CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC” § 21001(d).) To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86.) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. (Id.) Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a).) If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070.) Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR is required. (Id.) CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever there is substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency that supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (PRC § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides an exemption for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, except as necessary to evaluate whether there are project-specific significant impacts which are peculiar to the project or project site. (14 CCR § 15183(a).) When relying on section 15183 to approve a project, a lead agency may not forgo further analysis of potentially significant impacts unless it makes certain findings. An agency is required to perform further analysis for impacts that: (1) are peculiar to the proposed project or parcel, (2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR for the zoning, community, or general plan with which the project is consistent, (3) are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR, or (4) are previously identified significant impact Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) which, due to substantial new information not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe impact that discussed in the prior EIR. Under section 15183(f), an effect of a project on the environment is not considered peculiar to the project or project site if “uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted … with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate the environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.” (14 CCR § 15183(f).) Agency determinations under Guidelines section 15183 are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 538, citing Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2103) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311.) In determining whether an agency’s findings concerning the use of a statutory exemption from CEQA may be upheld, courts must review the administrative record to see that substantial evidence supports each element of the exemption. (Lucas, 92 Cal.App.5th at 538.) This includes the determination that “uniformly applied development policies or standards” will substantially mitigate the project’s environmental effects. (14 CCR § 15183(f).) Agency findings must specifically address the effect of uniform policies and standards on potential environmental impacts. (Hilltop Group v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 918.) Here, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have an unmitigated, peculiar and significant biological resources impact that was not addressed in the GPHIP EIR. Section 15183 therefore requires preparation of an EIR to analyze and mitigate this impact. I. THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT, UNMITIGATED IMPACT ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES THAT IS PECULIAR TO THE PROJECT AND NOT ANALYZED IN THE GPHIP EIR. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are the expert comments of wildlife ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood's analysis provides substantial evidence that the Project will cause significant impacts to special-status birds that are peculiar to the Project and were not analyzed as significant in the GPHIP EIR. Further CEQA review is required to analyze and mitigate these impacts. The Project proposes two 270-foot tall buildings. As Dr. Smallwood explains, structures of this height occupy a substantial portion of the aerosphere—essential habitat for birds. (Ex. A, p. 1.) Birds utilize the aerosphere for migration, dispersal, patrolling home ranges, commuting between roost sites and foraging areas, courtship, and in some species, copulation. (Id. at 2.) The Project would expose birds to extensive window surfaces comprising large portions of the buildings’ facades at elevations actively used by avian species, resulting in harm to thousands of birds annually. This is neither a minor nor theoretical concern. Window collisions rank as the second or third largest source of anthropogenic bird mortality, and Dr. Smallwood Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) has reviewed extensive studies documenting substantial avian fatalities from such collisions. (Id. at pp. 2-4.) In one study, 266 bird fatalities representing 41 species occurred over 73 months of monitoring at just a three-story glass walkway. (Id. at p. 2.) Building facades also intercept and kill numerous birds flying during daylight hours as well as nocturnal migrants. (Ex. A, p. 3.) A 2009 study by Klem et al. monitored 73 building facades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods and documented 549 collision victims. (Id.) A 2015 study by Parkins et al found 35 bird fatalities of 16 different species within just 45 days of monitored under four building facades. (Id.) Numerous other peer-reviewed studies demonstrate similarly severe impacts from avian collisions with windows and building facades. (See Ex. A, pp. 3-4.) Given the Project’s location within the Pacific Flyway its design featuring two high-rise buildings, “avian use of the aerosphere should be of concern.” (Id. at p. 4.) Dr. Smallwood’s research indicates that of the available records of tracked birds, 5,883 birds representing 112 species have been recorded flying into the Newport Beach area from 16 different countries. (Id.) According to BirdCast (https://dashboard.birdcast.org/region/US-CA-059), nocturnal migrants in the sky over Orange County average 6,200 individuals and peak at 75,000 in May. (Id.) Many of the birds fly at elevations within the height range of the Project’s proposed buildings. (Id.) At least 109 special-status bird species are known to the Project area, the majority of which have been documented within 1.5 miles of the Project site. Within a four-mile radius, 95 special-status species have been documented. (Id. at p. 4 and Table 1.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that each of these 95 species-status species detected within four miles of the Project site are at risk of collision with the Project’s two high rise towers. (Id.) Based on Dr. Smallwood’s direct monitoring experience at 213 buildings and facades, combined with his review of dozens of bird collision studies, Dr. Smallwood calculated predictive mortality estimates for the Project. (Ex. A, p. 5.) While publicly available information did not disclose precise window specifications, Dr. Smallwood was able to measure the extent of windows depicted in the building schematics provided by the City. (Id.) Based on his estimate of 17,370 square meters of exterior glass in the form of windows and railings, Dr. Smallwood predicts the Project would kill 1,270 birds annually. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood notes that the vast majority of these collision fatalities would involve special-status species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Migratory Bird Protection Act. A special-status species bird-window collision mortality of this predicted magnitude would be highly significant. (Id.) This impact is peculiar to the Project given the high-rise nature of the proposed buildings. Moreover, this impact was not analyzed as a significant impact in the GPHIP EIR. Accordingly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the City must undertake further environmental analysis and adopt mitigation measures to reduce this significant environmental impact. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) II. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS BIRDS FROM WINDOW COLLISIONS. The City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project will not result in significant and peculiar impacts on special-status birds as a result of window and building collisions. The City failed to conduct any biological surveys or evaluate the Project’s potential to impact biological resources at the Project site and resulting from the Project. The City has not performed any Project or site-specific analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources as a result of window and building collisions. Neither the GPHIP EIR nor the 15183 Consistency Memorandum include any analysis of the potential for new housing developments, including the Project, to result in deaths to birds as a result of window and building collisions. The City also fails to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project’s impacts on biological resources will be reduced to less-than-significant levels as a result of “uniformly applied development policies or standards.” The City has not identified or committed to any mitigation measures to address impacts to biological resources stemming from bird collisions with the Project’s two high rise towers. There are numerous feasible mitigation measures that can reduce impacts, such as using treated windows, adjusting outward lighting, and adjusting the orientation of buildings. (Ex. A, p. 6.) These mitigation measures should be considered in the subsequent EIR. Dr. Smallwood’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project will have significant, site-specific impacts on biological resources. These impacts were not addressed in the 2000 GP EIR or the City’s staff report. The City also failed to propose any mitigation measures or provide any evidence to demonstrate that impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less-than-significant. Accordingly, the City cannot rely on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 exemption and must prepare an EIR that evaluates the Project-specific biological resources impacts and mitigates those impacts as required by CEQA. CONCLUSION The City lacks substantial evidence to rely on the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 exemption for Project approval. The Project will result in potentially significant impacts which are peculiar to the Project and Project site and require mitigation and were not analyzed in the GPHIP EIR. Therefore, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant biological resources impacts and the City cannot approve the Project until it complies with CEQA. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis Lozeau Drury LLP Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) EXHIBIT A Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Liz Westmoreland, AICP, Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 3 March 2026 RE: 300 Newport Center Drive Dear Ms. Westmoreland, I write to comment on the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the two proposed 270- foot-tall condominium towers on 4.17 acres at 300 Newport Center Drive. City Staff relies on the previously approved City of Newport Beach Housing Implementation Program Final Program EIR (SCH Number 2023060699) to claim a 14 CCR section 15183 Exemption from CEQA review. After reviewing the renderings of the buildings and the biological resources section of the Housing Implementation Program FEIR, I come to the conclusion that the Exemption would not be appropriate. I am concerned that the amount of external glass, the manners in which the glass would be constructed, and the location of the buildings would together pose excessive risk of collision mortality to birds, and that this potential project impact has not been analyzed nor any mitigation strategy formulated to avoid or minimize the impact. Mitigation measures are available, and they are known to greatly minimize, and in some cases to have reduced, collision mortality. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty- seven years. My CV is attached. THE AEROSPHERE AS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project would add two 270-foot-tall buildings, which would take a large volume of an essential portion of habitat of birds. To understand this part of avian habitat, one must consider the definition of habitat, which is a species’ reliance on that part of the environment that is important to survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is habitat to many bird species, because birds use it Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 2 to migrate, disperse, patrol home ranges, commute between roost sites and foraging areas, and for other needs such as courtship and for some species even for copulation. The aerosphere is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is part of the existing environmental setting, and it needs to be characterized as such in CEQA review. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS The project would add two 270-foot-tall buildings, which would expose the birds of the project area to windows composing the building’s facades. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 3 underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants (Van Doren et al. 2021) as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 4 fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo- Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. Birds that would be Vulnerable to the Project Because the project would consist of two high-rise buildings with many windows, avian use of the local aerosphere should be of concern. Of the available records of tracked birds, 5,883 birds of 112 species have been recorded flying into the Newport Beach area from 16 countries of the Americas, from as far away as Argentina (Swainson’s hawks) to northern Alaska and northern Canada (e.g., whimbrel and brant) and New Brunswick (e.g., green-winged teal) and Florida (Brown pelican) (https://explorer.audubon.org/ explore/locations/DYQwLgvAzFB0BsAGAHAdnqg3MA9gOwgFoBGY1WNGAViwAsBT ADwEkATCAJg4E5lMwAlmGD0IAOXoB3AA44ATmAAEAIXogAxrQA0igMIBBHQFUA yvv4BPaaIAyAeQMAVZnbFA/connections?zoom=7&x=2517121.9601057805&y=24034 11.3245877805). According to BirdCast (https://dashboard.birdcast.org/region/US-CA- 059), the number of nocturnal migrants in the sky over Orange County averaged 6,200 and peaked at 15,400, with most headed north-northwest – generally following the coastline. The nightly average number of nocturnal migrants crossing Orange County will peak in May at about 75,000. The average altitude is 1,100 feet. However contributing to this average are many birds flying within the height domain of the proposed buildings. Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway, which includes Newport Beach. At least 109 special-status species of birds are known to the project area (Table 1). Most (69%) have been documented in eBird within 1.5 miles of the project site, and another 20 (18%) have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and another 12 (11%) have been documented between 4 and 30 miles from the site. Thus, 95 special-status species of birds are known to the aerosphere within 4 miles of the project site, and at least all these species would be at risk of collision with the buildings. According to the literature, many of the special-status species in Table 1 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Neither the Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP nor the City of Newport Beach Housing Implementation Program FEIR address bird-window collision mortality. Neither of these plans include mitigation strategies for avoiding, minimizing, reducing or offsetting Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 5 impacts of bird-window collision mortality. This lack of planning is especially concerning because the renderings of the proposed buildings depict the very attributes that are most strongly associated with bird-window collisions: Expansive windows, reflective windows, transparent windows allowing views of background sky, and the growing of vegetation on balconies and on the ground floor near expansive reflective windows. Furthermore, the available documentation is silent on exterior lighting and the degree to which interior lighting would be emitted at night. Lit buildings are known to confuse nocturnally migrating birds, many of which collide with lit buildings. Project Impact Prediction By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project. The Notice of Public Hearing does not disclose the extent of glass windows on the proposed new building, other than by depictions of windows in renderings of the buildings. I therefore measured the extents of windows depicted in the building schematics provided by the City. Based on my measurements of the building’s schematics, I estimate the project would include 17,370 m2 of exterior glass in the forms of windows and railings. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of glass in this project, I predict annual bird deaths of 1,270 (95% CI: 754‒1,786). The vast majority of bird-window collision deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the recently revised California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Some of the birds killed by the project could be covered by the Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP, hence adding additional significant impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of bird-window collisions that might be caused by the project. Data needed to Minimize Collision Risk: Behavioral ecologists are needed to observe bird flights in and around the airspace that would be occupied by the project’s buildings. Visual-scan observations are needed during daylight hours, and thermal- imaging or radar scans are needed at night. The needed metrics include numbers of Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 6 birds flying per species, flight heights, and flight directions. These data are needed to assess collision risks during day and night and based on flight vectors. Knowing these flight patterns, the project’s buildings could be re-designed, if warranted, to orient the buildings’ facades to minimize head-on impacts. Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%. The City of Newport Beach should follow the examples of other cities and formulate its own mitigation guidelines for analysis of potential impacts and for mitigating those impacts. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 7 Fatality Monitoring: Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision mortality to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction mortality is to monitor the project for fatalities. Thank you for your consideration, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. LITERATURE CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780. De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A. C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 8 Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 9 Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 10 Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14. Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023. Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions. Urban Ecosystems 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304-w Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D. Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021. Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 11 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird records (https://eBird.org), where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates between 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates between 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Common name Species name Status1 Occurrence records Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Very close Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 Very close Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE Nearby Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Nearby Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close Light-footed Ridgway’s rail Rallus obsoletus levipes FE, CE, CFP Very close American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani BCC Very close Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Very close Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala BCC Very close Red knot Calidris canutus BCC Very close Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Nearby Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close Wandering tattler Tringa incana BCC Very close Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL Nearby Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Very close Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Very close Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 Very close Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Very close Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 12 Common name Species name Status1 Occurrence records Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close Brandt’s cormorant Urile penicillatus BCC Very close Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL, NCCP Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP, NCCP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP, NCCP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP, NCCP Very close Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP, NCCP In region Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP Nearby American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2, BOP Very close Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP, NCCP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE, NCCP In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 13 Common name Species name Status1 Occurrence records Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Very close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2, NCCP Very close Clark’s marsh wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 In range Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis SSC1, NCCP Very close California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE, BCC Very close Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 Nearby Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL, NCCP Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC Nearby Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Very close Hepatic tanager Piranga flava WL In region Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID= 109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) 14 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors); and NCCP = covered by the Central-Coastal NCCP/HCP. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California. Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two. Cell (530) 601-6857 puma@dcn.org Ecologist Business Smallwood Ecology • Employs Noriko Smallwood, M.S., Environmental Science with focus on wildlife Expertise • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with anthropogenic infrastructure and activities; • Design of field study to detect, enumerate, or monitor wildlife and behavior patterns by visual search, GPS, thermal imaging, and acoustic bat survey; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns from that can inform conservation and management of terrestrial wildlife. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience  1,068 professional reports, including:  96 peer reviewed publications  24 in non-reviewed proceedings  946 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews  8 in mass media outlets  98 public presentations of research results Expert testimony regarding potential impacts from development projects: To check on the accuracy of the characterization of wildlife communities at sites of proposed residential, commercial and industrial projects, I perform visual-scan surveys for wildlife, thermal-imaging at night, and acoustic detection of bats using a Petterson M500 detector and Sonobat Live to identify bats by Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 2 sonograms of their calls. I predict project impacts and I compare my findings to those in the environmental review documents. I also testify on potential outcomes of water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Communities Conservation Programs, proposed Federal Rules and State and Federal policies and regulations affecting wildlife. I deliver oral testimony to government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. I prepare expert witness reports and court declarations, and I participate with depositions. Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and it advised the County on how to reduce wildlife collision mortality. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 3 Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Professor Shu Geng and Dr. Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities based on ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a database of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling method for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects and Studies Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 4 performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. I also collaborated, and continue to collaborate with, Dr. Douglas Bell in a GPS telemetry study of 44 golden eagles originating from the northern Diablo Range. The goal was to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. I performed focused behavior surveys from May 2012 through 2019, and golden eagle telemetry monitoring from 2013 through the present. Collision hazard models were prepared for eight wind projects, three of which were built. Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before-after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 5 kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1-day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental management in China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 6 Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess opportunities for research collaboration in the environmental and agricultural sectors. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200-mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2025. On the Spatial distribution of eagle carcasses around wind turbines: implications for collision mortality estimation. Diversity 2025, 17, 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100686 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 7 Smallwood, K. S. 2025. Background Mortality of Wildlife on Renewable Energy Projects. Diversity 2025, 17, 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090628 Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2024. Burrowing owls require mutualist species and ample interior habitat space. Diversity 2024, 16, 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090590 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037. Bell, D. A., S. A. Snyder, J. E. DiDonato, and K. S. Smallwood. 2023. Conspecific carcass removal from a wind project study plot by a great horned owl (Bubo Virginanus). Journal of Raptor Research 57:489-492. Kitano, M., K. S. Smallwood, and K. Fukaya. 2022. Bird carcass detection from integrated trials at multiple wind farms. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press. Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020a. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020b. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities. Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084. Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 – 71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 8 Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716-1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting burrowing owl abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 9 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915-943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus epizootic on yellow-billed magpie, american crow, and other birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of behavior on bird mortality in wind energy developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and repowered wind turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513-1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 10 Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285-298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A sustainable agro-ecological solution to water shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2000. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 11 Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1996. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 12 agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White-tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Peer-reviewed Reports Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-500-2017- 019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 13 http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500-2016-066 Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/range-management-practices-reduce-wind-turbine-impacts-burrowing-owls-other-raptors Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. A framework to screen wind power sites for potential impacts to birds in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/36973.pdf Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/developing-methods-reduce-bird-mortality-altamont-pass-wind-resource-area Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 14 Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non-Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2026. Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. 218 pp. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2023. Golden eagle roost sites based on telemetry data. Report to Salka Energy, San Diego, California. 29 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). In Terry Surles and Edward Vine, Eds., Avian/Wind Statistical Peer Review Project. Report to California Energy Commission. Contract No. 500-02-004. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Surles-2006.pdf Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 15 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269-270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 16 Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58- 63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 17 Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee). Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 18 Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009. Alameda County SRC document P-145. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 19 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision-related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 20 California. SRC Document P44. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43. Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22. Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization. Reports to Clients Assessment of wildlife collision risk with fourth wind turbine layout of Sand Hill and Rooney Ranch Wind Farms. Report to Viracocha Wind, Bethesda Maryland, and Salka, San Diego, California. 2 pp. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 21 Smallwood, K. S. 2025. Review of Identifying Critical Drivers of Western Snowy Plover Reproductive Success to Guide Management Toward Recovery Goals (Neuman et al. 2024). Report to Center for Biological Diversity. Smallwood, K. S. 2024. Assessment of grading impacts on eagles at Viracocha Wind. Report to Viracocha Wind, Bethesda Maryland, and Salka, San Diego, California. 1 p. Smallwood, K. S. 2023. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with third wind turbine layout of Sand Hill & Rooney Ranch Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind, Bethesda Maryland, and Salka, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. and D. A. Bell. 2022. Ground squirrel abundance and repeat raptor surveys at Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, 2006‒2019. Report to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Science and Research Grant Program. 80 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2022c. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with second wind turbine layout of Sand Hill and Rooney Ranch Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2022b. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with second wind turbine layout of Viracocha Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Survey for Burrow Systems of San Joaquin Kangaroo Rat (Dipotomys nitratoides) at Natural Resource Management Area 5, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. Smallwood, K. S. 2022a. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with initial wind turbine layout of Viracocha Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Baseline Map of California Ground Squirrel Burrow Systems on Marsh Creek Preserve. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client. Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 22 Utah. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 23 planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR. Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2013 Final Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2013). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one. Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 24 Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 25 Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow- billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711- 04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 26 (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma@yolo.com . 34 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711-04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 27 Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 28 Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT- A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 29 Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and D. Magney. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 30 Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 31 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Written Expert Testimony on Environmental Documents (Year; pages) I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:  Pacific Palmdale DEIR, Palmdale (2026; 50);  Village Farms Project FEIR, Davis (2026; 17);  Village Farms Project DEIR, Davis (2025; 19);  7336 PS Solar Project DEIR, Twentynine Palms (2026; 52);  Baker Street Warehouse Project DEIR, Lake Elsinore (2026; 55);  Dexter Village IS/MND, Lake Elsinore (2026 ; 52);  83 Princess Street, California Design Review, City of Sausalito (2026; 39);  Replies to responses to comments on Bridgehead Industrial Project DEIR, City of Oakley (2026; 49);  Delta Conveyance Project Incidental Take Permit, California Department of Water Resources (2025; 37);  Tri Pointe Homes Staff Report, City of Banning (2025; 38);  Replies to responses to comments on Locust Gateway Development Project DEIR, City of Rialto (2025; 30);  Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project FEIR Addendum, City of Ontario (2025; 44);  Pepper 210 Commerce Center Project IS/MND, City of Rialto (2025; 35);  Pacific Gateway Specific Plan Project DEIR, San Joaquin County (2025; 57);  Lake Creek Logistics Center DEIR, City of Apple Valley (2025; 49);  Replies to responses to comments on E&P Technology Way - Building A & B IS/MND, County of Napa (2025; 56);  Menifee 27 Residential Staff Report (2025; 46);  Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians 295.7-Acre Fee-to-Trust Project Environmental Assessment (2025; 17);  Catavina Residential Project IS/MND, Palm Desert (2025; 52); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 32  Menifee Business Park DEIR (2025; 43);  Replies to responses to comments on Ophir Road Warehouse Project DEIR, Oroville (2025; 19);  Thermal Ranch Specific Plan DEIR, County of Riverside (2025; 53);  Camino Pablo Single-Family Residential Subdivision IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2025; 44);  Adesa Foods Project IS/MND, City of Rialto (2025; 34);  Entrada South and Valencia Commerce Center SEIR, County of Los Angeles (2025; 61);  Malibu Vineyards Industrial Parkway Project DREIR, City of Bakersfield (2025; 37);  Locust Gateway Development Project DEIR, City of Rialto (2025; 41);  FSRE Industrial Concord Project DEIR, City of Concord (2025; 34);  Bridgehead Industrial Project DEIR, City of Oakley (2025; 40);  San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update FEIR Addendum (2025; 22);  Trails at Lyons Canyon DEIR, County of Los Angeles (2025; 55);  Replies to responses to comments on Conejo Summit Project DEIR, Thousand Oaks (2025; 30);  Replies to responses to comments on Rome Hill Commercial IS/MND, City of Lake Elsinore (2025; 16);  Rome Hill Commercial IS/MND, City of Lake Elsinore (2025; 34);  Replies to responses to comments on Town & Country Village Project DEIR, County of El Dorado (2025; 46);  Arroyo Vista Project DEIR. County of Riverside (2025; 46);  Rubio Village Mixed-Use Project IS/MND, City of San Gabriel (2025; 64);  Replies to responses to comments on Bickmore Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2025; 4);  Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 Staff Report, City of Bakersfield (2025; 10);  Spirit Living at 55 Thomas Dr/70 Knoll Rd Design Plans, Tiburon (2025; 39);  Cargo Solutions Truck Warehouse and Truck Stop Hesperia Project IS/MND (2025; 40);  Fontana Master Case No. 23-0101, Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0022, and Design Review No. 23-0024 Class-32 CEQA Categorical Exemption, City of Fontana (2025; 32);  Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7471 IS/MND, City of Bakersfield (2025; 46);  Replies to responses to comments on Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR, County of Sacramento (2025; 56);  Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR, County of Sacramento (2025; 63);  Flat Creek Solar Project Major Renewable Energy Facility Siting Permit pursuant to Article VIII of the New York State Public Service Law, Towns of Root and Canajoharie, Montgomery County, New York (2025; 37);  Replies to responses to comments on Dogwood Geothermal Energy Project DEIR, Imperial County (2025; 22);  Wineville Development Project DEIR, Jurupa Valley (2025; 43);  Desert Business Park MSD Addendum, County of Riverside (2025; 29);  Chino Gateway Terminal Project DEIR Addendum, Chino (2025; 39);  Mesa Verde Specific Plan DSEIR, City of Calimesa (2025; 53);  Harvest Landing Retail Center & Business Park DEIR, City of Perris (2025; 40);  Hive Live Project DEIR, Costa Mesa (2025; 37);  Perris Airport Logistics Center DEIR, Perris (2025; 41);  Vehicle-Caused Mortality of Western Snowy Plovers On Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 33 Recreation Area (2025; 17);  Dakota Warehouse Project IS/MND, Apple Valley (2025; 36);  Delta Conveyance Project FEIR, CDFW ITP, California Department of Water Resources (2025; 45);  Oceanside Transit Center EIR, Oceanside (2025; 41);  Auburn Development, Ecosave III (LDP 23-02) IS/MND, Adelanto (2025; 39);  Replies to responses to comments on Dogwood Geothermal and Solar DEIR, Imperial County (2025; 22);  Pinyon Solar Project EA, BLM, Phoenix (2025; 63);  Armorlite Lofts Project DEIR/FEIR, San Marcos (2025; 47);  Ophir Road Warehouse Project DEIR, Oroville (2025; 47);  Intex Corporate Office and Fulfillment Center Project, Long Beach (2025; 35);  Sywest Industrial Building FEIR, Goleta (2025; 42);  Vista Santa Domingo Warehouse Project rezone, Otay Mesa (2025; 28);  Replies to responses to comments on Airport South Industrial Park and City Annexation DEIR, Sacramento (2025; 33);  Flat Creek Solar Project 94-c Permit for Major Renewable Energy Facility, Montgomery County, New York (2025; 29);  Bickmore Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2025; 25);  Replies to responses to comments on Brew Enterprises Warehouse, Perris (2025; 41);  Nexus Hotel IS.MND, Palm Springs (2025; 33);  Ranegras Plains Energy Center Project DEIS, Arizona (2025; 58);  Riverside County General Plan Amendment for 350,000+ sf warehouse (2025; 31);  Riverside County General Plan Amendment for 224,800 sf warehouse (2025; 29);  Hageman Industrial Park DEIR, Bakersfield (2025; 42);  Adelanto Warehouse CEQA Exemption (2025; 25);  Tire Recycling Facility IS/MND, Adelanto (2025; 29);  Replies to responses to comments on Sites Reservoir Application to California Water Board (2025; 41);  Bakersfield General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 24-0372, Bakersfield (2025; 29);  The Pointe Apartments CEQA Exemption, Oxnard (2025; 37);  Mill Point Solar I Article VIII Permit for Major Renewable Energy Facility, Montgomery County, New York (2025; 36);  Conejo Summit Project DEIR, Thousand Oaks (2025; 45);  Replies to responses to comments on March Plaza IS/MND, Perris (2025; 5);  March Plaza IS/MND, Perris (2024; 32);  Replies to responses to comments on Arcadia Town Center IS/MND, Arcadia (2025; 3);  Arcadia Town Center IS/MND, Arcadia (2024; 33);  Westlanc Partners Hotel Project IS/MND, Lancaster (2025; 44);  Temecula Resort and Spa Class 32 Exemption, Temecula (2025; 34);  Briones Regional Park Staff Report, East Bay Regional Park District (2024; 63);  Declaration regarding Havana Warehouse, Riverside County (2024; 6);  11623 Glenoaks Blvd (no CEQA review), City of Los Angeles (2024; 28);  Five Point Community Offices SSEIR, Irvine (2024; 23);  Replies to responses to comments on ENV-2022-6190-CE Categorical Exemption - Class 32, Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 34 City of Los Angeles (2024; 17);  ENV-2022-6190-CE Categorical Exemption - Class 32, City of Los Angeles (2024; 2);  380 North First Street DEIR, San Jose (2024; 21);  Site Plan Review 23-014 IS/MND, Lancaster (2024; 29);  Big Ranch Road Annexation Exemption, City of Napa (2024; 43);  E&P Technology Way - Building A & B IS/MND, County of Napa (2024; 30);  Outlaw Battery Energy Storage Project IS/MND, Kings County (2024; 26);  Replies to responses to comments on Hills Preserve Project DEIR, Anaheim (2024; 57), and update (2024; 4);  Replies to responses to comments on Tennessee Village Mixed-Use Project IS/MND, Redlands (2024; 26);  Glen Annie Site (#11) in the Housing Element Update, County of Santa Barbara (2024; 61);  Quail Meadows Apartments CEQA Exemption, Encinitas (2024; 61);  Dogwood Geothermal and Solar DEIR, Imperial County (2024; 60);  Hills Preserve Project DEIR, Anaheim (2024; 57), and update (2024; 14);  Temescal Commercial Project EA/IS, County of Riverside (2024; 36);  11011 Torreyana Road Project SMND, Torrey Pines (2024; 42);  Rosemount Storage Project IS/MND, Cathedral City (2024; 9);  Town & Country Village Project DEIR, El Dorado County (2024; 40);  Maruchan Expansion Project EIR Addendum, Irvine (2024; 30);  American River One Project CEQA Exemption, Sacramento (2024; 35);  Spruce & Red Oak Apartments Project Notice of Exemption Supplement Information, Rancho Cucamonga (2024; 38);  SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center DEIR, American Canyon (2024; 39);  Simi Pak Industrial Project IS/MND, Simi Valley (2024; 33);  Replies to responses to comments on 4th & Hewitt Project DEIR, Los Angeles (2024; 5);  Replies to responses to comments on Hardt and Brier Business Park IS/MND, San Bernardino (2024;  Riverview Development Project IS/MND, Santa Clarita (2024; 37);  Replies to responses to comments on 1360 N. Vine Street Project DEIR, Los Angeles (2024; 5);  1360 N. Vine Street Project DEIR, Los Angeles (2024; 29);  Sites Reservoir Application to California Water Board (2024; 43);  022-221-100 Corona Drive, Pacifica (2024: 26);  Airport South Industrial Park and City Annexation DEIR, Sacramento (2024; 53);  Early Times Cell Tower at 12415 Fig Road IS/MND, County of Sacramento (2024; 29);  University Community Plan, San Diego (2024; 10);  2720 S Willow Industrial Project IS/MND, Rialto (2024; 31);  Elisabeth Solar Energy Project EA, Yuma Arizona (2024; 75);  Jove Solar Energy Project DEIS, Yuma Arizona (2024; 103);  Tennessee Village Project IS/MND, Redlands (2024; 43);  Declaration on Whistling Ridge Energy Project Site Certification Agreement, Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2024; 30);  Replies to responses to comments on Dynamo Solar IS/MND, Napa (2024; 11);  Dynamo Solar IS/MND, Napa (2024; 37); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 35  Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park DEIR, Visalia (2024; 37);  Replies to responses to comments on Cal 98 Holdings IS/MND, Imperial County (2024; 10);  Cal 98 Holdings IS/MND, Imperial County (2024; 39);  2nd Replies to responses to comments on Amazing 34 Distribution Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2024; 28);  Western States Solar Plan DPEIS, Washington D.C. (2024; 66);  Patterson Business Center IS/MND, Perris (2024; 30);  Replies to responses to comments on Sunset and Everett Project SCEA, Los Angeles (2024; 24);  Sunset and Everett Project SCEA, Los Angeles (2024; 33);  605-613 Bridgeway, Sausalito (2024; 28);  PBP Industrial Project IS/MND, Palmdale (2024; 35);  Replies to responses to comments on Lockwood III Apartments IS/MND, Oxnard (2024; 19);  Lockwood III Apartments IS/MND, Oxnard (2024; 42);  1169 8th Ave. Mixed-use Development City Posting, San Diego (2024; 16);  2nd Brew Enterprises Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2024; 39);  Replies to responses to comments on Hughes SMCC Industrial Project DEIR, San Marcos (2024; 5);  Hughes SMCC Industrial Project DEIR, San Marcos (2024; 44);  Harvill and Water Warehouse IS/MND, County of Riverside (2024; 41);  Brew Enterprises Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2024; 34);  Garden Street Hotel Staff Report, Santa Barbara (2024; 31);  River Walk Specific Plan DEIR, Riverbank (2024; 72);  Woodlake Holdings Industrial Park DEIR (2024; 34);  2nd Quail Meadows Apartments CEQA Exemption, Encinitas (2024; 60);  Replies to responses to comments on One Hamilton Drive Affordable Housing DEIR, Mill Valley (2024; 29);  Glen Annie Housing Element Update, County of Santa Barbara (2024; 53);  Replies to responses to comments on 4260 Arch North Drive Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Los Angeles (2023; 10);  4260 Arch North Drive Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Los Angeles (2023; 27);  2nd Replies to responses to comments on Rubio Village IS/MND, San Gabriel (2023; 17);  West Foothill Development IS/MND, Upland (2023; 9);  Costco Camarillo IS/MND (2024; 37);  Shiloh Business Park General Plan Consistency Checklist, Windsor (2023; 25);  Assembly and Light Industrial Building IS/MND, Grand Terrace (2024; 33);  SMP 38, SMP 39. SMP 40 DEIR, Livermore (2023; 41);  Summit Ridge Wind Farm second visit, The Dalles (2024; 43);  Summit Ridge Wind Farm first visit, The Dalles (2023; 31);  3601 E. Mission Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Los Angeles (2023; 31);  [Redacted] Conservation Easement, Tennessee (2023; 55);  Hardt and Brier Business Park IS/MND, San Bernardino (2023; 32);  Sacramento Street CEQA Exemption, San Francisco (2023; 22);  One Hamilton Drive Affordable Housing DEIR, Mill Valley (2023; 48); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 36  Elmore North Geothermal site visit, Salton Sea (2023; 32);  Morton Bay Geothermal site visit, Salton Sea (2023; 53);  Black Rock Geothermal site visit, Salton Sea (2023; 29);  Covelop Warehouse IS/MND, Paso Robles (2023; 39);  Walnut Creek Flow Trail IS/MND (2023; 34);  Replies to responses to comments on Rubio Village IS/MND, San Gabriel (2023; 15);  Ashley Warehouse Environmental Checklist, Lathrop (2023; 38);  Replies on 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 12)  Science Research Park Expansion Project EIR Addendum, San Diego (2023; 40);  Rubio Village IS/MND, San Gabriel (2023; 14);  Havana Investment Industrial Categorical Exemption, Jurupa Valley (2023; 22);  New Cal Centre EIR Addendum, Kern County (2023; 39);  4th & Hewitt Project DEIR, Los Angeles (2023; 19);  4260 N Arch Drive Categorical Exemption, Los Angeles (2023; 27);  6700 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 29);  Replies to responses to comments on 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 12);  6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 34);  Moonlight Apartments biological assessment, Encinitas (2023; 46);  Replies to responses to comments on Modera Melrose Mixed-use DEIR, Oceanside (2023; 11);  Modera Melrose Mixed-use DEIR, Oceanside (2023; 39);  550 Piercy Road Industrial IS/MND, San Jose (2023; 28);  Living Spaces Development IS/MND, Fresno (2023; 28);  FIND Food Bank Staff Report, Indio (2023; 19);  Replies to responses to comments on Shadowbox Studios DEIR, Santa Clarita (2023; 35);  Shadowbox Studios DEIR, Santa Clarita (2023; 50);  Tulare 40 Generation Facility IS/MND, Tulare County (2023; 20);  Garden Street Hotel Staff Report, Santa Barbara (2023; 19);  Replies to responses to comments on 975 Manhattan Apartments Discretionary Approval, Los Angeles (2023; 10);  975 Manhattan Apartments Discretionary Approval, Los Angeles (2023; 12);  67h visit Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2023; 14);  Coachella Airport Business Park IS/MND, Coachella (2023; 31);  3400 Tecate Warehouse Staff Report, Camarillo (2023; 26);  Green Valley III Apartments DEIR, Fairfield (2023; 50);  Pacific Specific Plan DEIR, San Marcos (2023; 55);  Amara Bay Mixed Use Staff Report, Chula Vista (2023; 46);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse IS, Fresno (2023; 23);  PODS Warehouse IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2023; 30);  6th visit Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2023; 9);  Replies on Ormat Brawley Solar Project DEIR, Brawley (2023; 80);  One Hamilton as part of City of Mill Valley’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update DSEIR (2023; 31); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 37  Second letter on Shinohara Project IS/MND, Chula Vista (2023; 22);  3890 Depot Road Project IS/MND, Hayward (2023; 33);  Wellprofit Wellness Mixed-use project CEQA Exemption, Temecula (2023; 31);  Quail Meadows Apartments CEQA Exemption, Encinitas (2023; 55);  RCCB Fresno Distribution Center Notice of Exemption, Fresno (2022; 14);  Stoddard Wells Industrial Project IS/MND, City of Victorville (2022; 31);  16454 Adelanto Road Warehouse Distribution Facility Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 17);  Replies on Pure Water Project – Las Virgenes-Triunfo Joint Powers Authority FPEIR, Agoura (2022; 26);  Desert Gateway MND Addendum, Desert Hot Springs (2022; 35);  Blue Oaks Commerce Center MND Addendum, City of Roseville (2022; 12);  Replies on Coachillin Amendment to Specific Plan, Desert Hot Springs (2022; 24);  Island View Mixed-Use CEQA Compliance Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga (2022; 17);  Prairie Station Apartments IS/MND, City if Inglewood (2022; 32);  Golden Land Warehouse CEQA Exemption, City of Rialto (2022; 12);  South Juarez Street Design Review, Banning (2022; 17);  Replies on Pentair Expansion Industrial Warehouse FMND, Moorpark (2022; 13);  2nd Replies on Greentree FEIR, Vacaville (2022; 16);  Replies on Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage FEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 21);  National City-Bayfront, San Diego DEIR (2022; 56);  Goshen Community Plan General Plan Amendment & Addendum (2022, 6);  Primrose and Adelanto warehouse Categorical Exemption, Adelanto (2022, 14);  TenTen Hollywood Categorical Exclusion (2022, 17);  Waste to Hydrogen project IS/MND, Lancaster (2022, 36);  Las Virgenes-Triunfo Pure Water Project <Agoura Hills, (2022; 43);  Shinohara Project IS/MND, Chula Vista (2022; 30);  Marlborough-Northgate Warehouse IS/MND, Riverside (2022; 33);  Meyers Ave, Warehouse IS/MND, Escondido IS/MND (2022; 27);  Northgate Industrial Park IS/MND, Sacramento (2022; 28);  Ramona-Indian Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2022; 44);  Norwalk Entertainment District EIR (2022; 29);  Breeze Luxury Apartments IS/MND, Oceanside (2022; 40);  Paso Commons Golden Hills Commerce Center IS/MND, Paso Robles (2022; 35);  YS Industrial Park Application, Visalia (2022; 20);  Pentair Expansion Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Moorpark (2022; 28);  Salvador Solar IS/MND, Riverside (2022; 27);  Fresno General Plan Amendment 555 IS/MND (2022; 21);  570 Crespi Drive IS/MND, Pacifica (2022; 40);  Renaissance Ranch Commerce Center DEIR, Temescal Valley (2022; 53);  Replies on Glen Ivy Senior Living IS/MND, Temescal Valley (2022; 24);  Glen Ivy Senior Living IS/MND, Temescal Valley (2022; 46);  FedEx Distribution Warehouse IS, Lancaster (2022; 35);  Urban Villages EIR Addendum, San Marcos (2022; 32); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 38  NextEra San Ardos Solar IS/ND, San Ardo (2022; 20);  Summit Avenue Warehouse IS/MND, Fontana (2022; 28);  Gateway at the Oaks DEIR, Thousand Oaks (2022; 30);  Primrose and Adelanto Warehouse CEQA Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 11);  Fore Apartments Staff Report, Oxnard (2022; 29);  975 Manhattan Rd. discretionary approval, Los Angeles (2022; 12);  Coachillin DEIR, North Palm Springs (2022; 30);  2740 W. Nielsen Ave Warehouse IS/MND, Fresno (2022; 25);  Golf Center Warehouse Staff Report, Indio (2022; 26);  Desert Peak Energy IS/MND, Palm Springs (2022; 26);  Replies on Greentree FEIR, Vacaville (2022; 13);  Greentree DEIR, Vacaville (2022; 31);  Town Center DEIR, Laguna Niguel (2022; 16);  2nd Replies on Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project FEIR, San Jose (2022; 3);  Corydon III CEQA Categorical Exemption, Lake Elsinore (2022; 11);  Park Edge Apartments IS/MND, Santa Maria (2022; 30);  Replies on UCSF New Hospital FEIR at Parnassus Heights FEIR. San Francisco (2022; 13);  Replies on North Central Valley BESS Project IS/MND, Stockton (2022; 21);  9248 Holly Road Cannabis CEQA Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 12);  Replies on Amazing 34 Distribution Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2022; 10);  Amazing 34 Distribution Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2022; 28);  Replies on Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project FEIR, San Jose (2022; 5);  Replies on Alviso Hotel Project IS/MND, San Jose (2022; 49);  Bussetto Foods IS/ND, Fresno (2022; 34);  Spruce Ave Commerce Center, Rialto (2022;);  5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Warehouse IS/MND, Montclair (2022; 18);  Conejo Summit IS/MND, Thousand Oaks (2022; 28);  Sixth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 4);  TC NO. CAL. Development Warehousing and Distribution Facility Project DEIR, Stockton (2022; 33);  Replies on Davidon Homes FEIR, Petaluma (2022; 49);  Rural preservation and net conservation benefit coalition reply to post hearing briefs, Garnet Solar (2022; 24);  Garnet Solar direct testimony, New York (2022; 17);  Fifth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 11);  Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Application, Visalia (2022; 22);  Duarte Industrial Application, Visalia (2022; 17);  Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse IS/MND, Madera (2022; 23);  Replies on Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2022; 28);  Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Recirculated IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2022; 8);  Fourth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 9);  Replies on 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2022; 5); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 39  656 South San Vicente Medical Office Project EIR, Los Angeles (2022; 21);  UCSF New Hospital at Parnassus Heights DEIR. San Francisco (2022; 40);  DPR-21-021Warehouse IS, Modesto (2022; 19);  Ormat Brawley Solar Project DEIR, Brawley (2022; 37);  Site visits to Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 31);  Heritage Industrial Center Design Review, Chula Vista (2022; 13);  Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage DEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 31);  CNU Medical Center and Innovation Park DEIR, Natomas (2022; 35);  Beverly Boulevard Warehouse IS/MND, Pico Rivera (2021; 28);  Hagemon Properties IS/MND Amendment, Bakersfield (2022; 23);  Airport Distribution Center IS/MND, Redding (2021; 22);  Orchard on Nevada Warehouse Staff Report, Redlands (2021; 24);  Landings Logistics Center Exemption, Bakersfield (2021; 19);  Replies on Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 22);  North Central Valley BESS Project IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 39);  2nd Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 21);  Stagecoach Solar DEIR, Barstow (2021; 24);  Updated Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2021; 35);  Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, San Jose (2021; 43);  Operon HKI Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2021; 26);  Fairway Business Park Phase III IS/MND, Lake Elsinore (2021; 23);  South Stockton Commerce Center IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 31);  Starpoint Warehouse IS/MND, San Bernardino (2021; 24);  Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 15);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 11);  Alviso Hotel Project IS/MND, San Jose (2021; 43);  Replies on Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 3);  Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 31);  US Cold Storage DEIR, Hesperia (2021; 30);  1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2021; 23);  Third visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 10);  Roseland Creek Community Park Project IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Vista Mar Declaration of Irreparable Harm, Pacifica (2021; 3);  LogistiCenter at Fairfield IS/MND (2021; 25);  Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2021; 29);  Caligrows Architectural and Site Plan Review, Patterson (2021; 21);  1055 E. Sandhill Avenue Warehouse IS/MND, Carson (2021; 10);  Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project IS/MND, Gilroy (2021; 27);  Libitzky Management Warehouse IS/MND, Modesto (2021; 20);  3rd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 10);  Medical Office Building DEIR, Santa Cruz (2021; 30);  Scannell Warehouse DEIR, Richmond (2021; 24);  Diamond Heights Application, San Francisco (2021; 24); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 40  Costa Azul Mixed-Use EIR Addendum, San Diego (2021; 25);  Woodland Research Park DEIR (2021; 45);  2nd Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 9);  Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 3);  Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 28);  DHS 109 Industrial Park IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2021; 33);  Jersey Industrial Complex Rancho Cucamonga (2022; 22);  1188 Champions Drive Parking Garage Staff Report, San Jose (2021; 5);  San Pedro Mountain, Pacifica (2021; 22);  Pixior Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2021; 29);  2nd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 9);  Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Second visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 11);  Replies on Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2021; 26);  Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2021; 30);  4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development EIR, Hayward (2021; 13);  Airport Business Centre IS/MND, Manteca (2021; 27);  Dual-branded Hotel IS/MND, Santa Clara (2021; 26);  Legacy Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Beaumont (2021; 47);  UC Berkeley LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2 EIR (2021; 27);  Santa Maria Airport Business Park EIR, Santa Maria (2021; 27);  Replies on Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 20);  Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 35);  Inland Harbor Warehouse NOD, Ontario (2021; 8);  Alvarado Specific Plan DEIR, La Mesa (2021; 35);  Harvill Avenue and Rider Street Terminal Project MND, Riverside (2021; 23);  Gillespie Field EIR Addendum, El Cajon (2021; 28);  Heritage Wind Energy Project section 94-c siting process, New York (2021: 99);  Commercial Street Hotels project Site Plans, Oakland (2021; 19);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project MND, El Centro (2021; 11);  Citrus-Slover Warehouse Project MND, Fontana (2021; 20);  Scott Ranch Project RDEIR (Davidon Homes), Petaluma (2021; 31);  Replies on StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 5);  StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 25);  Replies on PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2021; 22);  Baldwin-Zacharias Master Plans EIR, Patterson (2021; 38);  1000 Gibraltar Drive EIR, Milpitas (2021; 20);  Mango Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project, Fontana, MND (2021; 20);  Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 25);  Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13);  14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);  SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);  Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98);  Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 41  Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);  Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);  Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11);  Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19);  Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);  Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23);  Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);  Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);  Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);  Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);  Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);  Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);  2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);  1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);  Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);  11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);  Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);  Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);  Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);  Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);  Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;  Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);  3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);  Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);  2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);  Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);  2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);  Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);  Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);  Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);  Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);  AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse, Rialto (2020; 15);  Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);  Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5);  3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);  Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);  UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24);  North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);  Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15);  Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 42  Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23);  First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23);  GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);  Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29);  2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);  Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);  Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14);  Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);  Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);  1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);  1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:  Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);  Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);  Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);  Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);  The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);  Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);  Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);  27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);  2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);  Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);  Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);  East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);  Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);  555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);  Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);  1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);  Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);  Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);  Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);  Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);  Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);  Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);  Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);  Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);  ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);  Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);  PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 43  Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);  Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)  World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);  Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);  West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);  Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);  Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);  Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);  Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);  Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);  Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);  Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);  Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);  Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);  LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);  Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);  South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);  CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);  2nd Replies to responses to comments on responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);  Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);  Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 44  Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);  Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);  Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);  2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);  Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);  City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);  Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);  Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);  IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);  Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);  Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);  At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);  Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);  Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);  Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);  750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);  San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);  CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);  Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);  Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);  North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);  Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);  Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);  Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);  Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);  CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);  Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);  Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);  800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);  2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);  Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);  Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);  Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);  Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13);  Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);  Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);  Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);  The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);  Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 45 County (2017; 5);  Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);  Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);  PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);  Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);  Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);  Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13);  Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);  Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);  Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);  Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);  CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);  Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);  Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);  Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);  Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);  Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);  Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);  Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);  Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);  Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);  Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);  White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9);  Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);  Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9);  Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);  West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 46  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28);  Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10);  World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12);  Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143);  Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21);  Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12);  Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20);  Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9);  Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105);  Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);  Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);  Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);  Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);  Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);  Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);  Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);  Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);  Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);  Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);  Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);  FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);  Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);  Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);  Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);  Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);  Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 47  North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);  Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects IS/MND Lancaster (2012; 8);  J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14);  Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);  Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9);  Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15);  Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16);  Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);  Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5);  Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11);  Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16);  City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28);  Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);  Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);  Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);  Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);  Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);  Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);  Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);  Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);  St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);  Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);  Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);  Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);  Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);  Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 48 Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);  Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);  Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);  Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);  Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);  Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);  Replies to responses to comments on responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);  North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);  Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies);  Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);  Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);  Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);  Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);  Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);  UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);  Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);  Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);  Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);  Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);  UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);  Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);  Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);  California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);  Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);  UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);  Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);  Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);  Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);  US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11); Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 49  Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);  Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);  Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);  Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);  Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);  Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);  Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);  San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Volunteer comments on other Environmental Review Documents:  Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);  Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);  Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);  NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);  Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);  Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);  Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);  State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);  Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);  Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);  NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);  Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists: Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 50  Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2001);  Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);  Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Posters at Professional Meetings  Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9- 12 March 2015.  Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.  Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.  Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.  Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.  Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.  Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.  Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.  Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Smallwood, N., and S. Smallwood. 2025. Improving methods in environmental review Part 1: Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 51 Habitat assessment of wildlife species with potential to occur on a project site. The Wildlife Society – Western Section, Visalia, California, 5 February 2025. Smallwood, S., and N. Smallwood. 2025. Improving methods in environmental review part 2: reconnaissance surveys for characterizing the wildlife community. The Wildlife Society – Western Section, Visalia, California, 5 February 2025. Eagle mortality at wind turbines. Wings over the Columbia Gorge. Friends of the Columbia Gorge, 4 January 2024. Ecology and recent population trend of burrowing owls in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society – Western Section Burrowing Owl Symposium, Riverside, California, 6 February 2023. Renewable energy impacts to burrowing owls. The Wildlife Society – Western Section Burrowing Owl Symposium, Riverside, California, 7 February 2023. Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in Vasco Caves. Via Zoom to Audubon Society, 21 October 2021. Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. Golden Gate Audubon, 21 October 2020. Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. East Bay Regional Park District 2020 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 18 November 2020. Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020. Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020. Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020. Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020. Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019. Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999-2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 52 Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017. Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 53 Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 54 Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 55 The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. “No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 56 February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 57 Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.  Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.  Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.  Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.  Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.  Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 58 KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Reviews of Journal Papers (Some scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos Western Birds Journal of Caribbean Ornithology Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans. Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS Ecology Tropical Ecology Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J Conservation Biology Biology Open Western Wildlife PLOS One Heliyon Global Ecology and Conservation Wildlife Monographs Journal for Nature Conservation Biological Control Ecological Solutions and Evidence Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 59 Journal Journal Wind Energy Environmental and Ecological Statistics The Condor Ecosphere Diversity Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Northeastern Naturalist Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Smallwood CV 60 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Bob Whiton <BWhiton@synoptek.com> Sent: March 05, 2026 11:14 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: residential development on the site of Big Newport theater I just want to voice my opposition to the development of residential properties on the site of the Edwards Big Newport theater. My family would much prefer that we not add additional residential traffic in that area and we would like to see the theater continue to operate there. Bob Whiton 8 Rue Biarritz Newport Beach, CA 92660 714.606.8319 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Ashley Bucher <ashleymbucher@gmail.com> Sent: March 05, 2026 11:20 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: Big Newport Concern Hello, I wanted to share my concern/disagreement about Big Newport going away. Big Newport adds so much character, uniqueness, and history to Newport Beach. Building a luxury housing development in its place would remove one of the few remaining landmarks that gives the area its identity and sense of place. Spaces like Big Newport are part of what makes Newport Beach feel special, not just another stretch of new development. Beyond its history, the theater has long served as a gathering place for the community. It brings people together for premieres, special screenings, and shared experiences that can’t easily be replaced. Once places like this are gone, they’re gone for good. I had my first date here with my high school sweetheart when we were 15. We're now 30 and married with our first child on the way, and the demolition of this special place hurts extra for us. I hope the City will seriously consider the community value of preserving Big Newport before moving forward with plans that would permanently change the character of the area. Thank you for taking the time to consider community input. Sincerely, Ashley Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Mar 5, 2026 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 210-300 Newport Center Drive To: planningcommission@newportbeachca.gov; tharris@newportbeachca.gov; dsalene@newportbeachca.gov; jlangford@newportbeachca.gov; cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; mgazzano@newportbeachca.gov; greed@newportbeachca.gov; Cc: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov; CDD@newportbeachca.gov; ldevoy@newportbeachca.gov; sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov; lwestmoreland@newportbeachca.gov; Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 150-unit housing development project at 210-300 Newport Center Dr. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code (via the conditional use permit process) and the City’s general plan. The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612 www.calhdf.org Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 2 of 2 Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102) From: Courtney Ima <courtneyima1@gmail.com> Sent: March 05, 2026 6:36 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Save Big Newport [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above. Hello, Big Newport is a very special iconic place both for Newport and for my family. Please reconsider changing it to luxury condos. We have fond memories there and my brother-in-law and sister had their first date there. Please try to save Big Newport. I sincerely appreciate your consideration. Warmly, Courtney Ima Planning Commission - March 5, 2026 Item No. 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline 300 Newport Center Drive Condominiums (PA2025-0102)