HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed
Written Comments
November 12, 2014
October 28, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229)
Item 1. Minutes for the October 28, 2014, Study Session and Regular
Meeting
The page numbers below refer to Volume 62. The passages in italics are from the draft, with suggested
changes shown in stfikeeat underline format.
Page 81, Item SS2, paragraph 1: "Public Works Deputy DirectorVukevejie Vukoievic ...
[note: the position listed in the organization chart is "Deputy Public Works Director"]
2. Page 82, paragraph 6: "Public Works Deputy Director Vtkevejis Vukoievic ..."
3. Page 83, Item III, paragraph 1: "He noted that the guide is not from the City, but from the
Strong Orange County Neighberheed Neighborhoods Political Action Committee, and
believed that Council and residents have a right to know about the committee. He
commented on a list of Measure Y endorsers and thanked Mayor Hill for asking that his
name be remove ; not be included."
4. Page 84, Item XII I, paragraph 2: "Council Member Petros reported that the Center
Congress for the New Urbanism hosted a five -day charrette ..."
5. Page 84, Item XII I, final paragraph: "Mayor Hill commented on a recent AFts Art in the Park
program."
6. Page 88, paragraph 4: "Jim Mosher took issue with Measure Yindisating that
questioning the number of dwellings are being removed to make room for 500 new ones
and w.:,,:,enMdan questioning the removal of 1,001 hotel rooms which, along with the
missing homes, are said to make up for the traffic generated by new development.... He
also took issue that a Political Action Committee (PAC) has spent more than $65,900
$165.00 assuring voters that Measure Y creates new water and environmental funds, ..."
[note: I intend to submit a separate written comment clarifying my reasons for questioning the
numbers of dwelling units and hotel rooms assumed in Measure Y. The $165,000 spent by the
Strong Orange County Neighborhoods PAC on Measure Y is documented on page 1 of their October
24, 2014, Independent Expenditure Report No. 244801 -21, on file with the City Clerk.]
7. Page 88, line 3 from end: "... example of a concept plan OF for Main Street, ..."
8. Page 89, line 2 from end: "Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that
the guidelines will apply FegaFdless of whethe whenever a building permit is required sr
net."
9. Page 91, paragraph 2, last line: "... the parking lot will be designed for site sight lines."
10. Page 91, Item 17, paragraph 1, line 3: "... the five "E's" of bicycle friendly urban design, ..."
[note: this is not what was said, but is suggested to add clarity to what was meant. Otherwise it
sounds like words were said about how to build a good bicycle.]
October 28, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
11. Page 91, last sentence: "He noted that the project team is grateful to Council for its
guidance and thanked Council Members Gardner and Petros, as well as the three
community eemmi#ee committees and other members of the community who
participated in the process." [as drafted it sounded like only three committee members
were being thanked]
Item 3. Balboa Village A -frame Signs Interim Ordinance
This item is curious in that Section 3.4 of the Findings to Ordinance 2014 -17, adopted at the
last Council meeting, lists reasons why the A -frame regulations it enacted would not work
well in Balboa Village, including "zero -lot line development patterns" and "unclear
demarcation between private property and public right -of- way," both of which could lead to
placement of the signs on public property in contradiction to the intent of the code.
2. The proposed new ordinance, unlike the previous one, points out in Section 1.1 of the
Statement of Facts that "A -frame signs are prohibited [sic] currently prohibited City -wide,
pursuant to Section 20.42.050 (F)(1) of the City's Zoning Code" and proposes to suspend
that prohibition for one year. I don't recall this suspension being a part of the previous
ordinance, suggesting that persons reading the code will find that in Corona del Mar A -frame
signs are simultaneously prohibited by Section 20.42.050 (F)(1) and allowed by Section
20.42.090(G).
3. Shouldn't the ordinance direct staff to put at least a note about this ordinance in the Zoning
Code? It seems problematic to enact ordinances completely outside the Code that affect
how the Code is to be read. Without a clarifying note, a citizen reading the Code would
have no way of knowing it doesn't mean what it says.
Whatever the Council may think of the above comments, it may wish to correct the following
typos in the preliminary sections of the proposed ordinance:
Proposed Section 1.1 (page 3 -4 of printed agenda packet): "A -frame signs are
prohibited currently prohibited City -wide, pursuant to Section 20.42.050 (F)(1) of the
City's Zoning Code."
2. Proposed Section 3.3 (page 3 -5 of printed agenda packet): "It is appropriate to allow A-
frame signs in the commercial and mixed -use zoning districts of Balboa Village for a
one -year trial basis to evaluate and determine if such signs are suitable for such
districts." [ and wouldn't "on" sound better than "for" ?]
Item 7. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services
Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. for On -Call Public
Works Inspection
The original estimate of services desired to be provided by this contractor does not seem to
have been very accurate, for it appears to me the original contract, C -5701, was for 24 months,
and less than a year into it the originally budgeted amount has been almost entirely expended —
with a request to more than double the estimate while extending the period for which service will
October 28, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
be provided by just two months. It would seem the City should operate with more accurate
information as to anticipated workloads and expenses.
Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services
Agreement with Willdan Engineering for On -Call Traffic Engineering
Services
This seems a near carbon copy, including the same numbers, of Item 7, except with reference
to contract C -5768 and with slightly more unforeseen contingencies. Again, it would seem the
City would benefit from having more accurate estimates of the quantity of help needed before
entering into these contracts.
Item 9. Agreements for Landscape and Hardscape Maintenance on
West Coast Highway (Route 1) for the Mariner's Pointe Development
Project at 100 - 300 West Coast Highway
Although we all hope this project will succeed, this corner has historically underperformed and
many in the community doubt the viability of the latest project. What guarantee do we have that
the "in perpetuity" feature mentioned in the staff report will be effective, and that maintenance of
these private improvements in the right -of -way will not become a burden on the City?
Item 10. Agreement to Purchase a Sewer Rodder Truck
Not living in an area connected to a non -City sewer system, I would be curious to know the
extent to which the City uses equipment of this sort to clear and maintain the "lateral" lines
under private property.
Item 11. Request to Install Private Improvements within the Public
Right -of -Way at 3725 Ocean Boulevard
Does this development require a Coastal Development Permit? If so, has it been authorized by
one? Should a copy of the proposed encroachment agreement being authorized by the City
Council be included with the report?
Item 12. Request to Retain Existing Private Improvements within a
City Easement Reserved for a Future Sewage Force Main at 233
Milford Drive
The staff report does not make clear if the encroachment agreement being authorized by the
City Council will, like the existing one, include conditions reserving to the City the right to
remove the improvements if they ever interfere with the City's plans to use its easement, or why
the proposed agreement is not made part of the report.
October 28, 2014, Council Consent Calendar comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
Item 13. Approval of a Purchase Agreement for Junior Lifeguard
Uniforms
The "Funding Requirements" section of the report does not make clear if the uniform costs will
be subsidized by the City or are covered entirely by the enrollment receipts. And although
Quicksilver is the lowest bidder, the cost per participant of roughly $129 still seems a bit high for
the items described.
Item 14. Consent to Assign Rainbow Disposal's Commercial Solid
Waste Nonexclusive Franchise Agreement
This item was continued from the October 14 meeting because of Councilmember Curry's
concerns, apparently regarding the acquisition of the company. The staff report does not make
clear what those concerns were, or how they've been resolved.
Item 16. Approval of a New Benefits Broker - Alliant Employee
Benefits
It seems troubling that the City's contractor for the past 10 years now ranks lowest. Does their
high score in Step 3 mean they offer lower pricing?
Item 17. Planning Commission Agenda for the November 6, 2014
Meeting
The seemingly innocuous approval of a car rental facility ( "Item No. 2 ") between Campus and
Birch is seen by some as facilitating airport growth, contrary to Council policy, by allowing
expansion of airport support facilities onto surrounding properties, thus allowing a larger airport
operation than would be possible if such activities were confined to their proper location within
the JWA footprint.
Item 18. Measure M Grant Projects Update
I am pleased to see this report, although its appearance on this agenda, like the appearance of
Item 26, may be contrary to the strange Council policy, not required by the Brown Act but
adopted last year, that the full Council has to take a formally agendized vote before it can direct
staff to bring back an item or prepare a report.
Item 24. Metro Cities Fire Authority Joint Powers Agreement
Representative
One assumes there must have been some rationale for why the City's representatives on the
JPA Board were persons unconnected with the Fire Department. It would have been helpful to
explain what that rationale was, why it should be changed, and why, if Chief Poster should be
unavailable, his alternate should continue to be a non -Fire person.
Received After Agenda Printed
Written Comments - Non - Agenda Items
November 12, 2014
November 12, 2014, Council Consent Calendar Comments
The following comment on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda is submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)..vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229)
Item XVII. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEM
This is a follow -up to my written comment on non - agenda items submitted to the City Council's
last meeting, on October 28, 2014, and the staff response it received starting at 16:00 in this
video.
That written comment, and a previous one, dealt with the accuracy of Measure Y, a proposed
update to the City General Plan's Land Use Anomaly Table and Maps which was subsequently
defeated in the November 4 election. The specific question was whether the ballot summary
correctly represented the proposed changes to land use in the Newport Coast / Newport Ridge
area, specifically changes to the allowed number of dwelling units and hotel rooms. The ballot
summary was predicated on the idea that passage of Measure Y would reduce the number of
dwellings that could be constructed in Newport Ridge by 356 units and the number of hotel
rooms in Anomaly 60 of Newport Coast by 1,001 rooms.
The purpose of this comment is to make the City Council aware of the attached documents
which were made available following the election as part of a Public Records Act request.
Exhibit 1 is a table attached to an email sent by CAA Planning to City staff on August 29, 2013,
while the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee was meeting, which seems to be
the origin of the assumption that Measure Y would reduce development in Newport Ridge by
356 units.
The table attempts to compare the number of units in Newport Ridge, as built and subdivided, to
the maximum that could have been built under the County's 1998 Planned Community Program
for the area. While interesting, this is, in my view, completely irrelevant to the effects of
Measure Y compared to the voter - approved 2006 General Plan.
As demonstrated in my October 14 written comment to the Council, Measure Y proposed
absolutely no change to the land use allocation tables or maps for Newport Ridge approved in
the 2006 Plan, and since the two plans are identical, while both those allocations may be less
than they might have been, claiming Measure Y makes any change in potential development in
Newport Ridge compared to the existing plan, either in terms of housing or traffic, is erroneous.
Exhibit 2 consists of three attachments to an email sent by CAA Planning to City staff on July
28, 2014, shortly after Measure Y had been placed on the ballot. The principle point of the
email seems to have been to warn City staff that if Measure Y passed, the new development
limit set for Anomaly 60 (the Pelican Hills / Marriot Villas resort area) would have been as much
as 251,939 sf less than they believe The Irvine Company has already built on the site.
The first two pages (Exhibit 2 — part 1) are copies from the County's Coastal Commission
certified 1996 Local Coastal Program for Newport Coast, specifically for County Planning Areas
13A -13F (which correspond to the General Plan's Anomaly 60) and County Planning Area 14
(which roughly corresponds to the General Plan's Anomaly 61 — the Crystal Cove Promenade
November 12, 2014, Council Item XVII comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
shopping center area). Note that on the first page, CAA Planning has highlighted the "1,900
overnight/resort accommodations' LCP policy limit for the totality of Planning Area 13 /
Anomaly 60, and on the second page, the additional 250 units allowed in Planning Area 14 /
Anomaly 61 provided a total of 2,150 is not exceeded in the combination of the two areas.
The next three pages (Exhibit 2 — part 2) confirm the statement made by the City's Community
Development Director in response to my comment at the Council's October 14 meeting (see
video linked to above) that in 2001 the Orange County Planning Commission approved a
"technical refinement" to the LCP Statistical Table transferring the originally allotted 250 visitor
accomodations from Area 14 to Area 13C. This was possible because doing so did not
exceed the limit of 1,900 units for the whole of Area 13 nor the limit of 2,150 units for the
combination of Areas 13 and 14. In fact, after the refinement, the number of overnight /resort
accommodations assigned to the totality of Area 13 (that is, to Anomaly 60) was 1,850 units.
The Director misreads the "2,150" at the bottom of the table on the final page of Exhibit 2 — part
2 as a license to add 2,150 units to Area 13 / Anomaly 60. It is not. It is simply a reminder of
the overall policy limit for Areas 13 and 14 set by the Coastal Commission in the LCP, which are
subject to the additional policies that the number in Area 13 cannot exceed 1,900 and the
number in Area 14 cannot exceed 250.
The final page (Exhibit 2 — part 3) summarizes CAA Planning's understanding of the amounts of
development currently existing in the various areas, and confirms their understanding that a
maximum of 1,900 accommodations is allowed in Areas 13A -13F.
In summary, as detailed in my October 28 written comment, the City's 2006 General Plan
erroneously set the limit for Anomaly 60 to "2,150 hotel rooms" when the maximum allowed
under the certified LCP is 1,900 and the current County allocation to that area is 1,850 rooms.
Therefore, since the County and Coastal Commission control development in this area, unless
they agreed to honor our plan, which they have not, the full quantity stated in the City's 2006
General Plan could never have been built. The new limit of 1,149 rooms proposed by Measure
Y, and agreed to by The Irvine Company if Measure Y passed, was a reduction of 701 rooms, or
at most 751 rooms compared to what could realistically have been built in Anomaly 60 under the
2006 General Plan, not the 1,001 hotel room reduction on which the ballot summary and traffic
studies were based.
Before leaving this subject, the following additional comments might be made:
Starting on page 25 of Resolution 2014 -67, adopted on July 22, 2014, but made
dependent on voter approval of Measure Y, the Council made a number of changes,
shown in blue, to General Plan land use allocations for Newport Center. Those will
presumably need to be redone to bring the existing construction (for example, the 524
new homes in San Joaquin Plaza) into compliance with the adopted General Plan.
2. With regard to Newport Ridge, I noticed the current General Plan Land Use Map for
Statistical Area N assigns 191 dwelling units to the Bordeaux Apartment Homes
community off Chambord near Bonita Canyon Drive, which is part of Planning Area
21/22 in Exhibit 1. The actual number of residential addresses on Ambroise (the name
November 12, 2014, Council Item XVII comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
of the street in question) appears to be 186. Unless I am missing something, it appears
Measure Y could have proposed reducing the potential in that area by 5 units, but it did
not. Otherwise CAA Planning appears to be reporting that the multi - family parcels in
Newport Ridge have all been built to the maximum capacity shown on the 2006 General
Plan map, and the single- family lots have also apparently all been developed (even
though the County's Planned Community Program would have allowed more). In fact
the multi - family development on Via Amanti (the street within the Newport Coast
Shopping Center CV area), which CAA Planning refers to as Planning Area 22, appears
to have been developed with one unit more than the 2006 General Plan allows (48 built
versus a General Plan maximum of 47 allowed).
3. While the 2006 General Plan Land Use Anomaly Table lists an allowable number of
hotel rooms in Anomaly 60 (2,150) that exceeds the maximum allowed by the LCP
(1,950), it also understates the maximum amount of development allowed. The LCP
page copied by CAA Planning in Exhibit 2 — part 1 highlights the 2.66 million square feet
allowed in County Planning Areas 13A -13F (the same area as Anomaly 60), but says it
does not include "parking and day -use commercial facilities specified in (c) below." CAA
Planning did not copy page 1 -4.2, but it allows "75,000 square feet of floor area" for "day -
use retail commercial facilities, in addition to those included within hotels and other
accommodations areas." Thus I would assume the County and Coastal Commission's
understanding of the development limit for Planning Area 13 / Anomaly 60 is 2,735,000
sf, not the 2,660,000 stated in the 2006 General Plan. Raising the voter - approved limit
by 75,000 square feet would presumably require a Greenlight vote, although the
relevance of the City's General Plan limits is questionable when planning decisions are
under the control of the County and Coastal Commission.
4. Finally, it is not all clear to me that Planning Area 14 / Anomaly 61 (Crystal Cove
Promenade) has been developed in conformance with the LCP goals and policies, which
seemed to envision visitor accommodations with retail uses related to those
accommodations.
IDGE PLANNED COMMUNITY Exhibit 1
Surplus Entitlement - DRAFT
The table below summarizes the number of existing units in the Newport Ridge Planned
Community (P.C.) and compares this number against the maximum entitlement under the P.C. to
determine the number of surplus units remaining. This number was then adjusted to account for
the fact that some units are located in the Coastal Zone and are therefore a part of the Newport
Coast Planned Community. The end result represents the total surplus units in the P.C.
EXISTING UNIT TABULATION
Planning Area
Type
1
Source
Lots /Units
Newport
Coast
Lots /Units
Adjusted
1
Single - Family
FM
115
115
2
Single - Family.
FM
81
81
3
Single - Family
FM
87
87
4
Single - Family
FM
87
87
5
Multi - Family
Address
144
144
6
Multi - Family
Address
150
150
7
Multi - Family
Address
70
70
8/9
Multi - Family
Address
512
512
11
Single - Family
FM
67
67
12
Multi - Family
Address
48
48
13 2
Single - Family
FM
180
96
84
143
Single - Family
FM
90
26
64
15
Multi- Family
Address
168
168
21/22
Single - Family & Multi-
Family
FM &
Address
516
516
Total Units
2,315
122
2,193
'The sources for determining the number of units are the unit totals listed on final maps (FM) or an actual count using the addresses
^ and aerial photos from the City's GIS website
' 96 of the lots in PA 13 are in the Coastal Zone and are part of the Newport Coast P.C. (PA 8)
3 26 lots of the lots in PA 14 are the Coastal Zone and are part of the Newport Coast P.C. (PA 2C)
SURPLUS UNIT TABULATION
P.C. Entitlement
2,550
Existing Units
2,315
Surplus Units
235
PA 13/14 Units in Newport Coast
122
Total Surplus
357
C: \Documents and Settings \cmcdonald \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \3PGL1241 \Newport Ridge Surplus Entitlement- 6SJ27/13
Revision 6th Revision
Exhibit 2 — part 1
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
A. TOURIST COMMERCIAL POLICIES
1. PELICAN FULL DESTINATION RESORT (PA 13A, PA 13B, PA13C,;PA 13D, PA 13—F
AND, PA 13F
a. Principal permitted use for Coastal Act purposes includes overnight/resort accommodations
(such as hotel and motel rooms, casitas, resort and time -share condominiums), and uses
ancillary to and directly supportive of overnight/resort accommodations, including retail
commercial, service commercial, conference and meeting facilities ancillary to the
accommodations, recreation and health facilities, golf courses, parking facilities in surface
and /or subterranean structures, and other support facilities normally associated with resort
hotels such as food preparation, housekeeping, maintenance, and manager's areas.
b. Principal permitted uses and accessory uses, including accommodations, resort facilities,
and the golf course clubhouse but excepting parking facilities and day -use commercial
facilities specified in (c) below, shall be allowed up to a total of 2.66 million square feed
Within this total area, the following intensity of use criteria shall apply:
1) No one of the Planning Areas PA 13A, PA 13B, PA 13C, PA 13D, PA 13E, or PA
13F shall contain more than 60,000 square feet of single, continuous primary
ballroom/exhibition space. ( "Single, continuous primary ballroom/exhibition space"
denotes one large -scale meeting /convention area and does not include the square foot-
age of conference facilities with smaller individual meeting rooms.)
2) In these six Planning Areas, the total square footage of conference and meeting space,
including primary ballroom/exhibition space and individual meeting rooms, shall not
exceed 140,000 square feet.
3) [Atotal of 1,900 overnight/resort accommodations are allowed:
Newpon Cort LCP Second Amendment
Deeember 3, 1996 I -4.1
2. LOWER WISHBONE (PA 14)
a. Principal permitted use includes overnight/resort accommodations and uses ancillary to and
directly supportive of overnight/resort accommodations, including rooms, retail
commercial, and service commercial uses, and incidental and other support facilities
normally associated with resort hotels such as food preparation, housekeeping,
maintenance, and manager's areas.
b. Incidental and accessory commercial development shall include only -uses supporting and
directly relating to the adjacent park, overnight/resort accommodations, and recreational
visitor activities.
c. MaXimum, number of overnight/resort accommodations '(i.e., hotel or motel guest rooms
For—( shall be 250. Within Planning Areas PA 13A -13F and PA 14J there shall be
a maximum oV2,150 overnight/resort accommodation units. Of this total, (1) no more than
1,800 units may be individually owned; and (2) at least 350 units.shall be hotel, motel or
other non - individually owned, non - timesharing condominium resort accommodations..
Coastal Development Permits for individually owned and timesharing condominium
overnight/resort accommodations shall be conditioned to require contracting with a
management company or companies to supply rental services to the project (e.g.,
advertising of units to the general public, taking reservations for the general public,
housecleaning, guest check -in, security, etc.).
d. Principal permitted uses and accessory uses, including overnight/resort accommodations
and all directly supporting commercial facilities but excluding parking facilities and the
day -use commercial described in (f) below, shall not exceed a total of 300,000 square feel
Within this total area, Planning Area PA 14 shall not contain more than 18,750 square feet
of meeting space.
e. Casitas shall be counted as follows with respect to the maximum 250 permitted
overnight/resort visitor accommodations`
Newport Coan LCP Second Amendment
December 3. 1996 1-4.7
Exhibit 2 - part,2
CONDMONALLY
APPROVED
%i5jr t-�
:aS �lY i' %'aE
0 y _ -
LANNING
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Planning Application No. 01 -0079
Planning Areas 3B and 14
Prepared for :
County of Orange
Planning and Development Services Department
Current Planning Services
Contact: Chad Brown, Chief Current Planning
714/834 -5159
Submitted by:
IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Attn: Roberta Marshall
949/720 -2293
Prepared by:
CULBERTSON, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
85 Argonaut, Suite 220
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 -4105
Contact: Kevin Canning
949/581 -2888
August 2001
PA 14 was anticipated, and approved for, development of up to 250 Tourist Commercial
units.
While the addition of the detention basin will be beneficial for both the developments
within the Newport Coast and for the protection of adjacent coastal resources, due to its
size, location and capacity (49 acre - feet), the addition of the basin has rendered the final
increment of what had been PA 14 an infeasible development site for the original tourist
commercial uses. The boundary adjustment would permit the remaining undeveloped
area to be developed as 11 single - family home sites consistent with the balance of PA 3B.
B. Statistical Table Update
The Newport Coast LCP Second Amendment permits the adjustment of dwelling units in
the Statistical Table (see exhibit 2.2 Planned Community Statistical Table - Proposed
Sixth Revision, October 2001). The adjustments proposed with this CDP consist of
refinements intended to reflect more accurate final development figures based upon
project and permit approvals since the last update of the Table, as well as those proposed
with this application. Refinements to the "Estimated Dwelling Units /Accommodations"
are as follows:
Table 2 — Technical Refinement to Statistical Table
�G
a 11
�,elimg3U�mtsf
rEentEsimaEed`
Proposed Estia
{ zDwefling �n1ts/
J tlficattn
1C
173
171
PA01 -0079
2A
212
202
PA01 -0079
2C
567
517
CP 01 -0038
3B
248
296
CP 01 -0039
5
156
170
CP 01 -0038
13C
450*
700*
PA01 -0079
14
250
C
PAO1 -0079
Of the proposed refinements, two are the result of previously approved adjustments
through Changed Plans (as indicated), and others stem from the subject application.
These allocations place estimated dwelling units where there is development potential.
The subject application would also add Ilunits (VTT 16269) plus 17 additional units
reallocated to PA 3B, which remains well under the maximum number established by the
LCP. This-_application would also remove the projected 250_Tourist Commercial units,
(from PA 14,- as the site is physically_ incapable of accommodating such_ a small casitas-
,development: The removal of 250 casitas units from PA 14 does not affect the LCP'_s
Coastal Development Permit PA 01 -0079 October, 2001
Planning Area 3B and 14 Page 7
iA
25.5
29
117
ISO
140
29
117
29
117
1 B
gwmffiff
133.7
rx
ME
W-wo R-In#
magem-
ME=
"W98
488
28
203
488
530
3
100.3
3))
470
182
179
180 (C)
REAR
784
180
0
4A
237.4
UMOR.-E
4B
MMAWN
ME -
100-8
tt -
M
100
--
507
100
0
- 6
(d)
-
75
0
0
7A
25.0
0 (d)
18
0
0
7B
25.0
-
0 (d)
10
0
0
8
35.7
(3)
96 (d)
384
96
96
9
50.6 (4)
-
55
76
55
55
1,868.0
10.0 (3)
2,600
2,600
2,690
1,841
IOA
294.6
IOB
58.8
)s/
11A
203.5
ant
11B
99.5
12A
577.3 (d)
12B
58.0
12C
96.0
12D
34.5
12E
289.6 (d)
:hoof
12F
14.5
12G
35.0
12H
37.5
121
19.6
Water District
12J
9.0
rl(
17
2.807.0 (5)
;s
18
544.0 (6)
19
133.0 (6)
jacent
20B
12.0
ad
20C
8.0
8,djacent
16A
10.0
ad
16B
1.4
21A1218
1.989.0 (6)
21 C121 D
rhON
7,333.8
0
0
0
0
a
13A
6.2 (7)
48.8
546 (8)
1,100
546
13B
27.2
154 (8)
600
.154
HEW
'TD-
�J"
JWW
M
R 4-50%MR-M
1
Y6 (7)
35.4
300
ego
13E
46.0 (7)
13.4
150
300
13F
13.6 (7)
0
0
R
ff W-M
M
-2
20A
17.4
0
0
74.0 (7)
201.3 50
\2,11S0
1,150
0
9,275.8
T _211.3 (3 60012,150
2 60012,1
2 253,1,:,50
1,730
a or accommodations per Planning Area.
s or accommodations per Planning Area.
0.000 sq.ft.) of Neighborhood Commercial will be permitted in Medium/High Residential Planning Areas PA IC, PA 2A, PA PA 3A, PA 3B or PA 8-
�310 �In�r
1 Area 9 Is devoted to Golf Course.
NEWPORT COAST Exhibit 2 - part 3
TOURIST COMMERCIAL ANALYSIS
Planning Area
Maximum Allowed per LCP
Existing per Planning Area
Accommodations
Gross Floor Area
Hotel & Individually
Owned 2
Gross Floor Area
Pelican Hill Resort
13C
1900
2,660,000
204 Hotel
347,563
13D
132
344,0003
13E
72
13F
0
44,376
Other Development
13
532
1,175,0005
136 B
164
Subtotal
;1104
1.,910,939
14
250
300,000
0
0
,Total Allowed
2150
2,960,000
—
--
Total Built—
Pelican Hill
408
735,939
_
Total Built — PA
13A, 13B, and 14
696
_
1,175,000
Total Remaining
1046
1,049,061
Source: 1996 Newport Coast LCP, 2' Amendment
2 No more than 1800 units may be individually owned and at least 350 units must hotel, motel, or non - individually owned.
' Source: Changed Plan CP070009 (Final Changed Plan for Coastal Development Permits PA030075, PA030076,
PA030077, PA030078). Actual Gross Floor Areas for 13C and 13F were provided by the project architect. Gross Floor
Areas for Planning Areas 13D and 13E were obtained from the planning approvals. Additional research is necessary to
determine the actual existing gross floor area.
" Source: County of Orange Building Permit Records
5 Maximum build-out is assumed at this time. Additional research is necessary to determine the actual existing gross floor
area.