Broadmoor Development Timeline (summary comments)
City Council Timeline (1) summary comments.docx
1966 – The Rancho Margarita homes were built (Felicidad and Presidio).
The land directly in front of Felicidad was completely undeveloped until Broadmoor was approved for development in 1976
January 10, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark announced plans to develop what is now Broadmoor, and requested deviation on street widths which had already been denied at the prior meeting o 65 residents of Rancho Margarita voiced their concerns regarding view protection and protested any relinquishment of code requirements or deviations of code o Landmark Financial announced plans to develop Tract 8162 (future Broadmoor Development) o 65 Residents of Rancho Margarita (includes Felicidad) voiced concerns regarding view protection and compatibility with surrounding area, as well as protesting any relinquishment of present code requirements or deviations
o Landmark committed that elevation change between terraces would be 16 – 20 feet so that each terrace would have a view
o Landmark requested deviation on street widths
o Planning Commission noted that this deviation was denied at the last meeting January 23, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Homeowners requested that the City Council only allow one-story homes as a Condition of Approval o Landmark again challenged the requirement of the width of the street indicating that it would be a hardship and would reduce building pad areas
o Fred Keeler, Felicidad homeowner, asked that the City Council make one-story homes only as a condition of approval
February 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o The City Engineer commented that the proposed street widths for Broadmoor were not adequate o The City Engineer commented that the EIS study revealed that proposed street widths were not adequate
February 21, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Landmark again requested deviation on the street width and a compromise on the required 8 foot sidewalks. The Felicidad Homeowners continued to state verbally and submitted letters, that they are unalterably NOT in favor of allowing deviation from code and again, stated their concerns about view preservation
o As a result, Landmark agreed to one-story houses to maintain views, speciƱcally those living on Felicidad
o City Council denied the Developers request for deviation from code o Landmark asked for deviation on the street width and compromise on the required 8 foot sidewalks 243 328
o Felicidad homeowners commented that adjacent property owners are unalterably in favor of NOT allowing deviation from code
o Letters were presented from Felicidad homeowners (including Jay and Susan Rice) expressing concerns and objections to Tract 8162 which included size and height of homes and preservation of views
Developer agreed to one-story houses to maintain views speciƱcally those living on Felicidad o City Council moved to require a new tract map incorporating these new restrictions o Council denied deviations from code
March 1, 1973
Event
x San Clemente City Council sent communication to Landmark containing sections of the meeting minutes from the February 21, 1973 meeting acknowledging that Landmark agreed to a restriction of one-story houses on the north and east side of the perimeter lots (Calle Felicidad and Presidio are the perimeter lots) March 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark submitted a revised tract map restricting homes to one-story construction on perimeter lots facing Delicada and Avenida Presidio so that views will not be obstructed o The City attorney indicated that he would ensure this condition was included in the CC&Rs prior to the approval of the Ʊnal tract map
8 months later on November 14, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Landmark opted out of the option to develop tract 8162 and Richard B. Smith Co (referred to as RBS) adopted the tentative tract for development
o RBS also requested realignment of the center line of the street, and requested a variance of 4 feet on the slope side and 12 feet on frontage side
o The City Engineer again, opposed any deviation from code, as did Felicidad homeowners. However, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the deviation o Landmark opted out of option to develop tract 8162 and Richard B. Smith Co (RBS) adopted the tentative tract for development
o RBS requested realignment of center line of street, requesting a variance of 4 feet on slope side and 12 feet on frontage side
City Engineer opposed any deviation from code, as did Felicidad residents, however, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the deviation November 21, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Larry Lizotte, RBS Developer, again requested the realignment of the street center line to increase the buildable area. The City engineer maintained his resistance to any deviations from the City’s standards o RBS (Lizotte) requested the realignment of the street center line to increase buildable area o Lizotte assured the City Council that they would submit CC&Rs, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation o The City Engineer maintained his resistance to any deviations from the City’s standards and the City Council held over any decision
244 329
November 27, 1973
x Event – Broadmoor / Felicidad Homeowners meeting at Sally Sargent’s home o RBS is now Broadmoor. Larry Lizotte, met with Felicidad homeowners at Sally Sargents home to discuss compromises that would create adequate pad size for Broadmoor and satisfy Felicidad concerns.
o Larry Lizotte (RBS is now “Broadmoor”) met with Felicidad homeowners to discuss compromises that would create adequate pad size and satisfy Felicidad view concerns At that meeting, Felicidad Homeowners agreed to:
x Allow Broadmoor to regrade Felicidad slopes creating a 30 foot sharper angle and more abbreviated top of Felicidad slopes
x Support the elimination of a sidewalk on the east side of Delicada (bottom of Felicidad slopes) Broadmoor agreed to:
x Never allow two-story houses in the Broadmoor community that would interfere with the Felicidad homeowners
x Never allow any tree, bush or structure that would inhibit the existing views of Felicidad homeowners
These statements are found in the sworn Declarations for Jay Rice, Susan Rice, Larry Lizotte, Sally Sargent and noted in item #4 of the sworn Declaration for Cecilia Gallardo-Daly *Note – Broadmoor had many meetings with Felicidad homeowners in late 1973 to early 1974 The next day on November 28, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Larry Lizotte and other Broadmoor associates reviewed agenda items that he had discussed with the Rancho Margarita homeowners the previous day, which included their agreement to limit roof height to 17 feet and one-story construction within Broadmoor
o Homeowners requested that a 17 foot maximum roof height be imposed as a Condition of Approval on houses directly below Felicidad, which is Delicada. Homeowners also requested the City Council impose the height restrictions as an additional Condition of Approval, even though they received a verbal agreement from Broadmoor the previous day during the meeting in Sally’s home o City Council required the following conditions be incorporated into the CC&Rs before they would provide approval:
Building pads for homes facing Delicada be a minimum of 20 feet below the building pads of the Felicidad homes
All homes be single story and no higher than 17 feet and that at no time can a second story or other structure be added which would exceed the 17 feet height limit o Broadmoor also requested a 6’ to 20’ front-yard set-back which the Felicidad Homeowners opposed o Broadmoor requested a 6’ to 20’ front-yard set-back from the city code of 20’ Homeowners from Rancho Margarita Associates (Felicidad) opposed the variance Lizotte and other Broadmoor associates reviewed agenda items that he had discussed with the Rancho Margarita homeowners on Tuesday, November 27, 1973 which included agreement to limit roof height to 17 feet and one-story construction within Broadmoor o Fred Keeler, requested that a 17 foot maximum roof height be imposed as a condition of approval on houses directly below Felicidad. (These houses are on Delicada) o Sally Sargent requested the City Council impose the height restrictions as an additional condition of approval, even though they received a verbal agreement from Broadmoor during the November 27, 1973 meeting in her home
245 330
o City Council moved to approve the plan with the following conditions being incorporated into the CC&Rs:
Building pads for homes facing Delicada be a minimum of 20 feet below the building pads of the Felicidad homes
All homes be single story and no higher than 17 feet and that at no time can a second story or other structure be added which would exceed the 17 feet height limit December 12, 1973
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Broadmoor presented a revised tract map containing 1 less street to negate the variance request to front yard set-backs
o The Planning Commission recommended approval by the City Council of the tentative Broadmoor tract map
December 19, 1973
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor withdrew their request for front yard set-backs which continued to be opposed by the City Engineer. The Homeowners requested that Broadmoor include the following conditions before building:
20 ft. diƯerential in height between Delicada and Felicidad with Delicada roof height between 15 – 17 feet
That CC&Rs include a statement that Delicada cannot add to the height o The Felicidad homeowners then supported approval of the revised tract map based on these 2 conditions
o Broadmoor withdrew request for front yard set-backs which continued to be opposed by City Engineer
o Mr. Kearns, on behalf of Felicidad homeowners, requested that Broadmoor include the following conditions before building:
20 ft. diƯerential in height between Delicada and Felicidad with Delicada roof height between 15 – 17 feet
CC&Rs include a statement that Delicada cannot add to the height o Felicidad homeowners supported approval of the revised tract map based on these 2 conditions. Sally Sargent also spoke in favor of granting Broadmoor a variance on the street centerline o City Council approved the tentative Broadmoor Tract map subject to all conditions but held over the decision on the street centerline variance (pad size)
February 16, 1974
x Event - Agreement between Broadmoor and Felicidad Homeowners o As agreed by Felicidad Homeowners, Broadmoor submitted an agreement to Homeowners for “Easement and Authorization to Perform Grading” of Felicidad slopes. This document can be found in the Jay Rice Declaration package along with pics Felicidad slope being regraded o “Easement and Authorization to Perform Grading” of Felicidad slopes provided to Felicidad Homeowners
(Jay Rice Declaration package) – letter and Pics of regrading March 6, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Larry Lizotte noted that the original Broadmoor tract was for 225 homes and has been revised to 199 homes. Sally Sargent commented that this was in response to density issues and to the City Engineer’s continued refusal to vary from code.
o The Council denied Broadmoor’s request for front-yard set-back 246 331
o Also, on this date, Broadmoor sent a letter to Felicidad Homeowners thanking them for their cooperation to regrade their slopes. This document can be found in the Jay Rice Declaration package . o Lizotte noted that the original Broadmoor tract was for 225 homes and has been revised to 199 homes Sally Sargent noted this was in response to density issues and to the City Engineer’s refusal to vary from code
o City Council denied the request for a front yard set-back x Broadmoor letter to Felicidad Homeowners
o Thanking them for cooperation and indicating that the regrading schedule for the individual Felicidad slopes would be forthcoming (letter in Jay Rice Declaration package) March 20, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor requested permission from the City to grade the tentative tract which was approved May 21, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Homeowners requested clariƱcation of approval condition #16 which states that homes adjacent to Presidio and Delicada be restricted to single-story homes. Larry Lizotte conƱrmed that Broadmoor would abide by the height conditions and he eliminated a condition whereby up to 10% of the houses could be two-story if they did not block uphill views. The City Attorney acknowledged that the CC&Rs were acceptable and contained the height restrictions. At this point, the City still required sidewalks on both sides of Broadmoor streets. The City Council also followed up with a communication to Broadmoor highlighting the height limitations
o Sally Sargent requested clariƱcation of approval condition #16, “The CC&R’s shall contain a provision that homes adjacent to Avenida Presidio and Calle Delicada shall be restricted to a single-story in height”
Lizotte conƱrmed that Broadmoor would abide by the height conditions o Lizotte eliminated a condition whereby up to 10% of the houses could be two-story if they did not block uphill views
o Sally Sargent inquired about the slope grading work schedule (7:00 am – 7:00 pm) o The City Attorney acknowledged that the CC&Rs were acceptable and contained the height restrictions o The City Council passed a resolution that sidewalks are required on both sides of Broadmoor streets o The City Council approved the CC&Rs as amended
o City Council sent communication to Broadmoor highlighting the height limitations August 7, 1974
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o Broadmoor requested a variance to reduce the width of the sidewalks Request denied
September 25, 1974
x San Clemente Planning Commission Meeting
o Lizotte reiterates his statement made at previous hearings that Broadmoor had retained architectural control through the CC&Rs
247 332
During November and December 1974 and in February 1975, multiple communications and interactions occurred between the Homeowners and the San Clemente Director of Planning, to ensure that houses met height restrictions. Sally and 2 other Felicidad ladies physically attended two separate on-site measurements with the San Clemente Director of Building and Planning to conƱrm compliance. These letters can be found in the Sally Sargent declaration package.
November 13, 1974
x Letter from Felicidad Homeowners requested by Sally Sargent, to the San Clemente Director of Planning
o Requested a written report on the actual heights of each of the plans to ensure that the 17 feet height limitation is being enforced (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) o Sally Sargent informed Lizotte of the Felicidad Homeowners request and he assured them that if any house was found to exceed the 17’ limit, it would be “No problem” to lower the roof to bring it into conformity (Sally Sargent declaration package – same letter as above) December 6, 1974
x Response from San Clemente Director of Planning to Felicidad Homeowners November 13, 1974 letter
o ConƱrming an inspection was made on December 5, 1974 and height restrictions were in compliance with the agreement (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) February 11, 1975
x Follow-up letter from Felicidad Homeowners to San Clemente Director of Planning o Requesting a physical on-site measurement model 1A (along the ridgeline) as it appeared to be higher than any other model and requested that Felicidad homeowner be present (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package)
February 12, 1975
x Event – Sally Sargent and 2 other ladies along with the Dept of City Planning were present during the physical measuring of model 1A homes (Sally Sargent declaration) February 13, 1975
x San Clemente Planning Commission letter to Sally Sargent o Acknowledging that the Department of City Planning along with Sally Sargent and 2 other ladies participated in the February 12, 1975 on-site physical measurement of model 1A (along the ridgeline) which measured 17’1/4”; 16’10”; and 17’1” (letter in Sally Sargent declaration package) March 19, 1975
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o as agreed by the Felicidad Homeowners 1 ½ years earlier, Homeowners requested that the City delete the sidewalk requirement on the east side of Delicada. As a result, the City Council approved the deletion of the sidewalk.
o As agreed in the November 27, 1973 meeting with Felicidad Homeowners and the Developer, Homeowners requested the City to delete sidewalk requirement on east side of Delicada o Felicidad Homeowners delivered a petition containing 25 signatures of Felicidad homeowners requesting that the City delete the required sidewalk on the east side of Delicada This would allow Broadmoor to gain footage to move the centerline of the street towards the hillside of Felicidad
o City Council approved the deletion of the sidewalk on the uphill side of Delicada, however, the centerline of the street was to remain
248 333
April 2, 1975
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o The City Council clariƱed that deletion of ONLY the uphill sidewalk on Delicada was approved, not all Broadmoor hillside sidewalks. This was a direct result of Felicidad concessions to provide Broadmoor with adequate building pads
o Lizotte indicated that he understood that all hillside sidewalks were no longer required by the City o The City Council clariƱed that deletion of ONLY the uphill sidewalk on Delicada was approved, not all Broadmoor hillside sidewalks
January 7, 1976
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o The Homeowners requested assurance that the height restrictions be recorded in the CC&Rs when recorded with the County. Broadmoor conƱrmed that all restrictions would be included o The restrictions were in fact, added as a “Supplementary Declaration of CC&Rs” and included single story, 17 foot roof height and 17 foot height restriction on Trees, Bushes and Shrubs which is SpeciƱc to Lots 1 – 19, tract 8963, which is Delicada
o The City Attorney indicated that he is setting up an operating procedure to review the CC&Rs to conƱrm that these items are included in the CC&Rs before recording o Based on this, the City Council approved the Ʊnal tract map for Delicada o Sally Sargent asked for assurances that the height restrictions be recorded in the CC&Rs when recorded with the County
o Lizotte, representing Broadmoor, stated that all restrictions would be included in the CC&Rs and recorded with the County
Added as Supplementary Declaration of CC&Rs and included single story, 17 foot roof height and 17 foot height restriction on Trees, Bushes and Shrubs
SpeciƱc to Lots 1 – 19, tract 8963 (Delicada)
o The City Attorney commented that he is setting up an operating procedure at staƯ level to review the CC&Rs to conƱrm the various items are included before recording o City Council approves Ʊnal tract map for Delicada
February 4, 1976
x San Clemente City Council Meeting
o City Engineer recommends the granting of an easement to Broadmoor for maintenance of Delicada Parkway
February 6, 1976
x Event - San Clemente City Council Easement Recording with Orange County o City of San Clemente grants easement along the easterly side of Delicada to Broadmoor for maintenance of parkway
February 11, 1976
x Event - Supplemental Declaration of CC&Rs was recorded with Orange County o SpeciƱcally noting lots 1 through 19, inclusive of Tract 8963…” (Delicada) o and Tree Height restrictions are noted in Section 3
o This document can be found in Section 2 of your documentation package Are there any questions on the timeline?
249 334
September 6, 2025
To: San Clemente City Council
Subject: Enforcement of Height Restrictions of Broadmoor CCRs x On November 27, 1973 Felicidad homeowners agreed to concessions (gave up land and regrade slope to 30 feet sharper angle and abbreviated top) to provide Broadmoor with adequate building pads. In exchange, Broadmoor agreed to never allow any tree, bush or structure that would inhibit the existing views of Felicidad homeowners. x On February 11, 1976 Broadmoor CCRs were recorded in Orange County noting tree height and structure restrictions to a maximum of 17 feet (Article VII, Section 22). x As of today, 9 of 19 Delicada homeowners refuse to comply with height requirements. All violations have been directly reported to the Broadmoor HOA. x Multiple requests to Broadmoor HOA and to the City Attorney have resulted in lack of enforcement of the height restrictions oƯicially incorporated into Broadmoor CCRs in 1976. x The outcome of civil litigation stated that only the Broadmoor HOA and the City can enforce CCR height restrictions on Delicada and only the City can enforce violations of Conditions of Approval.
x Article XII of CCRs grants the City of San Clemente the authority to enforce theses regulations if the HOA fails to do so.
In summary, I and other Felicidad homeowners request the City to enforce Broadmoor CCRs on height restrictions as the Broadmoor HOA continues to do NOT ENFORCE the restrictions and have trees and shrubs abated to the allowable 17-foot height. Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution.
Thank you,
Elise Kushino
Felicidad homeowner
250 335
September 5, 2025
Letter of Disclosure to San Clemente City Council
Re: Broadmoor HOA, Broadmoor Management Co., and Homeowner Violations of 17’ Height Restriction on Calle Delicada (Tract #8963)
Dear Council Members,
My name is Alan Jay Rice, age 84, and I have resided at 301 Calle Felicidad since September 1968. This home, along with 301 Calle Rica, was originally owned by my father-in-law, Ray Waser, from whom I purchased my property in 1972.
I first came to San Clemente in 1958 while serving in the 1st Marine Division Band at Camp Pendleton. I performed at the dedication of the U.S. 101 Freeway atop the Ave Presidio overcrossing in 1961. Prior to that time, the sole highway from San Diego to Los Angeles was El Camino Real, known as “Slaughter Alley” which went south to Oceanside where I was a policeman for 31 months of my 37-year law enforcement career.
My recollection of events in San Clemente during that time remains clear:
x Ken Carr was City Manager
x Phil Peters was City Engineer
x Cliff Murray was Chief of Police
(The police station was then located at the City Yard on Avenida Palizada) Now, to the point of my letter:
x The land where Calle Delicada homes now stand was, in the early 1970s, an undeveloped landslide complex with wildlife, brush, grass, a waterfall, and a frog pond downward beside La Cuesta
x Residents of Calle Felicidad enjoyed unobstructed views of Catalina Island, Dana Point, and the Pacific horizon
In the late 1960s, we on Calle Felicidad—organized as the Margarita Associates—had already fought off Landmark Financial Corporation’s attempt to build two-story homes without restrictions. Landmark preceded Broadmoor in a failed attempt to build on the fourth & final phase.
Later, when seeking to develop Tract 8963 (Calle Delicada), Broadmoor met with us repeatedly in 1973 – 1975 to negotiate terms. Their officials included:
x Richard B. Smith, founder of Broadmoor who recently sold Broadmoor to Genstar (1973) but continued to manage for Genstar
x Larry Lizotte, Senior Vice President of Broadmoor
x Dennis H. Bickler, Director of Property Acquisition & Assistant Division Manager x S. Reid Gustafson, Vice President & Division Manager
x R. F. Osgood, Senior Vice President & Secretary, and
x Mr. John P. Hazeltine of Broadmoor
251 336
From those negotiations, two binding concessions were guaranteed to Calle Felicidad homeowners and affirmed by the San Clemente City Council:
1. No two-story homes would ever be built in the Delicada tract, in order to preserve Felicidad views
2. No trees, landscaping, or other materials (including antennas, birdhouses, etc.) would exceed 17 feet in height on Calle Delicada. Any potential impediment would be limited to a maximum height of 17’ on Calle Delicada, with no exceptions x Elsewhere in Broadmoor, a 20’ limit was allowed—but Delicada was specifically restricted to 17’.
This restriction was written into:
x Broadmoor CC&Rs, Article VII, Section 22
enforcement provisions noted in Articles 8.4, 10.4, and 12 x Broadmoor Supplemental CC&Rs specific to Delicada, Section 3 These commitments were the quid pro quo for concessions given by Calle Felicidad homeowners, including:
x Relinquishing land - portions of our rear property slopes were cut back and steepened by Broadmoor to stabilize the area—reducing my own lot from ~10,900 sq. ft. to ~10,007 sq. ft.
x Signing City waivers to eliminate sidewalks along Delicada at the base of our slopes, benefitting Broadmoor’s project by satisfying City development requirements Broadmoor officials promised us directly: “You don’t have any worries—it will be in writing for your protection.”
This agreement was not incidental—it was foundational to the very approval of the Delicada tract. To ignore or “turn a blind eye” now would negate the commitments made in good faith between Broadmoor, the City, and the residents of Calle Felicidad.
Today, the Broadmoor HOA and Compass Property Management continue to ignore their duty to enforce these binding restrictions, even after the City granted 2 enforcement pauses. Despite Broadmoor’s own investigation of ten Felicidad properties, at least 36 trees remain in clear violation. Allowing violations to persist betrays the promises made, the concessions given, and the binding protections written into the public record more than 50 years ago.
The HOA’s selective enforcement on Delicada is discriminatory, and a blatant breach of contract. If the HOA refuses to enforce, then—the City of San Clemente has the legal authority to enforce their Conditions of Approval.
I respectfully urge the Council to exercise the City’s documented authority and enforce their own rules—uniformly and immediately. Civil court action against individual homeowners should not be necessary if the governing entities uphold their duty.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Jay Rice
252 337
42 6
Delicada trees > roof
# Felicidad
complaints
Dates of
complaints
# view inspections
required by
Broadmoor for
same violation
# of tree
violations
# Trees
abated
Date
abated
201 yes 1203 egregious 2 2/10; 4/14 2 5207 yes 1 4/14/25 1 1 301 egregious 3 5/6, 5/12 3 3
303 egregious 3 5/6, 5/12 3 4305 egregious 4 2/4; 5/6, 5/12 4 4 4 5/21/25309 yes 2 2/11; 5/6 2 1 1 7/17/25311 egregious 4 2/7; 2/11; 2/15; 2/25 4 1 1 5/3/25 313 egregious 5 2/7; 2/11; 2/15; 3/28; 4/14 5 11319 egregious 2 5/6; 8/7 2 3 325 egregious 1 5/6/25 1 7327 egregious 1
253 338
254
I
I
San Clemente, California
!·larch 19, 1975
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sao Clemante, California, Council Chambers, Civic Center Building, 100 Aveaida Presidio, Wednesday, Narch 19, 1975, at 7 :30 P .N., Mayor Anthony Di Giovanni presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of .America was led by the Mayor. Invocation was given by the Nayar.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmen - FOX, 1101.NES, LANE, O'KEEFE, AND DI GIOVANNI ABSENT: Councilmen - NONE
Also Present: Kenneth E. Carr, City Manager; Max L. Berg, City Clerk; and F. llackenzie Brown, City Attorney.
SELECTION OF MAYOR
!he City Clerk took the Chair and advised that this was the time a~d place for the selection of a Mayor for the ensuing year. The Clerk then declared that nominations were open for Mayor and Councilman O'Keefe then placed in nomination the name of Councilman Di Giovanni. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIUtAN LANE, SECONDED BY COUNClLMA.'l 0 1 KEEFE, AND lJNANil!OUSLY CARRIED that nominations be closed and the Clerk. be instructed to cast the unanimous ballot of the Council for Councilman Di Giovanni as Hayor of the City of San Clemente.
SELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEHPORE
The selection of Mayor pro · tempore was the next order of business and Mayor Di Giovanni called for nociinations for Nayor pro terapore. Councilman Holmes placed in nomination the name of Councilman Lane. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, SECONDED BY COlJHCILMA.~ HOLMES, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that nominations be closed and the Clerk be instructed to cast the unanimous ballot of the Council for Councilman Lane as Hayor pro tel!lpore of the Ci.ty of Sc1n Clement~.
Outgoing Mayor O'Keefe commented on the fruitful and productive past year and reviewed the achievements and hurdles the Council faced in their efforts to serve the needs of the people. He thanked his wife in particular for her tolerance and assistance during the past year. Councilman Lane complimented him on the imagination and vitality he brought to the office and on what he considered was an outstanding job.
Mayor Di Giovanni expressed sincere appreciation to the Council at the confidence in electing him as Mayor and promised to continue the momentum of the past year; and in conclusion thanked his wife and daughters for their support. ' \
SPECIAL BUSINESS
Mayor Di Giovanni called Hrs. Venona M. Straeter to the lee.tern and expressed, on behalf of the Council and her fellow-townspeople, the sincere pleasure in being able.to present to her a Resolution of Commendation (Resolution No. 14-75) for her persistent and tireless efforts towards the retaining of full postal service on Avenida Del Mar in addition to the new facility which would be inconvenient and inaccessible for many residents of the City.
The Clerk read the Resolution, and Councilman O'Keefe read a letter just received from John c. Lintner, Senior Representative, Government Relations Department Office of the' Postmaster General, confirming that there would be no changes which would affect the lobby or window services at the present downtown post office. Mrs.
Straeter expressed her appreciation and thanks to all.
CONSENT CALENDAR
lJPON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN HOU-IES • SECONDED J3Y COUNCILMAN FOX, Ai"'ID UNANntOUSLY CAkRIED, the following Consent Calendar Items were approved, each as indicated below:
Planning Cor,,rnission Minutes
Hinutcs of 2-27-75 - Received and filed. 339
255
334
... -2-
Synopsis of Planning CotT1111ission Actions
Actions of 3-12-75 - Received and filed.
Traffic and Parking Connission Hinutes
Hinutes of 1-23,.;75, 2-6-75, and 2-20-75 - Received and filed.
Parks and Recreation Comnission Ninutes
l!inutes of 3-10-75 - Received and filed.
Zoning Administrator Hinutes
Minutes of 3-5-75 - Received and filed.
Architectural Review Board Hinutes
Minutes of 2-27-75 - Received and filed.
117 - Zoning Petition No. 202-75.
Co:ru:iunication from Planning Co:nmission recol!ll.lending approval of Zoning Petition No. 202-75, rezoning the property coilllllonly referred to as "Cross Hill", an area approximately 7.2 acres from R-3-G PRD (Garden Apartment Planned Residential) District to R-l (Single Family Residential) District - Due to failure of newspaper to publish notice within legal time limit, the Public Hearing was re-set for 4-2-75.
105 - Grant Deed re Tract No. 8597 .
I
. / Memorandum from City Engineer recommending acceptance of a Grant Deed frOl!l H. E. and Jeanne L, Saleen over portion of Lot 119, Tract No. 898 for street right-ofway for Calle Empalme, required as a condition· of Broadmoor Tract }lo. 8597 - Grant Deed accepted and recordation authorized.
/ 42 - Claim for Damages - Billy D. Jones
Claim for damages to vehicle (fallen tree limb) in the amount of $400, filed by Billy D. Jones - Claim was denied,
42 - Claim for Da111ages - Hugh B. Stultz
Claim for damages to vehicle (fallen tree limb) in the amount of $149.23, filed by Hugh B. Stultz - Claim was denied.
42 - Claim for Damages - Thomas Axtater
Claim for damages to vehicle (golf ball) in the amount of $140.64, filed by Thomas Axtater - Claim was denied.,
42 - Clail!l for Damages - Bonnie J. t1cBride
Claim for personal injuries (trip and fall at Cornr.lunity Clubhouse teen center) inl the amount of $56.00, filed by Bonnie J. McBride on behalf of Terri Ann }IcBride - Claim was denied.
42 - Claim for Damages - Jack Pastorok
Claim for damages (aquarium fish alleged to have been killed by water from new filtration system) in the al!lount of $100, filed by Jack Pastorok - Cla:1..D was denied. 87 - Tax Delinquent Parcel Offered for Public Sale.
Commwtication from County Tax Collector offering for public sale certain tax delinquent parcel (portion of Lot z. Tract ?lo. 851 - T.C. Sale l11192), and submitting Agreement whereby City may purchase sall\e for $25, said parcel needed to vest underlying fee . title to City in port.ion of East San Juan - Objection expressed to public sal~ ~nd Mayor and City Clerk authorized to execute Agreement to purchase said property.
3-19-75 340
256
I
I
-3-
lll - Abandonment No. 04-73.
Col!llllunication from Planning Collllnission recommending approval of Abandorunent No. 04-73, being a request from Hr. and !'-!rs. Robert Hathaway to abandon a portion of unimproved street right-of-way on East Avenida Cordoba as such is deemed to be unsuitable for a view park, but retaining a 15' easement for public utility purposes - Referred to City Attorney for preparation of abandonment proceedings.
111 - Abandonment No. 601-75.
Cormnunication from Pl;:mning Commission recollllilending approval of Abandonment No. 601-75, being a request by the City to abandon a 15' unimproved alley located between Lots 136 0 137. 148, and 149, Tract No. 898 in the vicinity of Avenida La Cuesta - Referred to City Attorney for preparation of abandonment proceedings.
Deoartmental Activities Reoort
Departmental Activities Report for month of February, 1975 - Received and filed. 51 - Financial Statement
Financial Statement for fiscal year ended June 30, 1975 - Received and filed.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items Removed for Separate Action)
City COWlCil Minutes of 3-5-75
Councilman Holmes called attention to the item in the Minutes of 3-5-75, Page 7, regarding his report on the recent SCAG meeting concerning the use of the emergency number 911. He requested correction in the fourth sentence beginning "now being used on a trial basis in Marin County" to "possibly to be used on a trial basis in Marin County."
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, SECONDED 1lY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UN/INIMOUSLY CARRIED that the llinutes of J-5-75 be approved, as corrected, and the reading in full thereof waived.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SubJo<1: 105 - Parcel Map No. 803-75 {Rosenbaum-Dashner).
IN RE: Further consideration of the recommendation from the Planning Commission - for approval of Parcel Nap No. 803-75, being a request to divide three lots (Lot 7, 8, & 9, Block 4, Tract No. 795 - addressed 1506-1508 Calle Valle) into two parcels, providing a letter of credit is filed in favor of the City guaranteeing that. certain required,-improvelllents will be made within five years or the funds released to the City for the cost of said improvements if an assessment district under the 1911 Act has not been created, and allowing the Engineering Department the proper amount of time for completion of said improvements; aud that the Staff submit to the City Council a report setting forth details of the prior attempt to form a district under the 1911 Act as well as the present condition of the street.
Discussion ensued between the Council, Mel Portwood, representing the Applicant, and Staff members pertaining to the conditions set forth by the City Engineer and concerns regarding the "jogging" of the lot line between the two parcels. A HOTION BY COUNCILH&'f O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLNES,that the Parcel Map be approved FAILED TO CARRY DUE TO A TIE VOTE with Council.l!lan Fox and Mayor .
Di Giovanni voting "NO" and Councilman Lane "ABSTAINING" from voting. Following explanation by the City Attorney pursuant to the ''rule of necessity" requiring .the one Councilman who "Abstained" to vote, TIIE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY with Councilmen .-Fox and Lane; and Mayor Di Giovanni voting "NO." Following further deliberation and assurance from J:fr. Portwood that he was authorized to approve any changes, IT WAS NOVED BY COUNCIUIAN O 'KEEFE• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, .A.."ID CARRIED to approve Parcel Map No. 803-75, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Collllllission, and further condi~ion that a block wall be built along the easterly portion of the building on Lot 8 up to its front on Calle Valle, and that the lot line between the two parcels be a straight line between Lots 8 and 9 on the buiiding line. Councilman Holmes voted "NO." 3-19-75
:335 i
I
341
257
Sobjut: 87 (68) - Question of Whether Proposed Boys' Club GYlll Could be Part of Coi:i:nunity Development Program,
IN RE: Further consideration of request from Boys' Club of South Coast Area, Inc., for a joint study session with the Council for the purpose of detemining if their proposed gylll could be considered as a part of the "Commtmity Development Program" in order to receive a portion of the Federal Grant.
It was noted that the question previously raised was whether the request to meet was for the entire Council of one or two members only. Discussion ensued with col!!Dleats from Mary Erickson, Human Resources Chairman of the League of Women Voters, suggesting that the p~oj ect '1as one for service clubs and donations and not from monies already set aside for housing and social services in the area.
Cotmcilmen Fox and O'Keefe volunteered to meet with representatives of the Boys' Club and the Mayor so directed.
44 - Colllplaint of Shots fron Skeet and Trap Range I
Landing on Property on Avenida Cota.
IN RE: Further consideration of the complaint from A. L. Wulfeck as to the safety and nuisance factor of the skeet and trap range,
Consideration was also given to a further coilllllunication from A .. L. Wulfeck submitting additional comments and items for consideration in caking determination as to whether or not shooting should continue at the range; :md a communication from - San Cletiente Lodge No. 2068 B.P.O, Elks commenting on their ten-year operation of the skeet and trap range, their pride in this community service, and desire that this valuable city recreational activity be continued,
General discussion ensued between the Council, Mr. Wulfeck, and Walt Liebig, speaking for the shooters and the Elks. Mr. Liebig recotnmended to the Council that the existing range remain status quo and in view of possible development of the State Park on adjacent Camp Pendleton that there be an .immediate investigation of a future site which would be assured of not being·hampered by development and also be able to have future expansion of five ranges plus a pistol range and possibly a rifle range. Mr. Wulfeck reiterated statements made in bis correspondence to the Council and requested that the conditions stated by him be met and the range shut down or he will bold the City responsible for any d.unages.
Councilman O'Keefe agreed that spent shot did carry asfar as the porch on Mr.
Wulfeck.' s property, but expressed the belief that it was not as much a safety problem as a noise problem; and suggested consideration be given the following suggestions: · (1) The range area be secured by fencing and reasonable shooting hours firmly set, (2) That the City construct a glass wind screen alongside }lr. Wulfeck's house as a condition of continuance and if not acceptable that (3) The City reimburse ~Ir. Wulfeck for the cost in his house and interest on his money to be resold with an easement or restrictive covenant allowing the range to continue, and (4) To build the lower skeet house out on stilts closer to the property line and rotated 1s0 w~ich would move th@ tfajectory line away from the subject pro_perty.
Upon further review, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND CARRIED to limit the shooting hours from 9 A.M. to 9:P.M. on Saturday a.11d 10 A,M. to 5 P.H. on Sunday; that signs be posted accordingly; that a fence I be installed from behind the range facility building and over to the San Diego Gas & Electric -property; and that shot be lilllited to no larger than 7½ for trap and 8, or 9 for skeet. Councilman Lane "ABSTAINED" from voting as havirig represented Hr. Wulfeck in certain legal matters.
:tT WAS THEN i-10VED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN :Fox. AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that a committee be fonned comprised of members from the Council, Staff, Elks, and Hr. Wulfeck to investigate a possible future site and to study the request for additional facilities, whether at the present location or another location, and the possible realignment of the present facility in the event there is no other location available; nnd that the City contact the State regarding their time· table as to when their recreational park on Camp Pendleton area adjoining the range will come to fruition.
Sublo<1: 105 - Parcel Mao No. 802-75 (Frank Gen:ion).
IN RE: Further consideration of Planui.ig Commission's recommendation for approval of Parcel Hap No, 802-75, being a request from Frank Germon to divide Lots 33 311 35, 36, Block 12, Tract No. 852, addressed 203-209 West San Antonio, into two• • building s~tes; and the request from"Nrs. Germon that the side~alk construction r equirement be waived. 3-19-75 342
258
I
I
-5-
Folloi,ing cxplao.ation by the Director of Building & Planning, discussion ensued in regard to retention of as l!luch as possible of the trees and landscaping and that the sidewalks would be installed at tha time of the recordation of said prop~rty.
·337
IT WAS :mvrn BY C0L'NCILN.A!~ 0' ~E'FE • SECO~""DED BY COUNC!LNI\N IIOLHES • AlID UtlANIHOUSLY CARRIED that Parcel Map No. 802-75 be approved subject to the conditions reco=ended by Staff and the following conditions: (l) That the oajor trees on the property be required to be retained unless specific permission of the City Council is given to reoove them; (2) That sidewalks around Che entire property be installed at such tir.e as the lot divi~ion is effective and completed, and (3) That i=ediately the hedge be lowered and in the vicinity of the stop sign the foilage behind it be op2ned up so a car stopping at the sign would have visibility, across to the right. s.1,1 .. 1r 109 - Request Cow.mis5ion Minutes be Included on Agenda Consent Calendar.
IN RE: Co'li1!1lunication from AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL CONMISSION OF SA» CLEMEMTE requesting that the minutes of said Co!Jllllission be placed on Consent Calendar of the next Council Neeting after each Commission meeting. rollowing comment. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE., SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND CA.~IED that the minutes of the Bicentennial Comnission not be placed on the Consent Calendar. Councillllan Holmes voted "NO." 'MEETING RECESSED
II WAS HOVED BY COUNCILH.AN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANit1CUSLY CARRIED to convene a meeting of the San Clemente Redevelopment _Agency at 9:25 l',H.
NEETING P-ECONVENED
Meeting was reconvened at 9:35 P.H.
su1tJo<1, 109 - Request City Acknowledge Donors to Bicentennial Fund with Certificate of Recognition.
!N RE: Communication from .AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SAN CLEMENTE requesting that the City send a Certificate of Recognition to contributors- and donors to the Bicentennial Fund for their patriotic generosity and support of the 200th Birthday Celebration. rollovillg discussion and input from Marie Coleman, representing the Commission,
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECONDED BY COUNCIIMAN O'KEEFE, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that a letter be drafted expressing appreciation to the donors using either Bicentennial Commission or City letterhead and signed by the Mayor.
Hrs. Coleman expressed pre;erence for use of City letterhead. sul>ioct: 109 - Request for FUilds re Co~ssion' s Office E.'xpenses Past and Future.:
[N RE: Coilllllunication from .AMERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SA?! CLEMENTE requesting the Council allocate funds to repay the Commission's office expenses from last year in the amount of $550, and the allocation of $100 per nonth until 12-31-76, when the Comnission will be dismissed. to allow monies received from donations to be used for programs and projects.
Following discussion of possible methods of assistance by the City, IT WAS UOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECO:l'DEO IlY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND CARRIED to continue the matter to the next meeting in order to receive from the Bicentennial Commission some breakdown with regard to their economic status at this time, their ability to pay, what amount of money they have, and where they receive their money. CounQilman Holmes and Mayor Di Giovanni voted "NO." Suble<h 109 -:Revised Request for Funds to Attend Bicentennial Workshop. 1N RE: Communication from .AflERICAN REVOLUTION BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION OF SAN CLEMENTE re.questing funds be allocated for two commissioners' travel and hotel acco!nlllodations for tha three-day workshop in Fresno on ~.lay 30, 31, and June l, 1975, fees and agenda for said workshop having been revised since their previ- ous request.
Following discussion and° two motions which dj,ed for a lack of a second, IT WAS 'l'HEN MOVED BY COUNCHJ.IAN I.Ai°"E, SECONDED JW C.OllNCIT.MAN O'KEEl-'P., AND CARRIED to authorize payment of registration fees ($15.00 each person) for two members of the Bicentennial Commission to attend the workshop. Councilman Holmes and 1'1.ayor Di Giovanni voted "NO. 11
3-19-75
343
259
338
$ul,i•«:
-6-
75 - Recollllllendations re City-wide Business District Parking ProbleCLS and Related Matters.
IN RE: Communication fro~ TRAFFIC AND PARKING COHMISSION submitting their recommendations following review of the various recoCllllendations of the Citizens Parking ColXIJ!li.ttee in regard to City-wide business district parking problems and related matters.
I~ RE: Communication and recommendations from the CITIZENS PARKING COMMITTEE in regard to City-wide business district parking problel!IS and related 1:1atters.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMA.,,~ FOX, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANIHOUSLY CARRIED to receive and file the communications.
sui., • .,, 105 - Proposed Parks and Street Scapes re Reeves Ranch.
IN RE: Communication from PAR.XS lu"ID RECREATION COMMISSION recOt!llllending that the I 18-acre site offered by tha Developers of Reeves Ranch not be accepted and the recommendations of the Park Planner (attached) be followed in its entirety; that the City request the land adjacent (easterly) to the proposed junior high school and the land adjacent to the Mormon Church be utilized as park sites for said development; that the secondary street, east and west sides of th~ freeway, have a 14' wide landscaped divider and with an 81 wide bike trail; and that further consideration be given .to the seller dedicating land on top of the bluff which will assure public access for a view site,
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to refer the communication to the Planning Commission to be considered by them along with the revised master plan.
SubJoct: 105 - Resolution No. 17-75 re .Tract No. 8190.
IN RE: Further consideration of adopting a Resolution accepting from DouglassPacific Corporation all works of improvement for Tract No. 8190, and providin·g for release of bonds at certain times and upon certain conditions.
Upon motion of Councilman O'Keefe, seconded by Councilman Lane, and unanimously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 17-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAM CLEMENTE, CALIFORi.'IIA, ACCEPTING FROM DOUGLASS-PACIFIC CORPORATION ALL WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TRACT NO. 8190, AND PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF BONDS AT CERTAIN TI}ffiS AND UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, was regularly introduced,. passed, and adopted.
sui.1.c1, 27 - Proposed Changes in Improvement District No. 8-73.
IN RE: Consideration of proposed changes in Improvement District No. 8-73 whereby the maximum bond interest iate would be increased from 7% to 8%, as explained by the City Attorney. IT WAS HOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL~!AN HOLMES to adopt a Resolution so stipulating.
Discussion ensued prilllarily on the proposed boundaries of the area adopted by the I Council six-l!lonths ago and whether the District would be split. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, AND UNANil10USLY CARRIED to table the matter to the next regular meeting.
Sub[e<I: 112 - Use Permit No. 435-74 - Broadmoor Homes, Inc.
IN RE: Further consideration of Use Permit No. 435-74, being the Broadmoor Homes advertising sign on a portable van called up for Council review, said ~atter having been considered at the meeting of 1-15-75 and held in abeyance until the Applicant ·requested t~e matter re~urned on the Agenda.
Larry Lizotte, Broadmoor Homes, Inc., .p9sted a rendering of a proposed 101 x 60' sign and a map location and Bob Albertson, Director of Marketing, explained the .- various medias of advertising. Sally Sargent acknowledged a meeting at her home at which time the Developers explained their proposal and received input from the r esidents, but expressed some concern regarding the size of the sign and where the sign would be relocated as the Tract develops. Residents Fred Keeler and Frank Dreher stated that 75% of the people at the meeting expressed no objections and it was fel.t it was better to have homes occupied and homes built than barren pads. 3-19-75 344
260
I
-7-
Follov.ing discussion, Council= Fox withdrew his Second co Councilman Lane's t-{otlon for Denial of the requested sign; and IT W/IS HOVEO BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, S~CONDED BY COUNCILHA..'l FOX that the natter be continued to the next oeeti.ng so ·339 .. •.
that the Developer can come in with perspective photographs from different locations, and the fact that it 1s set against the hillside is n strong mitigating factor, and that perhaps this size sign or a smaller size or compliance with our 200 square foot limitation would be appropriate so the Council could make some comparisons. nIE MOTI.ON FA.ILED TO CARRY FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY VOTE with Councilmen Holmes and Lane, and Mayor Di Giovanni voting "NO."
After further revl.ew and comments by Mr. Lizot:te, TI WAS MOVED BY COUNCII..a."ti\N 0'KEEFE, SECOlIDED BY COUNCIUlA..'l FOX, AND CARRIED to continue the matter to the next regular meeting with the request that the Developer bring in signs, both at this l ocation and whatever other potential locations there ·might be, allowing perspective photographs from as many different directions as possible, including the homes that vould be affected and tha Freeway. • Councilman Hol.mes voted "NO."
WRITTEN COHNUNICATIONS
S11bJoct: 105 - Request to Delete the Requirement for Certain Sidewalks within Tract No. 8162 .
IN RE: Petition containing 25 signatures from MR. & MRS, RICHARD KOESTER, et: al, requesting the Council to delete from Broadmoor Homes Tract No. 8162, the requirement that sidewalk be installed on Calle Delicada on the side of the street immediately below the properties of the residents of Calle Felicidad, and Chae the footage gained by the el:m.inat:ion of the sidewalk be put to use by permitting the street centerline and structure pads to be moved four feet in toward the hillside of Felicidad.
The ·Clerk also noted a COllllllUllication from Mr. & Mrs. C. K. Mays and Mr. & Mrs.
Donald Sargent 1n opposition to the petition for deletion of the subject sideva lk.
General discussion ensued and comments were made in support of the petition by Larry Lizotte, representing Hroadmoor Home~, Inc., Fred Keeler, Don Mccormic, and Bob Kahrs. Mr. & Mrs. Donald Sargent reiterated objections made in their communication.
Following lengthy discussion and rewording of the Motion, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY MAYOR.])l GIOVANNI, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED that the street alignment: and parkway widths remain as they are; that the sidewalk condition on the uphill side of the street be deleted; and that the Developer by agreement cause the Homeowners Association to petpetually uaintain a walk.able grass or turf surface on the 8-foot wide parkway on the uphill side of the c~-rb. ,u1tJ•n: 109 - Resolution No . 18-75 re Earnings Limitation Uade-r Social Secur~ty Act. •
rn RE: Communication and resolution from CITY OF WESTI-fINSTER requesting legislation to repeal the earnings limitations under Social Security.
Upon motion of Council111an Lane, seconded by Counci~n Fox, .'.lnd unanimously carried, RESOLU'l'ION NO. 18-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH.E CITY OF SAl'f CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING TIIE EA&'iINGS LimTATIONS UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY BE REPEALED, was regularly introduced, passed, and adopted.
Slll>l <t : 51 - Recommended Improvements re Internal Control Procedures in Finance Department.
rn RE: Colllltluni=cation from DIEHL. EVANS AND cmll'ANY, Ci ty Auditor, in regard to review of books and records of City, an.d recollllllending certain improvements to internal c~ntrol procedpres relating to data processing.
Counci lman O'Keefe requested that someone check w1th the Auditor if they also recommend controls on accounting for use of equipment, together with tqeir maintenance histories, as he had previously -reCol'lllllended. • : allowing acknow1edgment of a mecorandum conta ining co1111aents from the Finance Oi rec tor. I T WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMA..."1 LA.'11 £ , SEcm mED BY COUNCIUI.A.'I l!OLHES' A,.'lD tr.-1 ,i.'IH!OUSLY CARRIED to receive and file t:he communication with acceptance of the auJit col!IIDents from the Finance Director.
3-19-75
345
261
340 -8-
SubJo<t, 109 - Bicentennial Celebrati.on Project.
IN RE: Co11m1unications from MRS. BINNIE C. PAYNE and MR. & MRS. WILLIAM R.
CON"NELL favoring the building of a bandstand at Plaza Park as proposed by the American Revolution Bicentennial Col!mlission.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCill~~ FOX, SECONDED BY COUNCIIMAN LANE to receive and file thQ comml.lllications.
Councilman O'Keefe introduced a letter. from John J. Nolan, Director, Bicentannial Coll!lllunities Division, of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administra.tion in Washington, D, c., agreeing that the construction of a gytDJ1asium would serve a gre~ter goal to the majority of the City than the construction of a bandstand. [twas noted that a copy of said letter should be transmitted to the San Clenente Bicentennial Commission. Councilman Lane also spoke about the possibility oE the development and renaming of .Linda Lane Park as a commemorative event as he and .Council:m.a.c. Fox had proposed. Councilman O'Keefe also expressed commencs .and , _- displeasure to the effect that there appeared to be certain members vithin tne Bicentennial Commission who had ignored the requested guidance and policy of the Council as to desiring a more utilitarian project than a bandstand.
1.'IIE QUESTION \.l'AS TIIEN CALLED AND THE MOTION WAS UNA..'lIMOUSLY CARRIED.
CONMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS
S..l>Jeo, 32 - Use of Sound Amplification Eguioment for Easter Sunrise Service. rn RE: Communication from PARKS AND RECREATION COMMlSSION recommending approval • of the request of tbe First Baptist Church to use V~sta Bahia Park on March 30, 1975,for Easter Sunrise Services; and an application from the Church for the use of sound amplification equipmant for tho Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to approve the request.
tTEMS FROM CITY MAMAGER
~•bl.ct: 68 - Resolution No. 19-75 re Cooperation Agreement with County Coi:rcerui.r:i.g Rousing and Comnlunity Development Act.
IN RE: The City Manager preseuted, explained, and recoJlllllended approval of an amended Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange in regard to the Housing and Co1mnmity Development Act. Upon motion of Councilman Fox, seconded by Councihuul O'Keefe and wu1:iUJ11ously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 19-75, BEING A RESOLUTION OF 'TilE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT"l OF SA.'t CLEMEllTE, CALIFORNIA, ENTERING INTO A COOPERATION .AGREEMENT: WITH THE COUNTY OF OR.ANGE FOR PARTICIPAI'ION IN HOUSING A..'ID COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974• was regul~rly introduced, passed and adopted.
PAYING OF TRt DILLS
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUtlCIUtAN FOX, AND UNANil!OIJSLY CARRIED that Warrants No. 35327 through No. 3557.4, as audited by the Council, be paid, including ratification of Payroll Warrant l-lo. 35337.
Total Demands approved for payment for the
period of March 6 through March 19, 1975 .. ........ $352,925.51 Ratification of- Payroll Warrant No . 35337, for
period of February 24 through !:"..arch 9, 197.5
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER.
RESOLUTIONS
$ 62,710.93
• $ 415 ,636.l,4
For Resolution No. 17-75 see under "UNFINISHED BUSINESS" on Page 6.
For Resolution No. 18-75· ·see under "WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS" on Page 7.
For Resolution No. 19-75 see under "ITEMS FROM CITY ?-lANAGF.R" on Page 8. 3-19-75
I
346
262
I
I
-9- 341 i
,\DJOURNMENT
IT WAS }lOVED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HOLMES, A?m UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED to adjourn at 11: 50 P.H., to Tuesday, March 25, 1975, at 8 A.M. of the City Council
3-19-75
347
263
I
I
San Clemente, C1lii'ornia
February l,, 197()
t, 1:cgular m~eting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente, California, Council Chamber, Civic Center tuilding, 100 Avenida Pre:i1dio ~ Hec!nesday.
Felii:ua,:-y 4', 1976, at: 7:30 r.a., Hayor Anthoay R. Di Giovanni prcsiclinr;.
PLEDGE 01" ALLEr.I!INCE ANIJ U iVOCAI!Oll
'Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United S_tntes of i'.merica uas led by Councilt:'.an Jlolnes. Invocation was given by Counciloan O'Keefe.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmen - FO:C, HOLltES, O'KEEFE, Al!D DI GIOVANNI
Councilmen - LAflE (arrived a few minutes late)
Also Present: Kenneth E. Carr, City llanager; Max L. Ilerg, City Clerk; and F. Mackenzie .lirmm, City Attorney.
SPECIAL BUSINESS
Sul,jtct: 43 - Resolution No. 21-76 and Certificate of Appreciat:1.on t:o Gerald Teachout.
IN RE: Presentation of a Resolution and Certificate of Appreciation to retiring Finance Director Gerald Teachout.
- The Mayor aske-0 retiring Finance Director Gerald Teachout to step forward to the lectern and the City Clerk read a Resolution colJllllending Mr. Teachout for his 1~ years of dedicated service to the City.
213
Upon motion of Councilman Holmes, seconded by Councilman O'Keefe, and unanimously carried, RESOLUTION NO. 21-76, BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GERALD. S. TEACHOUT FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE AND ITS CITIZENS• . AND EXTENDING SINCEREST GOOD WISHES TO HIM IN HIS RETIREMENT, was regularly introduced, passed and adopted.
A Certificate of Appreciation and the Resolution were then presented to Mr~ Teachout · who received a standing ovation frotn those present.
CONSENT CALENDAR
UPON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN HOLMES, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND UNANIMOUSLY . CARRIED the following Consent Calendar Items were approved, each as indicated below:
Piannin& Commission Minutes
Minutes of 1-14-76 and 1-28-76. - Received and filed.
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
~Iinutes of 1-13-76. - Received and filed.
'.traffic and Parking Comission Ninutes
Minutes of 1-22-76. - Received and filed.
Zoning Administrator Minutes
Minutes of 1-21-76 and 1-28-76. - Received and filed.
Architectural Review Board
Hinutes of 1-20-76 and 1-22-76. - Received and filed.
City__ Council Minutes
Minutes of 1-7-76. - Approved as presented and reading in full ~hereof waived. 2-4-76
. !
348
264
- 2-
5•bi,n, 100 - Slurrv Seal Project No:>. 16-75.
t :· RE : Memorandum fro111 City Engineer advising that Slurry Seal Project No. 16-7 5 has been satisfactor ly CO!!.J>leted by Chamb~c- Mix, I nc. and reco!!ll!lending acceptance of the work. - Work accepted aud fili.ng of Noci c e of Completion aucborized.
Ssbj..,, 2 7 Improvement; District No . 2J-75U - La Cue ta Underground Utility Conversion.
n ; R.E: Memot:andum from City Engineer s ubmitting a property 0 1~-ner pecition. fo:::
foTiilation of an Assessment District f or unde:i;grou.nd utility conversion in the La Cuesta area, to be known a.s Improvement District No. 23-75U. - Referred to Cicy Engineer and City Attorney for preparation of proceedings. 5'oltlodi 105 - Easement Granted to Broadmoor HO!lles, Inc. for Maintenance of Parkway on Calle Delicada, 'I'ract No. 8963 .
IN 'RE: Memorandum from City Engineer rec0111Dending the granting of· an eas-nt to 8roadmoor Homes, Inc. for aiainteu.ance of parbay on Calle Delicada. - Granting of easement approved and exec:utioa. by the Mayor and City Clerk autborized.
CO~SENT CALENDAR (Items Removed for Separate Action)
s..bJ ... , 77 - Amendment to H/CDA Contract - Beach Access - West Portal and Buena Vista.
IN RE: Memorandum from Director of Building and Planning recol!iinending an Amendment to the B/CDA Contract: t:o provide for construction of beach access io the vicinity of West Portal and Buena Vista.
Wilma Bloom questioned why West Portal was being considered as only Avenida Poniente had been discussed at a study session on the matter, aud co!lllllented that many property owners in the Poniente area were working towards providi_ng for this access.
Tne City Engineer indicat:ed it would be more difficult t:o provide the beach access on Avenida Poniente because of the highly eroded land which would also r equire new drain lines and chat West Portal, which is only a distance of some 500 feet from Avenida Pouiente, has been co~pacted and has~ gentler slope with which to work and the expense would be considerably less.
The Director of Building and Planning pointed out on a map the various locations that have beach accesses and the approximate distances between them.
Ruth Kes t er. a resident on Avenida Poniente , expressed the desi.r e for -che beach access on Poniente and felt that if a beach access were provided on West Portal one would not be considered at a later date for the Poniente area. · .
Following discussion, IT YAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN LANE, SECONDED 'BY _COCJNCILMAN O'KEEFE, AND CARRIED to approve the recommendation of the Director of Duilding and I
. Pl.anni.ng and provide for coo.struction of the beach access in the vicinity of West Portal and Buena Vista, and to approve the Amendment to the Agreement and authorize execut:ion by the Mayor and City Clerk. Councilaan Holmes voted ''NO" .
PAYING OF THE BILLS I
IT !IAS HOVED BY COUNCILMAN FOX, SECO..\JDED BY COUNCIU!A..'i HOLMES, AND UNANH!OUSLY CARRIED that Warrants No. 39270 through No. 39451 as audited by the Council, be paid, including ratification of Payroll Warrant No. 39272.
Total Demands approved for payment for the p eriod
January 22 through Februacy 4, 1976 . . . . . . . . $271,787.94 Rat ·fication of Payroll Qarrant No. 39272
for period of January 12 through January 25, 1976 $ 71,793.23 TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $343,581.17
2-4-76
349
265
THE: CITY Or SM CLEH':}l'iE. A Municipal Corporation,
for a good and valuable consideration, rec~ipt of i·,hich is acknowledged. hereby grants to
HO:•~O'A~ERS' ASSOC!AHOH OF 6, d~CHXJ. HO, ~s
an ease~ent for the purpose of ingress and ~~intenance of arkways. over and across that certain real property si tu~~ed in the City of San C1errente, County of Orange. State of California. and particularly described as follow~:
The P.arkwa along the easterly side of Calle Delicada
in its entiret;y w1~ill .Tract Ho. 8963 as recorded February ll:, 4. :, 44, and 45 iDcluaive in Book 369 .. Pages • Hi see 1 laneous Haps. Records of Orange County, California.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Oate February 6, 1976
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On February 6, 1976, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Anthony: R. Di Giovanni , known to me to be the Mayor, and Hue L. Berg , known to me to be the City Clerk of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and known to me to be the persons who executed t he within instrument on behalf of the corporation therein naited, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to a minute or~er of its City Council .
WI n:ESS my
---.,•- : -
1976~
·•. I
\
350
September 8, 2025
City of San Clemente
City Council
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
For over a decade, Felicidad Homeowners have repeatedly asked Delicada and the Broadmoor HOA to comply with the City-imposed 17-foot height limit on Delicada.
That restriction was not arbitrary, it was the quid pro quo for Felicidad’s concessions that enabled the development of Delicada possible. The agreement was clear:
x Felicidad relinquished land, allowed slope recontouring, and waived the sidewalk requirement, to create the pad space required by the City to develop Delicada x In return, Broadmoor agreed to limit all structures, trees, bushes and shrubs on Delicada to 17 feet
It’ just that simple.
The City was not a by-stander, it actively participated in securing these concessions and imposed the 17-foot restriction as a binding Condition of Approval on every Delicada property.
For almost 30 years, Broadmoor complied. Now, for over a decade, they refuse to even engage with Felicidad, arguing that because we are not HOA members, we have no enforcement rights.
The Council has delayed City intervention by granting two enforcement pauses, totaling 10 months, in the hope that Broadmoor would comply voluntarily.
Since the City’s Demand for Compliance (June 26, 2024), only six of 42 egregious violations have been abated.
The Council has already received extensive documentation proving that Delicada’s 17-foot limit was the direct quid pro quo for Felicidad’s concessions and, was imposed by the City as a binding Condition of Approval.
Supporting documentation has been submitted to the September 16, 2025 City Council Packet:
x Broadmoor CCR Article 8 section 4
x Broadmoor CCR Enforcement Article X section 4
x Broadmoor CCR Article 12
x Broadmoor CCR Section 22
* All grant the HOA and the City authority to enter private property and directly abate violations
x Broadmoor Supplemental CCRs for Delicada
o Section 3: 17 foot Tree Height limit
o Section 4: Broadmoor’s responsibility to maintain east side of Delicada slope
266 351
x Declaration of Cecilia Gallardo-Daly – Former San Clemente Community Development Director
x Declaration of Laurence Lizotte – Broadmoor Developer x Declaration of Alan Jay Rice – Original Homeowner
x Declaration of Sally A. Sargent – Original Homeowner
x Declaration of Susan P. Rice – Original Homeowner
o 5 Sworn Declarations attesting to the quid pro quo and its history x City Council Timeline (1) summary comments
o Official meeting notes from City Planning Commission and City Council Meetings January 10, 1973 – February 11, 1976
x City Demand Letter to Broadmoor HOA
o Issued June 26, 2024
x EXHIBIT 4 – Letters to and from City Planning confirming height limit o Communications between Felicidad and City Planning Director Broadmoor Diversionary Tactics
Slope Maintenance
Broadmoor falsely claims that Felicidad fails to maintain its slopes. In fact, Broadmoor is responsible for maintaining the 8-foot wide parkway from the east side of the curb, along the entire length of Delicada. Notably, several sprinklers in this area have reportedly been capped, not by Felicidad.
x Broadmoor Supplemental CCRs for Delicada - section 4
x SCCC Minutes & Delicada Easement Grant - 2 documents
x SCCC Mar 19 1975 Slope Maintenance - page 7
Height, Not View, Defines the Violation
Broadmoor asserts that some Delicada trees over 17 feet don’t impact Felicidad views and therefore should not be subject to enforcement.
This is not possible on Delicada as every property has a Felicidad home directly above it.
The 17-foot limit on trees is not subjective - it is aligned with the 17’ roof height limit and applies uniformly to every Delicada property (201 – 327)
x Exhibit 4 – letters to and from City Planning confirming height limit Complaint Process
Broadmoor has taken no proactive steps to comply. Instead, they:
x Require Felicidad to file complaints with pictures from their properties x Disclose complainant identification to Delicada violators x Require that we allow three representatives onto our properties for “view inspection” x If the Board confirms that a violation exists, the process could move to IDR and ADR o Smisko HOA process to Felicidad 2-5-25
Broadmoor claims this is the process they take with their HOA members. However, for years, they argued that because Felicidad is not part of the HOA, Felicidad should not benefit from the height limit and cannot compel compliance.
267 352
Following Broadmoor’s ludicrous process dictated seven months ago, most Delicada violations have been reported by 2–5 Felicidad homeowners for the same property, yet each Homeowner must undergo a separate inspection—and still, only a token few (just 3 properties involving 6 violations) have been abated.
Felicidad is Broadmoor’s Land Benefactor and should never have been compelled to endure this burdensome and abusive process.
The Height Restriction Remains Binding, Regardless of Time or View Inspections During Broadmoor’s “inspections”, a Board member argued with Felicidad Homeowners that:
x They can’t tell which trees Felicidad was complaining about; x Certain trees don’t obstruct or significantly obstruct their view; x Homeowner wasn’t around when the agreement was made 50 years ago, implying that the height limit no longer applies;
x Delicada homeowners can simply sit on assessments indefinitely and still not comply x Delicada violations
Litigation Threats
The City must not allow threats of litigation from Delicada dictate enforcement of its regulations.
Delicada and Broadmoor are not fighting to protect any legitimate rights, they are willfully and intentionally breaching their agreement with Felicidad and the City to inflict harm on neighbors, with nothing but malicious intent.
The true risk is not in enforcement of City regulations, but in allowing defiance and delay to prevail, which erodes confidence in every approval, condition and promise the City ever has made, or ever will make, to its citizens.
Felicidad Acted in Good Faith
Any suggestion that Felicidad should “compromise”, “find middle ground” or accept subjective measurements, such as accepting that Delicada merely “thin out” violations - completely disregards and effectively nullifies, the critical concessions Felicidad made 50 years ago.
If the City is prepared to negate one part of the agreement, why not all of it? Return Felicidad’s land, restore slopes to their original grade, install the required sidewalk, and compensate Felicidad for decades of lost land use.
Broadmoor’s token enforcement efforts were never about compliance, they were delay tactics designed to placate the City Council, exhaust Felicidad, and pit neighbor against neighbor. Their refusal to comply not only undermines the integrity of City regulations but shows a blatant disregard for the City’s authority in upholding its Conditions of Approval.
I respectfully urge the Council to uphold the integrity of Conditions of Approval, assume City enforcement of the Delicada height limit, and immediately abate every remaining violation on Delicada.
Sincerely,
Reva Buck
268 353
Dear San Clemente City Council,
I am writing this letter to implore the City Council to resolve the concern of Broadmoor's unnecessarily slow and in some cases non-existing enforcement efforts regarding Delicada Street and park trees that exceed seventeen feet in height. I have heard several Felicidad resident’s accounts that Broadmoor had been enforcing this HOA requirement for thirty some years but then stopped the enforcement. Since that time Felicidad residents have been struggling with trying to work with Broadmoor on this issue. I have personally witnessed this for the past fifteen years.
Thank you for your dedication to the betterment of San Clemente and your consideration to the resolution of this matter.
Regards,
John Milroy
269 354
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.
A Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Knoblock on September 16, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.
PRESENT: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the following:
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a)&(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(2):
Alleged violation of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code sections 4000, et seq.) as set forth in the attached letter from Angelo and Lisa Garruba.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION Whether to initiate litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d) (4)
Number of Cases: 1
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
1 Attachment 4
355
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 Rob Johnston, Johnston Pacific, spoke in support of the Luminar Business Park project.
Steve Del Guercio, Counsel for SC Holding LLC, opined that the property should not be required to be a member of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.
Amanda Quintanilla commented on the property and proposed uses.
Richard Lutzky (Participating via Zoom), applicant, provided a rebuttal to public comments.
There being no others desiring to speak, Mayor Knoblock closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Wu, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to:
Adopt Resolution 25-138, which will:
1. Determine that the project does not require further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15183.
2. Conditionally approve Development Permit 25-224, Conditional Use Permit 25-223, Discretionary Sign Permit 25-263, and Tentative Tract Map 25-225 for the Luminar Business Park project.
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Meeting Recessed
The meeting recessed at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. with all City Councilmembers present.
8D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE FAILURE OF
BROADMOOR SAN CLEMENTE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO ENFORCE
CERTAIN COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&RS)
Mayor Knoblock continued the Public Hearing.
Community Development Director Atamian and City Prosecutor Silver reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to City Council inquiries.
35611
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 16, 2025 The following individuals spoke in support of the City enforcing the 17 foot height limit in the Broadmoor Homeowners Association:
Charlene Marlowe, San Clemente, provided written comments to the City Council. A hard copy of the comments are on file with the City Clerk.
Matthew Marlowe, San Clemente
Maureen Wilson
Reva Buck
John Carretti
Paul Lefcourt
Paul Buck, San Clemente
Shannon O'Toole, San Clemente
Eric Fermin
The following individuals spoke in support of allowing Broadmoor to enforce its Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs):
Linda Williams, Broadmoor Homeowners Association, narrated a PowerPoint presentation concerning enforcement action by the Broadmoor Homeowners Association. A hard copy of the presentation is on file with the City Clerk.
Angelo Garruba, San Clemente
John McAuley
Marianne McAuley, San Clemente
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, second by Councilmember Wu, CARRIED 5-0, to determine that the Broadmoor Association has continued enforcement of its Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CR&Rs), and continue the public hearing to January 20, 2026, to allow the Broadmoor Association’s process to continue according to their specified timelines.
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
Following public comments, the Public Hearing was continued to January 20, 2026.
9. Unfinished Business
None.
Continue Meeting Past 11:00 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Loeffler, second by Mayor Knoblock, CARRIED 5-0, to continue the meeting until 11:30 p.m.
AYE: Cabral, Enmeier, Loeffler, Wu and Mayor Knoblock
NOE: None
35712
From: Elise Kushino
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:06 PM
To: Knoblock, Steve <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; CityClerk Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Calle Delicada Height Restrictions
Dear Mr. KnoblockThank you for your continued consideration and attention to the tree height restrictions and enforcement issues on Calle Delicada and Broadmoor HOA. We are respectfully requesting the City of San Clemente assume the enforcement of the 17-foot height limit due to Broadmoor HOA’s lack of enforcement over the last 10+years.
As documented, the City imposed the height restriction as a Condition of Approval tied directly to concessions Felicidad homeowners made to enable the homes on Delicada to be built. In addition, the City further required Broadmoor to incorporate this condition into the Supplemental CC&Rs as additional protection to Felicidad homeowners. Felicidad continues to act in good faith; however, Broadmoor has done little to enforce its own CC&Rs. The Council’s March 18, 2024 directive that the violations be abated expeditiously, on their face without Broadmoor’s subjective assessment has not been met. To date, there are more than 30 violations to the height restriction.As a non-HOA community, we rely on the City to uphold its approved conditions.
In summary, when the subject of height restriction enforcement is addressed at the upcoming January 20, 2026 meeting, we respectfully request the City to take over enforcement as Broadmoor has clearly demonstrated it will not enforce the restriction as agreed to and added to the Broadmoor HOA Supplemental CC&Rs February 11, 1976 (Article VII, Section 22). Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution and unfortunately, now require the City to enforce the agreement following much effort on our part to work with the Broadmoor HOA.
Respectfully,
Elise Kushino and Kal Kouatli
Felicidad homeowners
358
From: Elise Kushino
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:06 PM
To: Knoblock, Steve <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; CityClerk Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Calle Delicada Height Restrictions
Dear Mr. KnoblockThank you for your continued consideration and attention to the tree height restrictions and enforcement issues on Calle Delicada and Broadmoor HOA. We are respectfully requesting the City of San Clemente assume the enforcement of the 17-foot height limit due to Broadmoor HOA’s lack of enforcement over the last 10+years.
As documented, the City imposed the height restriction as a Condition of Approval tied directly to concessions Felicidad homeowners made to enable the homes on Delicada to be built. In addition, the City further required Broadmoor to incorporate this condition into the Supplemental CC&Rs as additional protection to Felicidad homeowners. Felicidad continues to act in good faith; however, Broadmoor has done little to enforce its own CC&Rs. The Council’s March 18, 2024 directive that the violations be abated expeditiously, on their face without Broadmoor’s subjective assessment has not been met. To date, there are more than 30 violations to the height restriction.As a non-HOA community, we rely on the City to uphold its approved conditions.
In summary, when the subject of height restriction enforcement is addressed at the upcoming January 20, 2026 meeting, we respectfully request the City to take over enforcement as Broadmoor has clearly demonstrated it will not enforce the restriction as agreed to and added to the Broadmoor HOA Supplemental CC&Rs February 11, 1976 (Article VII, Section 22). Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution and unfortunately, now require the City to enforce the agreement following much effort on our part to work with the Broadmoor HOA.
Respectfully,
Elise Kushino and Kal Kouatli
Felicidad homeowners
359
From: Elise Kushino
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:17 PM
To: Wu, Zhen <[email protected]>
Cc: Atamian, Adam <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; CityClerk Mail <CityClerk@sanclemente.org>; Kal Subject: Calle Delicada Height Restrictions
Dear Mr. WuThank you for your continued consideration and attention to the tree height restrictions and enforcement issues on Calle Delicada and Broadmoor HOA. We are respectfully requesting the City of San Clemente assume the enforcement of the 17-foot height limit due to Broadmoor HOA’s lack of enforcement over the last 10+years.
As documented, the City imposed the height restriction as a Condition of Approval tied directly to concessions Felicidad homeowners made to enable the homes on Delicada to be built. In addition, the City further required Broadmoor to incorporate this condition into the Supplemental CC&Rs as additional protection to Felicidad homeowners. Felicidad continues to act in good faith; however, Broadmoor has done little to enforce its own CC&Rs. The Council’s March 18, 2024 directive that the violations be abated expeditiously, on their face without Broadmoor’s subjective assessment has not been met. To date, there are more than 30 violations to the height restriction.As a non-HOA community, we rely on the City to uphold its approved conditions.
In summary, when the subject of height restriction enforcement is addressed at the upcoming January 20, 2026 meeting, we respectfully request the City to take over enforcement as Broadmoor has clearly demonstrated it will not enforce the restriction as agreed to and added to the Broadmoor HOA Supplemental CC&Rs February 11, 1976 (Article VII, Section 22). Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution and unfortunately, now require the City to enforce the agreement following much effort on our part to work with the Broadmoor HOA.
Respectfully,
Elise Kushino and Kal Kouatli
Felicidad homeowners
360
361
From: Elise Kushino
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:12 PM
To: Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>
Cc: Atamian, Adam <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; CityClerk Mail <CityClerk@sanclemente.org>; Kal Subject: Height restrictions - Called Delicada
Dear Mr. EnmeierThank you for your continued consideration and attention to the tree height restrictions and enforcement issues on Calle Delicada and Broadmoor HOA. We are respectfully requesting the City of San Clemente assume the enforcement of the 17-foot height limit due to Broadmoor HOA’s lack of enforcement over the last 10+years.
As documented, the City imposed the height restriction as a Condition of Approval tied directly to concessions Felicidad homeowners made to enable the homes on Delicada to be built. In addition, the City further required Broadmoor to incorporate this condition into the Supplemental CC&Rs as additional protection to Felicidad homeowners. Felicidad continues to act in good faith; however, Broadmoor has done little to enforce its own CC&Rs. The Council’s March 18, 2024 directive that the violations be abated expeditiously, on their face without Broadmoor’s subjective assessment has not been met. To date, there are more than 30 violations to the height restriction.As a non-HOA community, we rely on the City to uphold its approved conditions.
In summary, when the subject of height restriction enforcement is addressed at the upcoming January 20, 2026 meeting, we respectfully request the City to take over enforcement as Broadmoor has clearly demonstrated it will not enforce the restriction as agreed to and added to the Broadmoor HOA Supplemental CC&Rs February 11, 1976 (Article VII, Section 22). Felicidad homeowners have been working to resolve the height violations with Broadmoor HOA for many months without resolution and unfortunately, now require the City to enforce the agreement following much effort on our part to work with the Broadmoor HOA.
Respectfully,
Elise Kushino and Kal Kouatli
Felicidad homeowners
362
363
201 Delicata in San Clemente. The following is a summary of the correspondence since that date:
November 1, 2025
Krystal stated that the enforcement process was begun with the homeowners to address the palm tree.
November 19, 2025
Krystal stated that the pepper trees were reviewed on the property drive of November 13, 2025, and a landscape company had been contacted requesting a proposal and that proposal was received on, November 17, 2025.
December 15, 2025
Mark Kelly requested an update via a phone call and an email.
Would it be possible to provide an update?
Thankyou,
Mark and Dena Kelly
From:
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 12:49 PM
To: 'Krystal Cervantes' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Ryan Phillips' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hi Krystal
Could you please update us on the status of the HOA trees and the Palm Tree at 201 Delicata?
Many Thanks
Mark
From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:45 AM
To: 'Krystal Cervantes' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hi Krystal
If it helps you, I have photographs of the California Pepper Trees on or about the date that the HOA planted them.
Mark
From: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> 364
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 8:04 AM
To: Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Good morning,
This area was looked at on the property drive on 11/13. The landscape company was requested to provide a proposal for the areas that are the Association’s responsibility (some areas on the slope are not our property). We received the proposal on Monday, and it is under review.
Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Association Manager
Compass Property Management
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite #B
San Clemente, CA 92673
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We Have Moved!
Effective October 1, 2025, we moved to a new office location. The new address is:
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite B, San Clemente, CA 92673. Please update your records accordingly. Our phone number and emails will remain the same. Thank you! Friendly reminders: Invoices should be emailed to
[email protected] for processing and homeowner HOA dues payments should be mailed to P.O. Box 25170, Santa Ana, CA 92799-5170 or paid through owner portal online (AppFolio).
From: >
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 7:59 AM
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Broadmoor Trees
Hello Krystal,
On September 18th we started this process basis my correspondence to you regarding the trees. On October 10th we were notified that a letter had been sent to the homeowners. On November 1 we were notified that a “Property Drive” would take place on 11/13. Could you please update us on the status? When will the Palm Tree be removed? When will the Pepper Trees be addressed? Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter, 365
Mark Kelly
From: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 11:20 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hi Mark,
We started the enforcement process for the property on Delicada you filed the complaint against and the Broadmoor association trees will be reviewed on the next property drive with the landscape committee on 11/13.
Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Association Manager
Compass Property Management
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite #B
San Clemente, CA 92673
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We Have Moved!
Effective October 1, 2025, we moved to a new office location. The new address is:
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite B, San Clemente, CA 92673. Please update your records accordingly. Our phone number and emails will remain the same. Thank you! Friendly reminders: Invoices should be emailed to
[email protected] for processing and homeowner HOA dues payments should be mailed to P.O. Box 25170, Santa Ana, CA 92799-5170 or paid through owner portal online (AppFolio).
From:
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 6:04 AM
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Good Morning
I am updating the city managers (Jonathon Lightfoot, Adam Atamian) and city council on the progress regarding the
366
four trees (Palm Tree, Brazilian Pepper, and two California Pepper Trees) today. How should I respond?
Mark and Dena Kelly
From: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2025 12:13 PM
To: ; Ryan Phillips <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
My pleasure! I will be in touch.
Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Association Manager
Compass Property Management
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite #B
San Clemente, CA 92673
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We Have Moved!
Effective October 1, 2025, we moved to a new office location. The new address is:
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite B, San Clemente, CA 92673. Please update your records accordingly. Our phone number and emails will remain the same. Thank you! Friendly reminders: Invoices should be emailed to
[email protected] for processing and homeowner HOA dues payments should be mailed to P.O. Box 25170, Santa Ana, CA 92799-5170 or paid through owner portal online (AppFolio).
From:
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 6:19 AM
To: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]>; Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hello Krystal,
Truly Thank You! Please include the two California Pepper Trees in the request of the HOA Board. We received assurances when they were 367
planted over twelve years ago that they would not grow to be in excess of the CCR’s height limits. They are trees that grow to 50 feet with a spread Of 25 feet. They grow at a rate of 3-5’ per year. They will be a constant maintenance issue.
Again, thank you for your attention to this matter,
Dena and Mark Kelly
From: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 6:38 PM
To: Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hi Mark,
My apologies for the delay of the update. It has been determined that an inspection from your property is not required. A letter has been sent to the homeowners regarding the tree. Regarding the Brazilian Pepper, I will have your request in the next board meeting packet which is next week.
Thank You,
Krystal Cervantes
Operations and Association Manager
Compass Property Management
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite #100
San Clemente, CA 92672
Office (949) 429-7717, ext. 234
Fax (949) 429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
We Have Moved!
Effective October 1, 2025, we moved to a new office location. The new address is:
1031 Calle Recodo, Suite B, San Clemente, CA 92673. Please update your records accordingly. Our phone number and emails will remain the same. Thank you! Friendly reminders: Invoices should be emailed to
[email protected] for processing and homeowner HOA dues payments should be mailed to P.O. Box 25170, Santa Ana, CA 92799-5170 or paid through owner portal online (AppFolio).
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 7:09 AM
To: Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>; Krystal Cervantes 368
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Broadmoor Trees
Hello Ryan and Krystal
It has been a month since the correspondence below. Is it too early to ask the status? The last information I have received
was that the HOA would be contacted. Has that occurred? If so, what was the response? How should we proceed?
With respect
Mark and Dena Kelly
From: Ryan Phillips <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 5:09 PM
To:
Cc: Krystal Cervantes <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Broadmoor Trees
Mr. Kelly,
Thanks for sending this over. I have cc’d Krystal here who is the Property Manager for Broadmoor. She will work with the Board to help you.
With respect,
Ryan Phillips
302 N. El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Clemente Ca, 92672
O. 949-429-7717 F. 949-429-7718
www.compasspropertymanagement.com
Google Compass
We’re Moving!
Effective October 1, 2025, we will be moving to a new office location. The new address will be: 1031 Calle Recodo, Suite B, San Clemente, CA 92673. Please update your records accordingly when the time comes. Our phone number and emails will remain the same. Thank you!
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 5:04 PM
369
370
To: Ryan Phillips <[email protected]>
Subject: Broadmoor Trees
Good Afternoon Mr. Phillips,
Thank you for returning my call. I spoke with Adam Atamian earlier today and he gave me your name stating you could help us. We have corresponded with Adam and Andy Hall regarding the Broadmoor HOA Trees below us (a copy of the correspondence is attached). I have enclosed a current picture of trees on Delicata below us taken from a window in our home. At the corner of the driveway at 201 Delicada is a Brazilian Pepper Tree which the Broadmoor HOA is responsible for trimming. It has been trimmed sporadically every couple of years. It was trimmed last year. Unfortunately, when it is trimmed the growth rate (6 plus feet a year) is not taken in consideration, so most of any given year it exceeds 17’.
The Kelly’s (no relation) who own the property below us on Delicada are great people and we will help them in any way we can with the Palm Tree.
Thank you for your help we look forward to speaking with you, Mark and Dena Kelly
371
372
From:
To: Atamian, Adam; Hall, Andy
Subject: Fw: Delicada Tree Height Non-Compliance with March 18, 2024 Council Directive Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 7:02:19 PM
Hi Adam
I sent this email to each council member.
If Staff is going to present a resolution for Jan 20, is it possible for Felicidad to review and provide input?
Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thanks,
Reva Wright Buck
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
On Monday, January 5, 2026, 11:40 AM, reva.wright wrote:
Dear Mayor Loeffler,
Happy New Year, and thank you for your continued attention to the long-standing tree height enforcement issue on Calle Delicada. I am writing to respectfully request that the City assume enforcement of the 17-foot tree height limit, due to the Broadmoor HOA’s limited and inconsistent enforcement of this City-imposed condition.
For over 30 years, Broadmoor complied with this objective height restriction, which the City imposed as a Condition of Approval tied directly to concessions Felicidad made to enable the houses on Delicada to be built. At the time of approval, Felicidad acted promptly and in good faith in reliance on this condition, which was a material term of the City’s approval of the development. The City further required Broadmoor to incorporate this condition into the Supplemental CC&Rs specific to Delicada at the behest of Felicidad, as an additional protection.
Around 2015, Broadmoor abandoned enforcement altogether and has since asserted that because Felicidad is not part of the HOA, Felicidad homeowners have no right to expect compliance, despite the restriction being a City-imposed Condition of Approval.
Over the past 14 months, the Council has granted three City enforcement pauses to allow voluntary compliance by the Broadmoor HOA. Some progress has been made, however, new violations have emerged, and Broadmoor has taken no proactive enforcement action.
Every abatement has only occurred after City intervention or repeated complaints from Felicidad. Broadmoor has also attempted to recast this as a subjective “view” dispute, despite the height limit being clear, measurable, and uniformly applicable, a point confirmed by the City’s own planning correspondence.
As of today, a Delicada park area and five private properties, remain out of compliance, accounting for more than 30 violations including new growth. Selectively pruning or thinning, rather than reducing trees to the required height, does not constitute compliance. 373
The summary below documents the current Delicada violations, including the affected properties, and the dates they were reported to the Broadmoor HOA, 8 to 11 months ago.
While Felicidad has reported violations for many years without resolution, these dates reflect the first submissions made under Broadmoor’s internal process, which the Council required Felicidad to follow beginning in November 2024.
The Council’s March 18, 2024 directive that violations be abated expeditiously, on their face, and without Broadmoor’s subjective assessment has not been met, and the burden continues to fall on Felicidad.
The risk to the City is not in enforcing its own conditions, but in allowing a Condition of Approval to be disregarded through repeated delays, inaction, and ongoing noncompliance.
Doing so undermines confidence in all negotiated agreements. Felicidad has acted in good faith throughout. As a non-HOA community without legal representation, we rely on the City to uphold its approved conditions.
When this matter returns on January 20, we respectfully urge the Council to assume enforcement authority for the Delicada height limit. Broadmoor’s long-standing nonenforcement has imposed an unreasonable burden on Felicidad and demonstrates that voluntary compliance is not sustainable.
We also ask that Felicidad homeowners be included in the development of any long-term, City-led enforcement framework, so that the process is reasonable, transparent, consistent and not defined solely by Broadmoor. The current requirement that Felicidad repeatedly allow Broadmoor representatives onto our properties for “view assessments” is intrusive, and inherently unworkable as trees never stop growing.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued commitment to fairness and accountability.
Reva Wright Buck
374
375
376
Email: [email protected]
CA License #0B40010 / RT’s License #0G97516
The contents of this email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information, and is intended only for the named recipient(s). If this email is not addressed to you, and/or you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email (including any attachments). Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, disclosure, saving, copying or reliance on this information is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. Ryan Specialty accepts no liability for any damage caused by email communication.
Privacy Notice
Additional Privacy Notice for California Residents
377
378
379
380
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Adam Atamian, Community Development Director Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT (PHP) 25-558 TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LODGE HOTEL ROOFTOP
RESTAURANT TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE ROOFTOP SEATING AREA AND ADD OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND MAKE FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..body
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact, but the City could realize increased sales tax from the proposed rooftop restaurant operations.
Summary:
The City Council is asked to consider changes to the previously approved rooftop restaurant at The Lodge Hotel, which was approved by City Council on September 16, 2025. Previously, all 204 seats for the restaurant were anticipated to be outdoors. These modifications would enclose the restaurant bar and at least half of the seating as well as incorporate acoustic glass around the remaining outdoor seating between five to seven feet in height to contain noise, and provide additional conditions of approval that better outline the parameters of the rooftop operations.
In accordance with San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) 17.12.180, applicant requests to amend previously approved projects are to be referred to the final decision-making authority for the original project when the proposed modifications are “significant enough to warrant discretionary review and have the potential for public impact or concern.” Therefore, this amendment request requires a public hearing with the City Council, which approved the original commercial site plan in 1999 as well as a modified site plan in 2004 to include a hotel and a further modification in 2025 to allow a rooftop restaurant at that hotel.
Background:
On June 25, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution 25-085 which directed staff to prepare an amendment to the MCSP development standards within Section 502(V)(D) to allow the already-approved hotel to reach a maximum of 55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the highest roof projection, consistent with the approved theater building height exception to the RC zone.
Staff prepared that amendment for consideration alongside Addendum No. 6, which evaluated the proposed increase in height against the FEIR. On September 16, 20251, the City Council
1 Related staff reports from September 16, 2025 are available online:
https://www.sanclemente.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09162025-116?html=true 381
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
approved an amendment to the MCSP development standards to allow the hotel to utilize the same height standard as the theater (55 feet to the plate line and 62 feet to the highest roof projection) and also approved Public Hearing Project 25-343 to amend Site Plan Permit 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit 99-17 (See Attachments 4, 5, and 6 for prior approvals related to this property), which increased the roof line ten feet (resulting in a total building height of 55 feet) with an additional 7 feet to accommodate the elevator towers (resulting in a total height of 62 feet for that projection), which allowed for the establishment of a rooftop restaurant with outdoor seating.
Figure 1 - Project Location
Discussion:
During and after the public hearing, members of the public expressed concern about potential noise from the proposed rooftop restaurant. City staff, residents, and the applicant’s architect have met on multiple occasions: first to understand concerns, and then through an iterative process, to develop revised designs and additional conditions of approval for the rooftop restaurant space to address those concerns.
The original proposal included a 5,800 square-foot open-air rooftop deck (with 171 dining seats and 33 bar seats) as well as 4,600 square-feet of enclosed fifth-floor area (comprising support services for the proposed rooftop dining area, such as elevator service, kitchen area, storage, restrooms, and corridors). The applicant now proposes to enclose the restaurant bar and much of the seating as well as incorporate acoustic glass around the remaining outdoor seating between five to seven feet in height to contain noise. Figures 2a and 2b, below, show the previously approved north elevation and the proposed north elevation (all elevations can be found in greater detail in Attachment 2, Amended Plan Set). Figure 3 shows the proposed rooftop plan. 382
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
Figure 2a: 2004 Approved North Elevation
Figure 2b: 2025 Approved North Elevation
Figure 2b: 2026 Proposed North Elevation
Figure 3a: 2025 Approved Roof Plan
Figure 3b: 2026 Proposed Roof Plan
Enclosed Area
383
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
The proposed modifications would not increase restaurant seating, so the only changes under consideration are architectural and operational. The proposal adds a gabled roof centered on the top floor. The bar area and at least half of the seating would be indoors. The west end of the restaurant would open via folding doors to the roof deck area. The first portion of that area would be covered by cantilevered roof, and additional portions of the deck area would be partially covered by pergolas. Surrounding the open air deck would be 5-7’ tall glass allowing for views and optimized to limit transmission of sound out of the restaurant area.
This design was also informed by an acoustic consultant, RK Engineering Group, Inc., which assisted in identifying design opportunities to further limit noise emanation from the project. The RK analysis (Attachment 3) identifies that the 2025 approved plans would comply with the City’s noise ordinance. However, the proposed plan shows an improvement in noise management. The average noise level near residences would be at 39.1dBA on average, which is a noise level equivalent to a refrigerator or a whisper and well below the City of San Clemente’s exterior noise thresholds (55.0 dBA Leq for daytime and 50.0 dBA Leq for nighttime).
City staff, residents, and the applicant have been developing additional conditions of approval that better outline the parameters of the rooftop operations. The proposed conditions of approval will establish comprehensive operational, design, and performance standards for the hotel rooftop facility to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and long-term enforceability. Collectively, such conditions are tailored to address consistency with prior entitlements, limitations on permitted uses and events, restrictions on noise, lighting, hours of operation, and outdoor activity, and requirements for enclosure systems, monitoring, and on-site management oversight. The conditions also incorporate compliance with adopted technical studies, impose constructionrelated limitations, and ensure that all requirements run with the land and apply to future owners or operators, providing a clear and enforceable framework for ongoing operations while protecting nearby properties and the public interest. Such conditions are recommended by the parties to be included in the proposed Resolution.
Generally, staff, neighboring residents, and the applicant are optimistic about the modified plans, and addition of conditions of approval, and believe that it will result in an improved fit within the existing community and a higher quality experience for customers. Based on the foregoing, and staff’s further review of the amended plans (Attachment 2) and acoustic report (Attachment 3), staff supports the amendment to the approved plans and addition of conditions of approval.
Proposed Resolution No. 26-03 provides additional detail and justification for how this project is able to meet the required findings for approval.
Council Options:
Adopt Resolution No. 26-03, to approve PHP25-558 to modify the previously approved Lodge Hotel Restaurant design and operational conditions of approval as proposed; or Continue the item with direction to staff to refine design elements or conditions of approval related to the proposal; or
Reject Resolution No. 26-03 and deny the amended design and operational conditions of approval.
384
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
Environmental Review/Analysis:
The proposal is consistent with prior environmental review, including Addendum No. 6 to the previously certified FEIR for the MCSP (State Clearing House [SCH] No. 1995091037). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed changes to the approved project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects identified in the 1998 FEIR and subsequent addenda.
Nor is there any new information, not disclosed at the time of the prior environmental analyses, that shows the potential for any such new or more severe impacts. Rather, the supplemental acoustic analysis demonstrates that both the approved plans and the proposed modifications comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The revised project results in a lower expected average noise level at nearby residential properties.
The project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, which allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of a hotel and conference center within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. In this case, the enclosure of a portion of the rooftop restaurant area, within the permissible maximum 62-foot height limit afforded to the hotel under the MCSP, will not produce any new or more severe impacts that were not discussed in the FEIR, in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, and other prior analyses.
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-03, which would:
1. Find that no further environmental review is needed, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15183; and
2. Approve PHP25-558 to modify the previously approved rooftop restaurant to enclose a portion of the restaurant bar, as well as incorporate acoustic glass around the remaining outdoor seating between five to seven feet in height to contain noise, and add operational conditions of approval applicable to the use of the rooftop restaurant/bar. ..end
Attachment:
1. Resolution 26-03
2. Amended Plan Set
3. RK Engineering Noise Impact Study
4. Resolution 25-137 with Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval
5. Resolution 04-61 with Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval
6. Resolution 99-68 with Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval 385
Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
Notification:
Provided pursuant to the requirements of SCMC 17.12.100 for public hearing items. 386
Attachment 1
4934-9616-2407 v1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE APPROVING PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT 25-558 TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED LODGE HOTEL ROOFTOP
RESTAURANT TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE
ROOFTOP SEATING AND ADD OPERATIONAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND FINDING THAT NO
FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED,
CONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND
§15183
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) (State Clearing House [SCH] No. 1995091037); and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 95-01, Specific Plan 95-02, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16, and a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17, and Sign Exception Permit 99-18, revising the commercial portion of the project to consist of 700,140 gross square feet of commercial uses, including 443,860 SF of specialty retail, 176,232 SF of entertainment, and 80,048 SF of general retail; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project, acknowledging that most, but not all, of the property lies within the Coastal Zone. Land outside of the Coastal Zone, including the subject site, does not fall under CCC jurisdiction. The plan approved by the CCC incorporated requirements that preserved additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, set development back from preserved areas, required substantial restoration and enhancement of degraded open space, reduced the number of residential lots from 424 to 313, and approved 141,500 square feet of commercial space within the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to reconcile differences between the CCC approval and the City’s prior approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution 04-61, which certified Addendum No. 5 to the MCSP Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved an amendment to commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16, to include the addition of a hotel and conference center; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 approval denoted an anticipated maximum parking demand of 3,061 parking spaces for the entirety of the commercial site plan development, including 349 387
Resolution No. 26-xxx Page 2
4934-9616-2407 v1
spaces for the hotel (211 for hotel rooms and 138 to support the conference center); and WHEREAS, impacts of all parking spaces at the Outlets were fully analyzed in the Final EIR for the original project, including 3,718 parking spaces; and subsequent amendments and addenda analyzed alterations to the parking supply finally arriving at a count of 3,264 as approved by the Amended Commercial Site Plan 99-16 in 2004, rendering a surplus of 203 spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City and Coastal Commission approved conversion of buildings 9- 11 from retail and restaurant use to medical use in 2020 and 2022 respectively, resulting in an additional surplus of 34 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City approved a substantial conformance plan set in January of 2019 (B19-099) for a four-story hotel and conference center comprising 133,515 square feet with 130 guest rooms, a conference center, lobby restaurant, and outdoor pool, with a total parking demand of 309 spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Subcommittee reviewed the 2004 project between November 24, 2003, and June 7, 2004; and subsequently reviewed the amended project proposal on June 10, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-085, which, among other things, directed staff to initiate an amendment to the MCSP and carry out required environmental review to establish additional height allowances for the hotel building on the Outlets property consistent with height allowances for other landmark structures, including the theater building; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposed a modification to the approved hotel plans to allow an increase in height from 45 feet to 62 feet to establish a roof deck restaurant, with an updated project parking demand of 356 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council introduced and, on October 2025, adopted Ordinance No. 1795 (Ordinance) to certify Addendum No. 6 to the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 1995091037) which amended Section 502 (V)(D) within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) allowing the 62- foot maximum height for the hotel; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-137, approving Public Hearing Project 25-343 to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 And Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously approved hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa to allow for an increase in height from 45 feet to 62 feet to incorporate a rooftop restaurant with outdoor dining; and WHEREAS, City staff collaborated with the Applicant and interested residents to further refine plans for the rooftop restaurant to improve compatibility within the community and enhance the customer experience, resulting in a proposed modification to the approved rooftop restaurant plans and establish additional conditions of approval; and 388
Resolution No. 26-xxx Page 3
4934-9616-2407 v1
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed modifications to the approved application in accordance with SCMC 17.12.180 (Applicant Requests to Change Approved Applications) and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated fully herein and adopted as findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that the proposed modification would not result in new or more severe significant environmental effects. The proposed modification would also not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives are required. No new information, not known at the time of the prior analyses, has been disclosed that shows the potential for any new or more severe impacts beyond what has been previously analyzed under the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan FEIR (SCH No. 1995091037) and Addendum 6, which analyzed the increase in height to the hotel building to allow a rooftop restaurant. Therefore, no further environmental review is required, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162.
The City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, that the project also qualifies for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Section 15183 allows streamlined CEQA review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. Section 15183 requires the lead agency to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR; that are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR; or that are previously identified significant effects that, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, will have more severe adverse impacts than discussed in the prior EIR. The project description assessed in the 1983 EIR included the development of a hotel and conference center within the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan. In this case, the enclosure of a portion of the rooftop restaurant area, within the permissible maximum 62-foot height limit afforded to the hotel under the MCSP, will not produce any new or more severe impacts that were not discussed in the FEIR, in Addendum No. 6 to the FEIR, and other prior analyses.
SECTION 3. Amendment Findings and Conditions. With respect to PHP 25-558, to modify PHP25-343, which was approved by City Council Resolution 25-137 and amended Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17: the City Council affirms the findings made within Resolution 04-61 and Resolution 25-137.
SECTION 4. Approval of PHP 25-558. The City Council hereby approves PHP 25- 558 (modifying PHP 25-343) to amend Commercial Site Plan Permit (SPP) 99-16 and 389
Resolution No. 26-xxx Page 4
4934-9616-2407 v1
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-17 to modify the previously approved rooftop restaurant at the hotel at 401 W. Avenida Vista Hermosa consistent with the modified architectural plans provided as Attachment 2 to the agenda report, dated January 20, 2026, entitled “Consideration of a Resolution to Approve Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-558 to Modify the Previously Approved Lodge Hotel Rooftop Restaurant to Enclose a Portion of the Rooftop Seating Area and Add Operational Conditions of Approval; and Making Findings under the California Environmental Quality Act.” The project remains subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit 1 of Resolution 04-61 and as added to by Resolution 25-137. Additionally, Exhibit A to this Resolution establishes additional conditions of approval for the project.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California 390
Attachment 1
4934-9616-2407 v1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-XXX was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
391
DECEMBER 12, 2025
Mr. Tim Fleming
ACRM ARCHITECTS + INTERIORS
1045 14th Street, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOFTOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY, CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE
Dear Mr. Fleming:
INTRODUCTION
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide the following noise analysis for The Lodge at San Clemente Hotel (hereinafter referred to as “project”), in the City of San Clemente, California.
The project site is located near the east leg of the intersection of Avenida Vista Hermosa and The Outlets at San Clemente. Exhibit A shows the location map of the proposed project.
The proposed project consists of a four-story hotel with a rooftop venue. The rooftop will include a bar and outdoor dining and lounge seating areas.
It is RK’s understanding that the project has been approved through the City’s entitlement process based on the existing plan (hereinafter referred to as “Permitted Plan”). Since that time, adjacent residents have expressed concerns regarding the potential for noise generated by the proposed rooftop venue. As part of these concerns, the residents commissioned a letter and accompanying acoustical analysis prepared by Strumwasser & Woocher LLP and Wilson Ihrig outlining the potential for noise impacts at the residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site.
In response to these concerns, the project applicant has prepared a modified site plan (hereinafter referred to as “Proposed Plan”) to reduce potential noise exposure to nearby sensitive receptors. The two plans are summarized below.
• The Permitted Plan would consist of an open-air rooftop venue that includes dining tables, lounge areas, fire pits, and a designated bar area. The bar would be located beneath an architectural overhang but would not be enclosed by surrounding walls. The open-air area would include 5-foot-tall glass walls around the perimeter to help shield noise from adjacent land uses. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be included in the Permitted Plan. Only ambient music would be played on the rooftop, and speakers for this ambient music would be dispersed throughout the open-air area.
Attachment 3
392
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 2
In addition to the rooftop venue, the Permitted Plan also includes a ground-level outdoor patio area with a ten-foot-tall noise barrier wall along the northeastern side. This patio may be used occasionally as a breakout space to support hotel operations. Similar to the rooftop area, no amplified music or loudspeakers would be utilized in this space. • The Proposed Plan would relocate the bar area and a portion of the dining tables into a fully enclosed structure, which would reduce the amount of activity occurring outdoors. The remaining open-air portion of the rooftop would include dining tables, lounge seating, and fire pits. The open-air area would include a 7-foot-tall glass wall along the southeastern and northeastern boundaries and a 5-foot-tall glass wall along the remaining perimeter. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be included in the Proposed Plan. Only ambient music would be played on the rooftop, and speakers for this ambient music would be dispersed throughout the open-air area.
In addition to the main rooftop venue, the Proposed Plan includes a smaller, private outdoor rooftop dining patio. This private patio would function as a separate, more intimate dining area and would be enclosed by a 5-foot-tall glass wall around its perimeter. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be utilized within this space.
Similar to the Permitted Plan, the Proposed Plan also includes a ground-level outdoor patio with a ten-foot-tall noise barrier wall along the northeastern side that may be used occasionally as a breakout space to support hotel operations. No amplified music or loudspeakers would be used in this patio area.
Exhibits B-1 through B-3 show the project site plan, permitted roof plan, and proposed roof plan, respectively, and include depictions of the proposed noise barrier wall locations.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate each of the project designs and determine potential noise level impacts from the rooftop venue and outdoor patios to the residential receptors near the project site.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to noise exposure, such as residences, schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities. There are several sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site, including the following.
A project site location map, including sensitive receptor locations, is provided in Exhibit A.
Receptor-1 Existing residential land uses located to the southwest of the proposed project site.
The nearest point of Receptor-1 (marked as circle “1” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 310 feet southwest of the southwestern boundary of the project site. 393
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 3
Receptor-2 Existing residential land uses located to the northeast of the proposed project site, northeast of the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway and Calle Frontera. The nearest residential home located at Receptor-2 (marked as circle “2” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 875 feet northeast of the northeastern boundary of the project site.
Receptor-3 The existing Seville retirement community located to the east of the proposed project site, northeast of the I-5 freeway. The nearest point of Receptor-3 (marked as circle “3” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 695 feet east of the eastern boundary of the project site.
Receptor-4 Existing residential land uses located to the east-southeast of the proposed project site, northeast of the I-5 freeway. The nearest point of Receptor-4 (marked as circle “4” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 1,080 feet southeast of the eastern boundary of the project site.
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE NOISE STANDARDS
The City of San Clemente outlines its noise regulations within the City of San Clemente Municipal Code, Chapter 8.48 – Noise Control.
Table 1 provides the exterior noise thresholds established by the City of San Clemente for residential land uses. A copy of Chapter 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code is provided in Appendix A.
Table 1 | City of San Clemente Exterior Noise Thresholds1 Land Use
Noise Standard
(dBA Leq)
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.)
Residential 55.0 50.0
1 Source: City of San Clemente Municipal Code Section 8.48.050 – Exterior Noise Standards.
The following exterior noise standards apply to the thresholds listed in Table 1:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the City to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, when the foregoing causes the noise level, when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; b. The noise standard plus five (5) dBA for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour;
394
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 4
c. The noise standard plus fifteen (15) dBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or
d. The noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time.
2. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the five (5) noise limit categories above, the allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The existing noise environment for the project site and surrounding areas has been established based on noise measurement data collected by RK.
RK conducted sound level measurements in accordance with Caltrans technical noise specifications and City of San Clemente Municipal Code requirements. All measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4:
Specification for Sound Level Meter, 1983).
Piccolo-II Type 2 integrating-averaging level meters were used to conduct noise measurements at the project site and adjacent receptors. The following gives a brief description of the procedures for sound level measurements:
• Microphones for sound level meters were placed five (5) feet above the ground; • Sound level meters were calibrated before each measurement; • Following the calibration of equipment, a windscreen was placed over the microphone; • Frequency weighting was set on “A”;
• Sound level meters were set to a “slow” response for existing ambient noise level measurements; and
• Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented.
Noise levels were measured on December 2, 2025. The noise monitoring locations were selected based on the proximity and location of adjacent sensitive receptors. Exhibit C graphically illustrates the location of the noise measurements.
• Noise Monitoring Location 1 (L-1) was located near the southwest corner of the intersection of Avenida Vista Hermosa and Outlets at San Clemente, approximately 310 feet southwest of the southwestern boundary of the proposed project site. Noise levels collected at L-1 are considered representative of the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the 395
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 5
project site and the residential land uses to the southwest of the project site, including Receptor-1.
• Noise Monitoring Location 2 (L-2) was located along the southwestern side of Calle Frontera, approximately 735 feet northeast of the northeastern boundary of the project site and 465 feet northeast of the centerline of the I-5 Freeway. Noise levels collected at L-2 are considered representative of the existing ambient noise levels at the residential land uses to the northeast of the project site, including Receptor-2, Receptor-3, and Receptor-4.
Results of the ambient noise analysis are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Appendix B includes photos, field sheets, and measured noise data.
Table 2 | Noise Measurement Results – L-11
Start Time dBA Leq Start Time dBA Leq
12:00 a.m. 57.3 12:00 p.m. 69.6
1:00 a.m. 54.0 1:00 p.m. 67.1
2:00 a.m. 53.0 2:00 p.m. 67.6
3:00 a.m. 56.9 3:00 p.m. 67.3
4:00 a.m. 58.6 4:00 p.m. 68.9
5:00 a.m. 64.1 5:00 p.m. 68.6
6:00 a.m. 65.7 6:00 p.m. 68.3
7:00 a.m. 68.5 7:00 p.m. 66.9
8:00 a.m. 68.2 8:00 p.m. 65.6
9:00 a.m. 67.0 9:00 p.m. 64.9
10:00 a.m. 67.4 10:00 p.m. 62.5
11:00 a.m. 67.3 11:00 p.m. 58.5
24-Hour CNEL 69.7
1 L-1 was measured on December 2, 2025.
396
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 6
Table 3 | Noise Measurement Results – L-21
Start Time dBA Leq Start Time dBA Leq
12:00 a.m. 55.6 12:00 p.m. 62.1
1:00 a.m. 54.3 1:00 p.m. 62.4
2:00 a.m. 54.5 2:00 p.m. 62.5
3:00 a.m. 54.8 3:00 p.m. 63.8
4:00 a.m. 55.8 4:00 p.m. 62.9
5:00 a.m. 58.3 5:00 p.m. 62.5
6:00 a.m. 61.9 6:00 p.m. 61.3
7:00 a.m. 63.8 7:00 p.m. 60.2
8:00 a.m. 64.1 8:00 p.m. 58.7
9:00 a.m. 62.0 9:00 p.m. 58.6
10:00 a.m. 62.9 10:00 p.m. 56.3
11:00 a.m. 62.1 11:00 p.m. 52.6
24-Hour CNEL 64.9
1 L-2 was measured on December 2, 2025.
NOISE ANALYSIS METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used in this analysis.
Stationary Noise Modeling
Outdoor noise levels generated by the Permitted Plan were analyzed using SoundPLANTM noise modeling software. SoundPLANTM is a standards-based program that incorporates more than twenty national and international noise modeling guidelines. Projected noise levels from SoundPLANTM are based on the following key parameters:
• Developing three-dimensional noise models of the project; • Predicting the project noise levels at the selected community locations; and • Comparing the predicted noise with the existing community ambient noise levels at the receptor locations.
The sides of buildings, walls, etc. were modeled as reflective surfaces and also as diffractive bodies. 397
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 7
Most of the ground surrounding the project site is paved. Therefore, the model has been run as a hard site (Ground Factor = 0). The Effective Flow Resistivity for field grass is the SoundPLANTM default. The elevation profile for the project site is derived from Google Earth, and all the receptors are placed at 5 feet above ground level.
To evaluate the anticipated noise levels generated by the project, RK utilized reference noise level data from the SoundPLANTM noise spectra library.
Reference Noise Levels – Permitted Plan
The Permitted Plan would consist of an open-air rooftop venue that includes dining tables, lounge areas, fire pits, and a designated bar area. The bar would be located beneath an architectural overhang but would not be enclosed by surrounding walls. The open-air area would include 5-foottall glass walls around the perimeter to help shield noise from adjacent land uses. In addition to the rooftop venue, the Permitted Plan also includes a ground-floor outdoor patio that may be used occasionally as a breakout space. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be included in the Permitted Plan. Only ambient music would be played in the rooftop areas, and speakers for this ambient music would be dispersed throughout the open-air space.
To assess potential noise levels generated by the project, referenced noise levels from the SoundPLANTM noise spectra library are utilized. Table 4 summarizes the reference noise levels used to model noise generated by the project under the Permitted Plan. The SoundPLANTM input and output sheets for the Permitted Plan are provided in Appendix C.
Table 4 | Referenced Noise Levels – Permitted Plan1
Noise Source SoundPLANTM Library
Referenced Noise Source
Noise Levels
dBA Leq dBA Lmax
Combined open-air rooftop lounge
areas, dining areas, fire pits, and bar2 Dance café with very loud music 95.0 100.0 Ground-floor outdoor patio3, 4 Restaurants with music 82.0 100.0 1 Source: SoundPLANTM noise spectra library.
2 Noise associated with the open-air rooftop venue was modeled using the SoundPLANTM reference source “Dance café with very loud music.” Although the project does not propose a dance floor or amplified music, this spectrum was selected to conservatively represent elevated outdoor social activity. 3 Noise associated with the ground-floor outdoor patio was modeled using the SoundPLANTM reference source “Restaurants with music,” which is considered representative of a lower-intensity outdoor dining/lounge area. 4 The SoundPLANTM “Restaurants with music” reference spectrum provides a typical Lmax of approximately 90 dBA. To be conservative, an increased Lmax of 100 dBA was applied to capture the potential for elevated instantaneous noise levels associated with outdoor social activities.
The referenced noise levels shown in Table 4 represent the sound power emitted at each source location. These levels represent the noise levels generated by the rooftop venue at the noise source location. These levels are entered into the SoundPLAN™ model as area sources distributed across the 398
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 8
entire open-air space. The model then projects these noise levels from the source to the receptor locations. The model accounts for noise attenuation associated with the proposed five-foot-tall rooftop perimeter wall, distance, local topography, ground effects, and other physical barriers to determine the predicted noise levels at each receptor.
Referenced Noise Levels – Proposed Plan
The Proposed Plan would relocate the bar area and a portion of the dining tables into a fully enclosed structure, which would reduce the amount of activity occurring outdoors. The remaining open-air portion of the rooftop would include dining tables, lounge seating, and fire pits. The open-air area would include a 7-foot-tall glass wall along the southeastern and northeastern boundaries and a 5- foot-tall glass wall along the remaining perimeter. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be included in the Proposed Plan. Only ambient music would be played on the rooftop, and speakers for this ambient music would be dispersed throughout the open-air area.
In addition to the main rooftop venue, the Proposed Plan includes a smaller, private outdoor rooftop dining patio. This private patio would function as a separate, more intimate dining area and would be enclosed by a 5-foot-tall glass wall around its perimeter. No amplified noise or loudspeakers would be utilized within this space.
Similar to the Permitted Plan, the Proposed Plan also includes a ground-level outdoor patio that may be used occasionally as a breakout space to support hotel operations. No amplified music or loudspeakers would be used in this patio area.
To assess potential noise levels generated by the project, referenced noise levels from the SoundPLANTM noise spectra library are utilized. Table 5 summarizes the reference noise levels used to model noise generated by the project under the Proposed Plan. The SoundPLANTM input and output sheets for the Proposed Plan are provided in Appendix D. 399
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 9
Table 5 | Referenced Noise Levels – Proposed Plan1, 2
Noise Source SoundPLANTM Library
Referenced Noise Source
Noise Levels
dBA Leq dBA Lmax
Combined open-air rooftop lounge
areas, dining areas, and fire pits2, 3 Restaurants with music 90.0 100.0 Ground-floor outdoor patio4, 5 Restaurants with music 82.0 100.0 Private dining room patio4, 5 Restaurants with music 82.0 100.0 Indoor bar and dining room6 Dance café with very loud music 83.0 88.0 1 Source: SoundPLANTM noise spectra library.
2 Noise associated with the open-air rooftop lounge area was modeled using the SoundPLANTM reference source “Restaurants with music.” This referenced noise level is considered representative of the potential conditions associated with an outdoor dining/lounge area.
3 The SoundPLANTM “Restaurants with music” reference noise spectrum provides a typical Leq and Lmax of approximately 82 dBA and 90 dBA, respectively. To be conservative, increased noise levels of 90 dBA Leq and 100 dBA Lmax were applied to capture the potential for elevated noise levels associated with outdoor social activities. 4 Noise associated with outdoor patio space was modeled using the SoundPLANTM reference source “Restaurants with music.” This referenced noise level is considered representative of the potential conditions associated with a less populated outdoor lounge area.
5 The SoundPLANTM “Restaurants with music” reference spectrum provides a typical Lmax of approximately 90 dBA. To be conservative, an increased Lmax of 100 dBA was applied to capture the potential for elevated instantaneous noise levels associated with outdoor social activities.
6 Noise associated with the indoor dining/bar area was modeled using the SoundPLANTM reference source “Dance café with very loud music.” Although the project does not propose a dance floor or amplified music, this spectrum was selected to conservatively represent elevated social activities. Consistent with standard “windows open” conditions, a 12 dB reduction has been applied to reflect the indoor location of the bar.
The referenced noise levels shown in Table 5 represent the noise levels generated by the rooftop venue at the noise source location. These levels are entered into the SoundPLAN™ model as area sources distributed across the entire open-air space. The model then projects these noise levels from the source to the receptor locations. The model accounts for noise attenuation associated with the proposed rooftop perimeter wall, distance, local topography, ground effects, and other physical barriers to determine the predicted noise levels at each receptor.
NOISE ANALYSIS – PERMITTED PLAN
The following stationary noise analysis has been prepared to help ensure that onsite noise levels do not exceed the City’s noise standards.
Potential rooftop noise levels are modeled assuming that no amplified music or loudspeakers will be utilized during operation. Tables 6 and 7 show the project’s noise level impacts in terms of dBA Leq and dBA Lmax during daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) hours.
Daytime and nighttime noise level impacts are compared with the City’s Municipal Code noise standards.
400
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 10
The Permitted Plan SoundPLANTM analysis results and receiver locations are graphically illustrated in Exhibits D through G. SoundPLANTM input and outputs sheets for the Permitted Plan are provided in Appendix C.
401
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 11
Table 6 | Daytime and Nighttime Noise Impacts (dBA Leq) – Permitted Plan Sensitive Receptor Location SoundPLANTM Receiver Project Noise Contribution (dBA Leq)
Receptor-1
1 41.3
2 39.4
3 37.8
Receptor-2
4 31.6
5 30.6
6 31.0
7 31.2
8 31.4
9 29.4
10 32.0
11 29.9
12 30.3
13 32.6
14 30.3
15 30.2
16 30.1
17 29.8
18 29.5
19 31.2
20 31.1
21 29.8
22 27.8
23 28.9
24 31.0
25 28.7
26 28.4
27 28.0
28 27.5
29 27.3
30 25.8
31 28.6
32 26.9
33 27.0
34 26.4
35 26.4
36 26.1
37 28.4
38 26.2
39 23.0
40 23.7
Receptor-3 41 32.1
Receptor-4
42 29.4
43 28.8
44 29.4
45 26.5
Maximum Project-Generated Noise Level 41.3
City of San Clemente Noise Standard (dBA Leq, Day / Night) 55.0 / 50.0 Exceeds Standard? No
402
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 12
Table 7 | Daytime and Nighttime Noise Impacts (dBA Lmax) – Permitted Plan Sensitive Receptor Location SoundPLANTM Receiver Project Noise Contribution (dBA Lmax)
Receptor-1
1 46.4
2 45.1
3 44.5
Receptor-2
4 38.6
5 38.3
6 39.0
7 38.6
8 37.9
9 35.7
10 38.3
11 36.8
12 38.6
13 41.3
14 38.7
15 38.6
16 38.5
17 38.1
18 37.9
19 39.1
20 39.6
21 36.7
22 34.5
23 37.0
24 38.1
25 35.7
26 35.4
27 34.7
28 34.2
29 34.2
30 32.4
31 35.2
32 33.3
33 33.5
34 33.1
35 32.8
36 33.0
37 34.8
38 33.3
39 29.4
40 29.9
Receptor-3 41 41.1
Receptor-4
42 38.2
43 37.5
44 35.7
45 33.0
Maximum Project-Generated Noise Level 46.4
City of San Clemente Noise Standard (dBA Lmax, Day / Night) 75.0 / 70.0 Exceeds Standard? No
403
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 13
As shown in Tables 6 and 7, the maximum noise levels generated by the project under the Permitted Plan would be 41.3 dBA Leq and 46.4 dBA Lmax. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate noise levels which exceed the standards set by the City of San Clemente.
To ensure that noise generated by the project would not adversely affect the ambient environment, an analysis was prepared to evaluate whether project-generated noise would increase existing noise levels in the project vicinity. This analysis is conducted by adding the worst-case average (Leq) projectgenerated noise level to the lowest measured existing ambient noise levels at the residential receptors during both daytime and nighttime hours. Using the lowest measured ambient noise levels is a conservative approach, as a minimum increase of 3 dB is typically required for a change in noise to be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, an increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB or more is considered significant.
Table 8 shows the increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the residential receptors during the quietest measured period during daytime and nighttime hours. Ambient noise increase calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
Table 8 | Increase in Ambient Noise Levels – Permitted Plan Location Time Period
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq) Significant
Existing Increase?
Without
Project
Project
Noise Level
Contribution
Existing
With
Project
Change as
a Result of
Project
Receptor-1
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) 64.9
41.3 64.9 0.0 No
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 53.0 53.3 0.3 No
Receptor-2,
Receptor-3, and
Receptor-4
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) 58.6
32.6 58.6 0.0 No
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 52.6 52.6 0.0 No
As shown in the table above, the project is not expected to significantly increase the existing ambient noise levels at the adjacent residential receptors.
As a result, under the Permitted Plan, the project is not expected to generate noise levels that exceed the established thresholds or that significantly increase the existing ambient environment.
NOISE ANALYSIS – PROPOSED PLAN
The following stationary noise analysis has been prepared to help ensure that onsite noise levels do not exceed the City’s noise standards.
404
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 14
Potential rooftop noise levels are modeled assuming that no amplified music or loudspeakers will be utilized during operation. In addition to the outdoor rooftop activity, this analysis also includes the projected noise contribution from the indoor bar area. Noise levels generated by the indoor bar were evaluated using a stationary noise modeling program and are incorporated into the total projectgenerated noise levels at the residential receptors.
Tables 9 and 10 show the project’s noise level impacts in terms of dBA Leq and dBA Lmax during daytime (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) hours. Daytime and nighttime noise level impacts are compared with the City’s Municipal Code noise standards.
The Proposed Plan SoundPLANTM analysis results and receiver locations are graphically illustrated in Exhibits H through K. SoundPLANTM input and output sheets for the Proposed Plan are provided in Appendix D.
405
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 15
Table 9 | Daytime and Nighttime Noise Impacts (dBA Leq) – Proposed Plan Sensitive Receptor Location SoundPLANTM Receiver Project Noise Contribution (dBA Leq)
Receptor-1
1 39.1
2 35.3
3 34.0
Receptor-2
4 28.4
5 27.4
6 27.9
7 28.2
8 27.9
9 25.8
10 28.0
11 25.7
12 26.2
13 29.1
14 26.7
15 26.6
16 26.6
17 26.3
18 26.2
19 27.6
20 27.8
21 24.5
22 22.6
23 25.0
24 27.0
25 24.5
26 24.5
27 24.2
28 23.9
29 23.5
30 20.2
31 23.6
32 21.9
33 21.9
34 21.6
35 21.2
36 21.7
37 24.6
38 22.3
39 17.7
40 18.8
Receptor-3 41 27.9
Receptor-4
42 25.3
43 25.0
44 24.9
45 22.2
Maximum Project-Generated Noise Level 39.1
City of San Clemente Noise Standard (dBA Leq, Day / Night) 55.0 / 50.0 Exceeds Standard? No
406
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 16
Table 10 | Daytime and Nighttime Noise Impacts (dBA Lmax) – Proposed Plan Sensitive Receptor Location SoundPLANTM Receiver Project Noise Contribution (dBA Lmax)
Receptor-1
1 48.6
2 46.6
3 47.2
Receptor-2
4 40.1
5 39.7
6 40.6
7 40.6
8 40.8
9 39.1
10 41.9
11 39.9
12 41.1
13 44.4
14 41.9
15 42.0
16 42.0
17 41.7
18 41.7
19 43.2
20 43.2
21 38.9
22 37.3
23 39.7
24 41.5
25 39.2
26 39.1
27 38.9
28 38.7
29 38.4
30 34.3
31 38.3
32 36.7
33 36.8
34 36.8
35 36.2
36 36.8
37 37.3
38 35.3
39 32.0
40 33.8
Receptor-3 41 43.7
Receptor-4
42 40.8
43 40.7
44 38.9
45 36.9
Maximum Project-Generated Noise Level 48.6
City of San Clemente Noise Standard (dBA Lmax, Day / Night) 75.0 / 70.0 Exceeds Standard? No
407
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 17
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, the maximum noise levels generated by the project under the Proposed Plan would be 39.1 dBA Leq and 48.6 dBA Lmax. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate noise levels which exceed the standards set by the City of San Clemente.
To ensure that noise generated by the project would not adversely affect the ambient environment, an analysis was prepared to evaluate whether project-generated noise would increase existing noise levels in the project vicinity. This analysis is conducted by adding the worst-case average (Leq) projectgenerated noise level to the lowest measured existing ambient noise levels at the residential receptors during both daytime and nighttime hours. Using the lowest measured ambient noise levels is a conservative approach, as a minimum increase of 3 dB is typically required for a change in noise to be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, an increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB or more is considered significant.
Table 11 shows the increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the residential receptors during the quietest measured period during daytime and nighttime hours. Ambient noise increase calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
Table 11 | Increase in Ambient Noise Levels – Proposed Plan Location Time Period
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq) Significant
Existing Increase?
Without
Project
Project
Noise Level
Contribution
Existing
With
Project
Change as
a Result of
Project
Receptor-1
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) 64.9
39.1 64.9 0.0 No
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 53.0 53.2 0.2 No
Receptor-2,
Receptor-3, and
Receptor-4
Daytime
(7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) 58.6
29.1 58.6 0.0 No
Nighttime
(10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) 52.6 52.6 0.0 No
As shown in the table above, the project is not expected to significantly increase the existing ambient noise levels at the adjacent residential receptors.
As a result, under the Proposed Plan, the project is not expected to generate noise levels that exceed the established thresholds or that significantly increase the existing ambient environment.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
As described in the sections above, under the Permitted Plan, project-generated noise levels at the adjacent residential receptors are expected to reach up to 41.3 dBA Leq and 46.4 dBA Lmax. These 408
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 18
levels are well below the City of San Clemente’s exterior noise thresholds of 55.0 dBA Leq (daytime),
50.0 dBA Leq (nighttime), 75.0 dBA Lmax (daytime), and 70.0 dBA Lmax (nighttime). In addition, the projected noise levels would not increase existing ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more, which is the level generally considered a perceptible change.
Likewise, under the Proposed Plan, project-generated noise levels are expected to reach 39.1 dBA Leq and 48.6 dBA Lmax at the nearest receptors. These levels are also well below applicable City thresholds for both Leq and Lmax. Similar to the Permitted Plan, the Proposed Plan would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB or greater.
Based on these results, the Proposed Plan would generate lower average (Leq) noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors compared to the Permitted Plan. However, the Proposed Plan may generate greater instantaneous, maximum (Lmax) noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors compared to the Permitted Plan. Both the Permitted Plan and the Proposed Plan would generate noise levels that comply with the City of San Clemente noise standards, and no noise-related impacts are anticipated under either scenario.
NOISE CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are provided to support noise management during project operations.
1. To maintain effective noise shielding, any noise control barriers or perimeter walls (including rooftop perimeter walls and ground-floor noise barrier walls) should be at least
3.5 pounds per square foot of face area without any decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas. Any gaps should be filled with grout or caulking to avoid noise flanking.
The noise control barrier may be constructed using one, or any combination of the following:
• Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) block,
• Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch-thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot,
• Transparent glass (3/4-inch-thick), acrylic, polycarbonate, or other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot, or
• Outdoor-rated acoustical paneling with sufficient weight per square foot. 409
RK21121 // 3299-2025-01 19
CONCLUSIONS
RK Engineering Group, Inc., appreciates this opportunity to work with ACRM ARCHITECTS + INTERIORS on this project. If you have any questions regarding this review, or need further clarification, please contact us at (949) 474-0809.
Sincerely,
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Becca Morrison Bryan Estrada, T.E.
Planner II Principal
410
Exhibits
411
Exhibit A Location Map ENGINEERING GROUP INC. Legend N = Sensitive Receptor Locations = Project Site Boundary 1 1 2 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3 4 412
Exhibit B-1 Project Site Plan - Permitted Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE N Legend = 10-Foot Wall Location 413
Exhibit B-2 Roof Plan - Permitted Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE N Legend = 5-Foot Perimeter Wall Location 414
Exhibit B-3 Roof Plan - Proposed Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE N Legend = 5-Foot Perimeter Wall Location 1010 99 88 77 11 66 55 1111 1212 1313 1414 14.1 14.1 22 33 44 242 SF STORAGE 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 30' - 4" 30' - 4" 30' - 4" 30' - 4" 31' - 2" 30' - 4" 30' - 4" 22' - 10" 15' - 2" 30' - 4" 37' - 8" 9' - 6" A A G G 108' - 8" 35' - 8" 11' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 11' - 0" 31' - 0" ELEV 3 OVER- RUN PUBLIC ELEV 2 PUBLIC ELEV 31560 SF KITCHEN PRIVATE DINING ROOM E E D D C C F F B B BAR PERGOLA GAZEBO FIRE PIT FIRE PIT UNOCCUPIED ROOF UNOCCUPIED ROOF FIRE PIT FIRE PIT GALLERY RECEPTION WOMEN MEN = 7-Foot Perimeter Wall Location 415
Exhibit C Noise Monitoring Locations ENGINEERING GROUP INC. Legend N = Noise Monitoring Location = Project Site Boundary 1 1 2 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 416
Exhibit D Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Levels (dBA Leq) - Permitted Plan 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 417
Exhibit E Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Contours (dBA Leq) - Permitted Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 418
Exhibit F Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Levels (dBA Lmax) - Permitted Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 419
Exhibit G Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Contours (dBA Lmax) - Permitted Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 420
Exhibit H Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Levels (dBA Leq) - Proposed Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 421
Exhibit I Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Contours (dBA Leq) - Proposed Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 422
Exhibit J Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Levels (dBA Lmax) - Proposed Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 423
Exhibit K Daytime/Nighttime Outdoor Roof Top Venue Noise Contours (dBA Lmax) - Proposed Plan ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N 3299-2025-01 THE LODGE AT SAN CLEMENTE ROOF TOP VENUE NOISE IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 424
Appendices
425
Appendix A
City of San Clemente Municipal Code
Chapter 8.48 – Noise Control
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
Appendix B
Field Data and Photos
439
Project: Engineer: B. Morrison Date: 12/1/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
City:
Near the intersection of Avenida Vista Hermosa and The Outlets at San Clemente San Clemente, CA Sound Level Meter: Calibration Record: Conditions (12/2/2025):
Piccolo II Meter Input (dB) Time H: 66, L: 34
Serial #: P0222082205 1 94 1:55 p.m. 1
P0221010801 2 94 1:54 p.m. Varies
3 -- -- Clear
4 -- --
Calibrator:
BSWA
Serial #: 500732
Meter Settings:
A-Weighted Linear Slow 1/1 Octave _60_ Minute Intervals C-Weighted Impulse Fast 1/3 Octave L(n) Percentile Values Notes: Measurement Type:
Long-term (24-hour)
Short-term
= Noise Monitoring Location
Wind Direction:
Skies:
Noise measurements were collected at one-hour intervals for a duration of 24 hours. The primary sources of ambient noise during the measurement period were roadway noise from adjacent streets and general residential activity.
Field Sheet
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Measurement Address:
Temperature (°F):
Windspeed (m.p.h.):
1 2
1 440
Project: Engineer: B. Morrison Date: 12/1/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
City:
Near the intersection of Avenida Vista Hermosa and The Outlets at San Clemente San Clemente, CA Notes:
47.0 Field Photos - Noise Monitoring Location 1 (L-1)
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Measurement Address:
Noise Monitoring Location 1 (L-1) was located near the southwest corner of Avenida Vista Hermosa and Outlets at San Clemente, approximately 65 feet west of the centerline of Avenida Vista Hermosa.
L-1
441
Time Leq CNEL
12:00 AM 57.3 69.7
1:00 AM 54.0 69.72:00 AM 53.0 69.73:00 AM 56.9 69.74:00 AM 58.6 69.75:00 AM 64.1 69.76:00 AM 65.7 69.77:00 AM 68.5 69.78:00 AM 68.2 69.79:00 AM 67.0 69.7 10:00 AM 67.4 69.711:00 AM 67.3 69.7
12:00 PM 69.6 69.7
1:00 PM 67.1 69.72:00 PM 67.6 69.73:00 PM 67.3 69.74:00 PM 68.9 69.75:00 PM 68.6 69.76:00 PM 68.3 69.77:00 PM 66.9 69.78:00 PM 65.6 69.79:00 PM 64.9 69.7 10:00 PM 62.5 69.711:00 PM 58.5 69.7
Day Min: 64.9
Night Min 53.0
Noise Monitoring Location 1 Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Leq and CNEL)
0.0 10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Noise Level (dBA)
L-1 DBA LEQ AND CNEL
Leq CNEL
442
PROJECT: The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue JOB #: 3299-2025-01 NOISE METER: Piccolo II SLM, 24-Hour Measurement DATE: 02-Dec-25 LOCATION: 1 BY: B. Morrison
Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50
12:00 AM 57.3 78.5 46.2 65.9 58.1 54.7 52.6
1:00 AM 54.0 78.0 43.3 61.6 54.7 52.0 50.22:00 AM 53.0 72.6 42.1 60.4 54.3 51.3 49.63:00 AM 56.9 75.9 45.7 65.5 59.1 54.6 52.44:00 AM 58.6 77.7 48.0 67.8 60.2 56.3 54.85:00 AM 64.1 83.2 50.0 74.0 68.8 61.1 57.26:00 AM 65.7 79.2 54.0 74.7 71.0 64.6 60.67:00 AM 68.5 82.3 52.4 76.5 73.7 68.4 63.78:00 AM 68.2 90.4 47.3 75.7 72.7 68.0 62.79:00 AM 67.0 83.1 47.5 74.8 72.3 67.4 61.1 10:00 AM 67.4 84.6 47.2 75.2 72.5 67.5 61.711:00 AM 67.3 86.8 47.9 75.0 72.2 67.9 61.9 12:00 PM 69.6 97.0 47.8 75.2 73.0 68.8 62.8
1:00 PM 67.1 80.1 47.4 74.5 72.3 68.0 62.22:00 PM 67.6 81.4 48.8 75.4 72.8 68.5 62.13:00 PM 67.3 82.9 49.7 74.9 72.4 67.4 61.74:00 PM 68.9 89.4 50.3 75.7 73.2 69.7 64.25:00 PM 68.6 87.5 50.9 75.5 73.1 69.8 64.56:00 PM 68.3 95.3 51.6 75.2 72.5 67.3 62.77:00 PM 66.9 86.4 51.1 74.7 72.0 66.7 61.98:00 PM 65.6 86.4 47.6 73.8 70.2 64.6 60.39:00 PM 64.9 83.3 44.9 74.0 70.1 63.4 58.6 10:00 PM 62.5 77.4 42.4 72.3 67.4 61.0 55.311:00 PM 58.5 77.7 38.8 69.7 61.3 52.7 48.4 Daytime 67.5 97.0 42.4 75.0 72.2 67.6 62.1
Nighttime 60.6 83.2 38.8 70.0 64.9 58.5 55.1
Noise Monitoring Location 1 Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Leq and Ln)
0.0 10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Decibel (dB)
Time
L-1 DBA LEQ AND LN
Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50
443
Project: Engineer: B. Morrison Date: 12/1/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
City:
Near the intersection of Avenida Vista Hermosa and The Outlets at San Clemente San Clemente, CA Notes:
47.0 Field Photos - Noise Monitoring Location 2 (L-2)
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Measurement Address:
Noise Monitoring Location 2 (L-2) was located along the southwestern side of Calle Frontera, approximately 465 feet northeast of the centerline of the I-5 Freeway.
L-2
444
Time Leq CNEL
12:00 AM 55.6 64.9
1:00 AM 54.3 64.92:00 AM 54.5 64.93:00 AM 54.8 64.94:00 AM 55.8 64.95:00 AM 58.3 64.96:00 AM 61.9 64.97:00 AM 63.8 64.98:00 AM 64.1 64.99:00 AM 62.0 64.9 10:00 AM 62.9 64.911:00 AM 62.1 64.9
12:00 PM 62.1 64.9
1:00 PM 62.4 64.92:00 PM 62.5 64.93:00 PM 63.8 64.94:00 PM 62.9 64.95:00 PM 62.5 64.96:00 PM 61.3 64.97:00 PM 60.2 64.98:00 PM 58.7 64.99:00 PM 58.6 64.9 10:00 PM 56.3 64.911:00 PM 52.6 64.9
Day Min: 58.6
Night Min 52.6
Noise Monitoring Location 2 Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Leq and CNEL)
0.0 10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Noise Level (dBA)
L-2 DBA LEQ AND CNEL
Leq CNEL
445
PROJECT: The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue JOB #: 3299-2025-01 NOISE METER: Piccolo II SLM, 24-Hour Measurement DATE: 02-Dec-25 LOCATION: 2 BY: B. Morrison
Time Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50
12:00 AM 55.6 70.0 46.6 61.0 58.0 56.1 54.3
1:00 AM 54.3 72.5 45.5 60.4 57.1 54.4 52.32:00 AM 54.5 66.0 44.6 59.3 57.3 55.4 53.43:00 AM 54.8 70.2 44.0 60.5 57.7 55.3 53.24:00 AM 55.8 72.6 47.8 61.1 58.6 56.1 54.35:00 AM 58.3 74.4 50.0 64.8 60.5 58.4 57.06:00 AM 61.9 72.2 54.2 66.8 64.6 62.4 60.97:00 AM 63.8 74.8 55.2 70.2 67.9 64.5 61.28:00 AM 64.1 81.3 53.5 69.6 67.9 65.4 61.79:00 AM 62.0 74.3 53.0 68.2 65.5 62.3 60.4 10:00 AM 62.9 76.7 55.2 69.3 66.5 62.8 60.811:00 AM 62.1 72.6 53.8 68.4 65.7 62.4 60.4 12:00 PM 62.1 74.7 53.8 67.3 65.2 62.7 60.9
1:00 PM 62.4 76.1 54.4 67.6 65.6 63.1 61.02:00 PM 62.5 80.7 55.3 67.8 65.6 62.9 61.03:00 PM 63.8 74.2 55.7 69.0 67.2 64.8 62.44:00 PM 62.9 74.3 55.2 68.5 66.0 63.6 61.35:00 PM 62.5 75.7 54.2 67.5 65.8 63.5 60.96:00 PM 61.3 71.6 52.7 67.4 65.3 62.0 59.27:00 PM 60.2 79.9 44.6 66.9 64.0 59.9 57.28:00 PM 58.7 72.5 47.4 66.9 63.2 57.9 55.29:00 PM 58.6 78.9 46.7 66.9 62.0 57.2 55.0 10:00 PM 56.3 78.8 42.8 64.0 58.9 55.4 53.111:00 PM 52.6 68.5 39.2 59.7 55.8 53.0 50.3 Daytime 62.1 81.3 42.8 68.1 65.6 62.6 60.1
Nighttime 57.0 74.4 39.2 62.5 59.6 57.4 55.7
Noise Monitoring Location 2 Noise Monitoring Results (dBA Leq and Ln)
0.0 10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Decibel (dB)
Time
L-2 DBA LEQ AND LN
Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50
446
Appendix C
SoundPLANTM Inputs and Outputs Sheets
Permitted Plan
447
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 500 Cwall CI CT
dB(A) Hz dB dB dB
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) Lw/unit Day 95.0 95.0 - - - Night 95.0 95.0 - - -
First-Floor Patio (Leq) Lw/unit Day 82.0 82.0 - - -
Night 82.0 82.0 - - -
Noise emissions of industry sources
RK Engineering Group Inc.
448
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
1 1.Fl 41.3 41.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 7.3 7.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 41.3 41.3
2 1.Fl 39.4 39.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 19.0 19.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 39.3 39.3
3 1.Fl 37.8 37.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.9 21.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 37.7 37.7
4 1.Fl 31.6 31.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.6 16.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 31.4 31.4
5 1.Fl 30.6 30.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.4 30.4
6 1.Fl 31.0 31.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.2 18.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.7 30.7
7 1.Fl 31.2 31.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 31.0 31.0
8 1.Fl 31.4 31.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.7 14.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 31.3 31.3
9 1.Fl 29.4 29.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.1 12.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.3 29.3
10 1.Fl 32.0 32.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.9 14.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 31.9 31.9
11 1.Fl 29.9 29.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.6 14.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.8 29.8
12 1.Fl 30.3 30.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.0 30.0
13 1.Fl 32.6 32.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.0 21.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 32.3 32.3
14 1.Fl 30.3 30.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.2 18.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.0 30.0
15 1.Fl 30.2 30.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.0 30.0
16 1.Fl 30.1 30.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.0 18.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.8 29.8
17 1.Fl 29.8 29.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.6 17.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.5 29.5
18 1.Fl 29.5 29.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.4 17.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.2 29.2
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
449
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
19 1.Fl 31.2 31.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.3 18.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.9 30.9
20 1.Fl 31.1 31.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.8 30.8
21 1.Fl 29.8 29.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.3 14.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.7 29.7
22 1.Fl 27.8 27.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 27.7 27.7
23 1.Fl 28.9 28.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.3 16.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.6 28.6
24 1.Fl 31.0 31.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.2 16.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 30.9 30.9
25 1.Fl 28.7 28.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 13.7 13.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.5 28.5
26 1.Fl 28.4 28.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 13.2 13.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.3 28.3
27 1.Fl 28.0 28.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 27.8 27.8
28 1.Fl 27.5 27.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.5 11.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 27.4 27.4
29 1.Fl 27.3 27.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 27.2 27.2
30 1.Fl 25.8 25.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.6 9.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 25.7 25.7
31 1.Fl 28.6 28.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.3 12.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.5 28.5
32 1.Fl 26.9 26.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.1 10.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.8 26.8
33 1.Fl 27.0 27.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.3 10.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.9 26.9
34 1.Fl 26.4 26.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.4 10.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.3 26.3
35 1.Fl 26.4 26.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.4 9.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.4 26.4
36 1.Fl 26.1 26.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.6 10.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.0 26.0
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
450
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
37 1.Fl 28.4 28.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.6 11.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.3 28.3
38 1.Fl 26.2 26.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.3 11.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.1 26.1
39 1.Fl 23.0 23.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 5.8 5.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.0 23.0
40 1.Fl 23.7 23.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 6.0 6.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.7 23.7
41 1.Fl 32.1 32.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.1 21.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 31.8 31.8
42 1.Fl 29.4 29.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.1 29.1
43 1.Fl 28.8 28.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.4 17.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 28.4 28.4
44 1.Fl 29.4 29.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.2 12.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 29.3 29.3
45 1.Fl 26.5 26.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.8 9.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.5 26.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
451
Level Corrections
Source name Reference Day Night Cwall CI CT
dB(A) dB(A) dB dB dB
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) Lw/unit 100.0 100.0 - - - First-Floor Patio (Lmax) Lw/unit 100.0 100.0 - - -
Noise emissions of industry sources
RK Engineering Group Inc.
452
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
1 1.Fl 46.4 46.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 25.3 25.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 46.3 46.3
2 1.Fl 45.1 45.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 37.0 37.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 44.3 44.3
3 1.Fl 44.5 44.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.9 39.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 42.7 42.7
4 1.Fl 38.6 38.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.6 34.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.4 36.4
5 1.Fl 38.3 38.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
6 1.Fl 39.0 39.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.2 36.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.7 35.7
7 1.Fl 38.6 38.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.0 36.0
8 1.Fl 37.9 37.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.7 32.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.3 36.3
9 1.Fl 35.7 35.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.1 30.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.3 34.3
10 1.Fl 38.3 38.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.9 32.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.9 36.9
11 1.Fl 36.8 36.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.6 32.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.8 34.8
12 1.Fl 38.6 38.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.0 35.0
13 1.Fl 41.3 41.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.0 39.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 37.3 37.3
14 1.Fl 38.7 38.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.2 36.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.0 35.0
15 1.Fl 38.6 38.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.0 35.0
16 1.Fl 38.5 38.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.0 36.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.8 34.8
17 1.Fl 38.1 38.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.6 35.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.5 34.5
18 1.Fl 37.9 37.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.2 34.2
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
453
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
19 1.Fl 39.1 39.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.3 36.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.9 35.9
20 1.Fl 39.6 39.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 37.2 37.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.8 35.8
21 1.Fl 36.7 36.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.3 32.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.7 34.7
22 1.Fl 34.5 34.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.7 32.7
23 1.Fl 37.0 37.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.3 34.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.6 33.6
24 1.Fl 38.1 38.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.2 34.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.9 35.9
25 1.Fl 35.7 35.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 31.7 31.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.5 33.5
26 1.Fl 35.4 35.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 31.2 31.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.3 33.3
27 1.Fl 34.7 34.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.8 32.8
28 1.Fl 34.2 34.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.5 29.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.4 32.4
29 1.Fl 34.2 34.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.2 32.2
30 1.Fl 32.4 32.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.6 27.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 30.7 30.7
31 1.Fl 35.2 35.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.3 30.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.5 33.5
32 1.Fl 33.3 33.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.1 28.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.8 31.8
33 1.Fl 33.5 33.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.3 28.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.9 31.9
34 1.Fl 33.1 33.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.4 28.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.3 31.3
35 1.Fl 32.8 32.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.4 27.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.4 31.4
36 1.Fl 33.0 33.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.6 28.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.0 31.0
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
454
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
37 1.Fl 34.8 34.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.6 29.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.3 33.3
38 1.Fl 33.3 33.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.3 29.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.1 31.1
39 1.Fl 29.4 29.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 23.8 23.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 28.0 28.0
40 1.Fl 29.9 29.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 24.0 24.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 28.7 28.7
41 1.Fl 41.1 41.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.1 39.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.8 36.8
42 1.Fl 38.2 38.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.1 34.1
43 1.Fl 37.5 37.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.4 33.4
44 1.Fl 35.7 35.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.2 30.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.3 34.3
45 1.Fl 33.0 33.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.8 27.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.5 31.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
455
Appendix D
SoundPLANTM Inputs and Outputs Sheets
Proposed Plan
456
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 500 Cwall CI CT
dB(A) Hz dB dB dB
First-Floor Patio (Leq) Lw/unit Day 82.0 82.0 - - -
Night 82.0 82.0 - - -
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) Lw/unit Day 90.0 90.0 - - - Night 90.0 90.0 - - -
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) Lw/unit Day 82.0 82.0 - - - Night 82.0 82.0 - - -
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) Lw/unit Day 83.0 83.0 3.0 - - Night 83.0 83.0 3.0 - -
Noise emissions of industry sources
RK Engineering Group Inc.
457
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
1 1.Fl 39.1 39.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 7.0 7.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 31.9 31.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 13.9 13.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 38.1 38.1
2 1.Fl 35.3 35.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 19.0 19.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 18.3 18.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.7 21.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 34.9 34.9
3 1.Fl 34.0 34.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.9 21.9
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 15.9 15.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 25.6 25.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 32.9 32.9
4 1.Fl 28.4 28.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.6 16.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 23.1 23.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 16.4 16.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.1 26.1
5 1.Fl 27.4 27.4
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 22.1 22.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 16.0 16.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.8 24.8
6 1.Fl 27.9 27.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.2 18.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 22.9 22.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.4 17.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.9 24.9
7 1.Fl 28.2 28.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 23.2 23.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.3 18.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 25.2 25.2
8 1.Fl 27.9 27.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.7 14.7
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 21.7 21.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 20.0 20.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 25.4 25.4
9 1.Fl 25.8 25.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.1 12.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 19.0 19.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.9 18.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.1 23.1
10 1.Fl 28.0 28.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.9 14.9
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 19.0 19.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.8 21.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 25.7 25.7
11 1.Fl 25.7 25.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.6 14.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 16.1 16.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.6 19.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.2 23.2
12 1.Fl 26.2 26.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 15.5 15.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
458
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 20.1 20.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.3 23.3
13 1.Fl 29.1 29.1
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.0 21.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 16.8 16.8
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 24.0 24.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 26.0 26.0
14 1.Fl 26.7 26.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.2 18.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 15.0 15.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.5 21.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.5 23.5
15 1.Fl 26.6 26.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.7 14.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.8 21.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.3 23.3
16 1.Fl 26.6 26.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.0 18.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.5 14.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.9 21.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.3 23.3
17 1.Fl 26.3 26.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.6 17.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.2 14.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.6 21.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.0 23.0
18 1.Fl 26.2 26.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.4 17.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 13.9 13.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.7 21.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.7 22.7
19 1.Fl 27.6 27.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.3 18.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.1 14.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 23.4 23.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.2 24.2
20 1.Fl 27.8 27.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.8 14.8
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 23.0 23.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.5 24.5
21 1.Fl 24.5 24.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 14.3 14.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 11.6 11.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.4 18.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.2 22.2
22 1.Fl 22.6 22.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 10.4 10.4
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 20.2 20.2
23 1.Fl 25.0 25.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.3 16.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 13.6 13.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.8 18.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.3 22.3
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
459
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
24 1.Fl 27.0 27.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 16.2 16.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 15.1 15.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 21.3 21.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.7 24.7
25 1.Fl 24.5 24.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 13.7 13.7
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 13.2 13.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.1 19.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.0 22.0
26 1.Fl 24.5 24.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 13.2 13.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 13.0 13.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 21.9 21.9
27 1.Fl 24.2 24.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 12.6 12.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 21.6 21.6
28 1.Fl 23.9 23.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.5 11.5
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 12.3 12.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.1 19.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 21.2 21.2
29 1.Fl 23.5 23.5
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.0 12.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 11.9 11.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.6 18.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 20.8 20.8
30 1.Fl 20.2 20.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.6 9.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 8.5 8.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 13.6 13.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 18.2 18.2
31 1.Fl 23.6 23.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.3 12.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 9.9 9.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.3 18.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 21.2 21.2
32 1.Fl 21.9 21.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.1 10.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 10.5 10.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
33 1.Fl 21.9 21.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.3 10.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 9.7 9.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 19.2 19.2
34 1.Fl 21.6 21.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.4 10.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 8.1 8.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.2 17.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 18.8 18.8
35 1.Fl 21.2 21.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.4 9.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 7.5 7.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
460
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 16.6 16.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 18.6 18.6
36 1.Fl 21.7 21.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 10.6 10.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 7.9 7.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.1 17.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 19.0 19.0
37 1.Fl 24.6 24.6
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.6 11.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 16.7 16.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 15.8 15.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.8 22.8
38 1.Fl 22.3 22.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 11.3 11.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 14.7 14.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 13.5 13.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 20.2 20.2
39 1.Fl 17.7 17.7
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 5.8 5.8
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 6.1 6.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 11.8 11.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 15.6 15.6
40 1.Fl 18.8 18.8
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 6.0 6.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 6.7 6.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 14.3 14.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 16.1 16.1
41 1.Fl 27.9 27.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 21.1 21.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 12.5 12.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 23.0 23.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 24.3 24.3
42 1.Fl 25.3 25.3
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 18.1 18.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 9.9 9.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 19.9 19.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 22.3 22.3
43 1.Fl 25.0 25.0
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 17.4 17.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 10.3 10.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 20.3 20.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 21.6 21.6
44 1.Fl 24.9 24.9
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 12.2 12.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 9.4 9.4
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 18.6 18.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 23.2 23.2
45 1.Fl 22.2 22.2
First-Floor Patio (Leq) - 9.8 9.8
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Leq) - 7.6 7.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Leq) - 17.2 17.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Leq) - 19.9 19.9
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
461
Level Corrections
Source name Reference Day Night Cwall CI CT
dB(A) dB(A) dB dB dB
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) Lw/unit 100.0 100.0 - - -
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) Lw/unit 100.0 100.0 - - - Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) Lw/unit 100.0 100.0 - - - Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) Lw/unit 88.0 88.0 3.0 - - Noise emissions of industry sources
RK Engineering Group Inc.
462
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
1 1.Fl 48.6 48.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 25.0 25.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 36.9 36.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 31.9 31.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 48.1 48.1
2 1.Fl 46.6 46.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 37.0 37.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 23.3 23.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.7 39.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 44.9 44.9
3 1.Fl 47.2 47.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.9 39.9
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 20.9 20.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 43.6 43.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 42.9 42.9
4 1.Fl 40.1 40.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.6 34.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 28.1 28.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 34.4 34.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
5 1.Fl 39.7 39.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 27.1 27.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 34.0 34.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.8 34.8
6 1.Fl 40.6 40.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.2 36.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 27.9 27.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.9 34.9
7 1.Fl 40.6 40.6
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 28.2 28.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.3 36.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.2 35.2
8 1.Fl 40.8 40.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.7 32.7
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 26.7 26.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 38.0 38.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
9 1.Fl 39.1 39.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.1 30.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 24.0 24.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.9 36.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.1 33.1
10 1.Fl 41.9 41.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.9 32.9
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 24.0 24.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.8 39.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 35.7 35.7
11 1.Fl 39.9 39.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.6 32.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 21.1 21.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.6 37.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.2 33.2
12 1.Fl 41.1 41.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 20.5 20.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
463
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 38.1 38.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.3 33.3
13 1.Fl 44.4 44.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.0 39.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 21.8 21.8
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 42.0 42.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 36.0 36.0
14 1.Fl 41.9 41.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.2 36.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 20.0 20.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.5 39.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.5 33.5
15 1.Fl 42.0 42.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.7 19.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.8 39.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.3 33.3
16 1.Fl 42.0 42.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.0 36.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.5 19.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.9 39.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.3 33.3
17 1.Fl 41.7 41.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.6 35.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.2 19.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.6 39.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.0 33.0
18 1.Fl 41.7 41.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 18.9 18.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.7 39.7
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.7 32.7
19 1.Fl 43.2 43.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.3 36.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.1 19.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 41.4 41.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.2 34.2
20 1.Fl 43.2 43.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 37.2 37.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.8 19.8
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 41.0 41.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.5 34.5
21 1.Fl 38.9 38.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 32.3 32.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 16.6 16.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.4 36.4
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.2 32.2
22 1.Fl 37.3 37.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 15.4 15.4
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 30.2 30.2
23 1.Fl 39.7 39.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.3 34.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 18.6 18.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.8 36.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.3 32.3
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
464
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
24 1.Fl 41.5 41.5
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 34.2 34.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 20.1 20.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 39.3 39.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.7 34.7
25 1.Fl 39.2 39.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 31.7 31.7
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 18.2 18.2
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.1 37.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.0 32.0
26 1.Fl 39.1 39.1
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 31.2 31.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 18.0 18.0
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.2 37.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.9 31.9
27 1.Fl 38.9 38.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 17.6 17.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.2 37.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.6 31.6
28 1.Fl 38.7 38.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.5 29.5
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 17.3 17.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.1 37.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.2 31.2
29 1.Fl 38.4 38.4
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.0 30.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 16.9 16.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.6 36.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 30.8 30.8
30 1.Fl 34.3 34.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.6 27.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 13.5 13.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 31.6 31.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 28.2 28.2
31 1.Fl 38.3 38.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.3 30.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 14.9 14.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.3 36.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.2 31.2
32 1.Fl 36.7 36.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.1 28.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 15.5 15.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 29.2 29.2
33 1.Fl 36.8 36.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.3 28.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 14.7 14.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 29.2 29.2
34 1.Fl 36.8 36.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.4 28.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 13.1 13.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.2 35.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 28.8 28.8
35 1.Fl 36.2 36.2
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.4 27.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 12.5 12.5
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
465
Level
Source name Traffic lane Day Night
dB(A)
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 34.6 34.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 28.6 28.6
36 1.Fl 36.8 36.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 28.6 28.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 12.9 12.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.1 35.1
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 29.0 29.0
37 1.Fl 37.3 37.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.6 29.6
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 21.7 21.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 33.8 33.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.8 32.8
38 1.Fl 35.3 35.3
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 29.3 29.3
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 19.7 19.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 31.5 31.5
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 30.2 30.2
39 1.Fl 32.0 32.0
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 23.8 23.8
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 11.1 11.1
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 29.8 29.8
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 25.6 25.6
40 1.Fl 33.8 33.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 24.0 24.0
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 11.7 11.7
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 32.3 32.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 26.1 26.1
41 1.Fl 43.7 43.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 39.1 39.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 17.5 17.5
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 41.0 41.0
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 34.3 34.3
42 1.Fl 40.8 40.8
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 36.1 36.1
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 14.9 14.9
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 37.9 37.9
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 32.3 32.3
43 1.Fl 40.7 40.7
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 35.4 35.4
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 15.3 15.3
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 38.3 38.3
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 31.6 31.6
44 1.Fl 38.9 38.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 30.2 30.2
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 14.4 14.4
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 36.6 36.6
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 33.2 33.2
45 1.Fl 36.9 36.9
First-Floor Patio (Lmax) - 27.8 27.8
Indoor Bar/Dining Room (Lmax) - 12.6 12.6
Private Dining Room Patio (Lmax) - 35.2 35.2
Rooftop Lounge with Ambient Music (Lmax) - 29.9 29.9
Contribution levels of the receivers
RK Engineering Group Inc.
466
Appendix E
Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Calculation Worksheets 467
Project: Date: 12/3/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
Noise Source: Combined Existing Plus Project Noise Levels (Permitted Plan) Engineer: B. Morrison Location: Receptor-1
64.9 53.3 --
Nighttime
53.0 41.3
Total
Daytime
64.9 41.3
dB Adder
Noise Levels (dBA)
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Noise Source
Minimum Measured Noise Level
Project Noise Contribution
468
Project: Date: 12/3/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
Noise Source: Combined Existing Plus Project Noise Levels (Permitted Plan) Engineer: B. Morrison Location: Receptor-2, Receptor-3, and Receptor-4
--
dB Adder
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Noise Levels (dBA)
Noise Source Daytime Nighttime
Minimum Measured Noise Level 58.6 52.6
Project Noise Contribution 32.6 32.6
Total 58.6 52.6
469
Project: Date: 12/3/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
Noise Source: Combined Existing Plus Project Noise Levels (Proposed Plan) Engineer: B. Morrison Location: Receptor-1
--
dB Adder
Noise Levels (dBA)
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Noise Source
Minimum Measured Noise Level
Project Noise Contribution
Total
Daytime
64.9 39.1
64.9 Nighttime
53.0 39.1
53.2 470
Project: Date: 12/3/2025
JN: 3299-2025-01
Noise Source: Combined Existing Plus Project Noise Levels (Proposed Plan) Engineer: B. Morrison Location: Receptor-2, Receptor-3, and Receptor-4
Total 58.6 52.6 --
Minimum Measured Noise Level 58.6 52.6
Project Noise Contribution 29.1 29.1
dB Adder
The Lodge at San Clemente Roof Top Venue
Noise Levels (dBA)
Noise Source Daytime Nighttime
471
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
&29(56+((7
7+(/2'*(
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&55(68%0,77$/
)(%58$5<
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
5RRIWRS9HQXH1HLJKERU$JUHHPHQW '(&
Attachment 2
472
7+(/2'*( $'(9(/230(172)
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18( $0(1'0(17726&5
'HFHPEHU
$
([WHULRU
KLJK352326('
3(563(&7,9(
9,(:
352326('
473
6 79
$9
6 6
6
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* 522)3/$1
522)7239(18(3/$1
1257+
758( 1257+
6 5$,6('3('(67$
3$9(56
7<3
:,
812&&83,('522)
+$1'5$,/72(
6(59,&((/(9$725
&2175$67&2/2572,1',&$7((;,73$7+
6)',1,1*$5($
6).,7&+(1$1'6)6(59,&(6
7$%/(0,1,0803/80%,1*),;785()$&,/,7,(6 6)2&& 2&&3(5&3&3$*( 7$%/($
2&&83$17/2$')$&725
:$7(5&/26(7
0$/( )(0$/(
/$9$725,(6
0$/( )(0$/(
85,1$/
$$66(0%/<5(67$85$176
7<3(62)2&&83$1&<
:$7(5&/26(7
0$/( )(0$/(
/$9$725,(6
0$/( )(0$/(
85,1$/
$$66(0%/<5(67$85$176
7<3(62)2&&83$1&<
6) 2&&
0$/(
)(0$/(
0$/(
0$/(
)(0$/(
2&&0)
6) 2&&
2&&0)
0$/(
)(0$/(
0$/(
0$/(
)(0$/(
-$1
812&&83,('
522) 812
52 6)522)7239(18(
63($.(57<3
7(/(&20/(*(1'
79&211(&7,21
$9&211(&7,21
&(,/,1*63($.(5
/$1'6&$3(3/$17(563($.(5
685)$&(0281763($.(5
1257+
63($.(57<3
AUG 27, 2025
6)
6725$*(
$
*
(/(9
29(5
581
38%/,&
(/(9
38%/,&
(/(9
6)
.,7&+(1 35,9$7(
',1,1*5220
(
'
&
)
%
%$5
3(5*2/$
*$=(%2
),5(3,7
),5(3,7
812&&83,('522)
812&&83,('522)
),5(3,7
*$//(5<
),5(3,7
5(&(37,21
:20(1 0(1
5RRIWRS9HQXH1HLJKERU$JUHHPHQW '(&
474
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
&2/25('522)3/$1
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
5RRIWRS9HQXH1HLJKERU$JUHHPHQW '(&
&2/25('522)3/$1 1257+
758(1257+
6 6)
6725$*(
6)
.,7&+(1 35,9$7(
',1,1*5220
%$5
3(5*2/$
*$=(%2
),5(3,7
),5(3,7
812&&83,('522)
),5(3,7
*$//(5<
),5(3,7
5(&(37,21
:20(1 0(1
35,9$7(
',1,1*5220
%$5
3(5*2/$
*$=(%2
),5(3,7
),5(3,7
812&&83,('522)
),5(3,7 ),5(3,7
5(&(37,21
0(1
6725$*(
(/(9
29(5
581
*$//(5<
(/(9
29(5
581
38%/,&
(/(9
38%/,&
(/(9
*$=(%2
475
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
522)3/$1
522)3/$1 1257+
758(1257+
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8*
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025 AUG 27,2025 5RRI WRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO DEC 11,2025
$
$
*
(
'
&
)
%
476
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
522)3/$1
522)3/$1 1257+
758(1257+
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8*
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025 AUG 27,2025 5RRI WRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO DEC 11,2025
$
$
*
(
'
&
)
%
LEGEND:
5-FOOT PERIMETER WALL LOCATION
7-FOOT PERIMETER WALL LOCATION
477
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
352326('(/(9$7,21
352326('522)723(/(9$7,216
7+(/2'*(
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
29 GALVALUM - STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
30 ACOUSTICAL GLASS WALL
29 29 30
30 30
5RRIWRS9HQXH1HLJKERU$JUHHPHQW '(&
8 8 8
8 8 8 8
478
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
6(&7,21
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8* AUG 27, 2025
5RRIWRS9HQXH1HLJKERU$JUHHPHQW '(&
5 5
&52666(&7,21
6&$/(
7+)/225
5')/225
1')/225
),567)/225
522)'(&.
352326('+,*+32,17
(/(9 .,7&+(1
5(675220
.,7&+(1
5(675220
3$5$3(7:$//
522)5,'*(
352326('5,'*(
57'-0"
(/(9
352326('+,*+32,17
479
352326('(/(9$7,21
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
352326('522)723(/(9$7,216
7+(/2'*(
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8*
0' 10' 20' 40'
0' 10' 20' 40'
0' 10' 20' 40'
SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"
SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"
SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
29 30
30 5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
5RRI WRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
$8*
$8* AUG 27, 2 AUG 27,
DEC 11,2
480
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
/$1'6&$3(3/$1
6&$/(176
/$1'6&$3($5($
6)
6)
6725$*(
(/(9
29(5
581
38%/,&
(/(9
38%/,&
(/(9
6)
.,7&+(1 35,9$7(
',1,1*5220
%$5
3(5*2/$
*$=(%2
),5(3,7
),5(3,7
812&&83,('522)
812&&83,('522)
),5(3,7 ),5(3,7
*$//(5< 5(&(37,21
:20(1 0(1
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8*
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
5RRI WRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
$8*
$8* AUG 27, 2 AUG 27,
DEC 11,2
481
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 7
7 )( )( )(
)(
)(
7 6)
6)
*8(6752206
6)
727$/
*8(6752206 *8(6752206
*8(6752206
6)
5
5
5
5
5 )(
)(
)(
/
/ )( )(
(;,767$,56
72(/(9
(;,767$,56
72(/(9
6($76
(1&/26('',1,1*
6)
%$5
6)
.,7&+(1
6)
6725$*(
727$/
23(167$,5
[
23(167$,5
[
(1&/26('67$,5
[
(;,767$,56
72(/(9
(;,767$,56
72(/(9
6)
6725$*(
(/(9
29(5
581
38%/,&
(/(9
38%/,&
(/(9
6)
.,7&+(1 35,9$7(
',1,1*5220
%$5
3(5*2/$
*$=(%2
),5(3,7
),5(3,7
812&&83,('522)
812&&83,('522)
),5(3,7 ),5(3,7
*$//(5< 5(&(37,21
:20(1 0(1
6)
3'5
7+(/2'*(
352-(&712
6+((7
6+((712
:$9(1,'$9,67$+(5026$6$1&/(0(17(&$
522)7239(18($0(1'0(17726&5
758(1257+
(*5(66)2857+)/2253/$1
6&$/(
1
758(1257+
(*5(66522)3/$1
6&$/(
1
0(1 :20(1
(9(1763$&(,6352+,%,7,9($67+,663$&(:,//,1&5($6(67$,5:,'7+5(48,5(0(1772$%287$1''225 ,1$'',7,217+($7(5(9(1763$&(:,//5(68/7,1$'',7,21$/2&&83$176:+,&+:,//5(48,5('
0$/(:&)(0$/(:&85,1$/0$/(/$9$725,(6$1')(0$/(/$9$725,(6 )2857+$1'522)
(*5(663/$1
,668(')25
'$7(
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO $8*
5RRIWRS9HQXH$PHQGPHQWWR6&5 '(&
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO )(%
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
5RRIWRS9HQXH5HVXEPLWWDO 2025
8*
$8* AUG 27, 2 AUG 27,
DEC 11,2
482
Attachment 4
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
RESOLUTION NO. o 4-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN PERMIT (AM SPP) 99-16, MARBLEHEAD COASTAL COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998 the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 8817, Site Plan Permit (SPP) 97-16 and Coastal Development Permit 97-42 to allow the subdivision of 250.6 acres and the development of a 434 single family residential dwelling units. Site Plan Permit 97-17, Conditional Use Permit 97-18 and Sign Exception Permit 97-19 to allow development of the commercial portion of the project were denied; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999 the City Council approved Site Plan Permit 99-16, Conditional Use Permit 99-17 and Sign Exception Permit 99-18 to allow the development of 443,860 square-feet of specialty retail, 176, 232 square-feet of entertainment and 80,048 squarefeet of general retail; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2000 the City Council approved an Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 8817 and Site Plan Permit 97-16 to preserve additional exi$ting wetland habitat and reduce the number of homes from 434 to 424 and allow other related modifications to the previously approved project; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001, the City Council conceptually endorsed the site plan revisions prior to the applicant submitting an application to the California Coastal Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2003, the California Coastal Commission conditionally approved the Marblehead Coastal project; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council approved an Amendment to TTM 8817 to preserve additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas and other open space, reduce the amount of developed acreage including a reduction in commercial square footage and the number of residential lots from 424 to 313; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2004, an application was submitted by MT No. 1, LLC, 16592 Hale A venue, Irvine, California 92606 to request to amend previously approved commercial Site Plan Permit 99-16 to allow the development of approximately 641,534 square-feet of commercial uses including a 120 to 130 room hotel, conference center, theater, restaurants and outlet retail uses; and
Attachment 5
490
Resolution No. _ O 4-61 Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an Environmental Initial Study for the above referenced project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA, the Planning Division prepared an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 95-01 for the Marblehead Coastal Project (State Clearing House Number 95091037). The Addendum addresses the impacts of modifications to the Site Plan Permit, updates previous studies and provides new analysis; and WHEREAS, the City's Development Management Team reviewed the proposed Site Plan Permit for consistency with the General Plan policies and other applicable City ordinances and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Subcommittee regularly reviewed the proposed project between November 24, 2003 and June 7, 2004 and provided comments; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties and continued the item to June 16, 2004 and;
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered evidence presented by City staff, the project applicant and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the San Clemente City Council certified Marblehead Costa} Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-01 (SCH NO. 95091037). Certification of the document also included the adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. On July 1998, February 2000, August 2003 and December 2003. the City Council certified Addendums to FEIR 95-01. Addendum No. 5 to FEIR 95-01 considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Addendum No. 5 to Final EIR 95-01 thoroughly addresses proposed modifications to the Marblehead Coastal Project. Based on proposed modifications, no substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the Environmental Impact Report; there are no substantial changes with 491
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 3
respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, and there is no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete, no new significant environmental impacts would occur, nor would the severity of the impacts previously identified increase. The environmental review pursuant to Section 15164 (Addendum EIR) of the State CEQA Guidelines appropriately addresses environmental considerations associated with project revisions and none of the conditions identified in Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs) occur. All records pertaining to the FEIR and Addendum are contained in the Planning Division of the City of San Clemente.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of San Clemente finds and determines as follows with regard to Amendment Site Plan Permit 99-16:
A. The proposed commercial development is pemlitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Site Plan Permit and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the Marblehead Specific Plan, the goals and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the development is being proposed in that:
1. The proposed project provides for retail outlet stores, restaurants a theater, hotel conference center and other permitted uses within the Regional Commercial portion of the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan area.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of San Clemente General Plan in that is has been determined that no encroachment into designated open space will occur as a result of the development of this project.
3. The proposed project is consistent with all other aspects of the City of San Clemente General Plan and the Marblehead Specific Plan with respect to grades, drainage and sanitary facilities, including alignments and grades thereof; location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; lot size and configuration; traffic circulation and access; and other specific requirements.
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed in that Planning Area RC IA is designated for regional commercial development.
C. The proposed regional commercial development, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Marblehead Coastal Specific Plans, fits well within the surrounding community and will not be developed until all utility services are 492
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page4
available. All sewer and water services which will be provided to the site are the responsibility of the owner and his/her designee, and as conditioned, no building permits shall be issued prior to proof that such water and sewer systems can accommodate the project.
D. The proposed regional commercial development, as conditioned, will not be unsightly or create disharmony with its locale and surroundings, and the general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in that:
1. The regional commercial site is buffered from adjacent land uses through the use of grade separation and landscape screening.
2. Roofs are designed to include parapets that will adequately screen roofmounted equipment. The flat smface of the roof and roof-mounted equipment will be painted to match the color of the tile roof.
E. The proposed regional commercial development will minimize or eliminate adverse physical or visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design or location, and will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City of San Clemente, in that:
1. A condition of approval requires that delivery trucks comply with a truck routing plan to avoid conflicts with other vehicles and pedestrians.
2. Commercial parking meets or exceeds minimum standards.
3. Pedestrian sidewalks are proposed through the commercial development and an extensive public trail system is also provided.
F. The architectural treatment of the regional commercial project complies with the San Clemente General Plan, the Marblehead Specific Plan, and the San Clemente Zoning Ordinance in areas including, but not limited to, height, setback and color, etc., in that:
1. The proposed commercial uses comply with the maximum 45-foot height limit of the Marblehead Specific Plan Regional Commercial zone. The theater complies with the maximum 55-foot height limit and a maximum architectural projection of 62-feet.
2. The commercial development complies with the minimum average setback of 50-feet for all buildings with frontage along a major arterial.
G. The architectural treatment of the commercial project complies with the architectural guidelines in the City of San Clemente Design Guidelines and the Marblehead Specific Plan, in that:
493
Resolution No. o 4 -61 Page 5
1. The architecture incorporates a variety of Spanish-influenced design elements to strengthen San Clemente's unique character and historic identity of the "Spanish Village by the Sea".
2. The building facades incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation to reduce apparent massing.
3. Varied architectural styles are balanced with unifying elements of building materials and project landscaping.
Section 3: The City Council hereby approves Amendment to Site Plan Permit 99-16 Marblehead Coastal Commercial Development, subject to the above Findings, and the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2 o th
ATTEST:
STATEOFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE)
day of ,Jn 1 y , 2004.
,,
~Q.~, --=-
Mayor of the City of
San Clemente, California
I, Myrna Erway, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. O 4-61 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the 2 O th day of Ju 1 Y , ~ O O 4 __ , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ANDERSON, DAHL, DOREY, EGGLESTON, MAYOR RITSCHEL
NONE
NONE
494
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page6
495
Resolution No. , o 4-61 Page 7
EXHIBIT l
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN PERMIT 99-16 MARBLEHEAD COASTAL
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
l. AM SPP 99-16 is subject to these conditions and a11 applicable Conditions of Approval for Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 8817 as approved by the City Council on September 16, 2003 with Resolution 03-75. Prior to Final Map approval for any portion of AM TIM 8817, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Council for, a Final Map prepared under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. The Final Map(s) shall be subject to all pertinent requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and shall substantially conform to AM TIM 8817, AM SPP 99-16, City standards, and all other applicable approved plans, codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. •• (Plng.) __ (Eng.) __ _
2. This project is approved subject to the provisions of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-01 and subsequent Addendums and the mitigation measures adopted with FEIR, included by reference with these conditions of approval. (Ping.) __
3. The owner or designee shall develop the approved project m conformance with all applicable submittals approved by the City subject to modifications by these Conditions of Approval. Any deviation from the applicable submittals recommended for approval by the Planning Commission shall require that, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit modified plans and any other applicable materials as required by the City for review and obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee. If the City Planner or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the owner or designee shall be required to apply for review and obtain the approval of the City Council. (Ping.) __ _
4. The owner or designee shall not pave any street under which Cable TV conduit is to be placed without actual notice to Cox Communications or their successor in interest, for the installation of cable conduit. Notice shall be sent to the following address: Cox Communications, General, Manager, 29947 Avenida de las Banderas, Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688. (Ping.) __
5. The owner or designee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of San Clemente and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees from any and all actions, suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' fees and costs) which may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions; or operations of the owner or owner's agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees concerning Amendment to Site Plan Permit 99-16 when such action is brought within the time period provided under 496
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 8
Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall notify the owner or designee of the pendency of any such action and request that the owner or des1gnee defend such action. If the owner or designee fails to do so, the City may defend the action and the owner or designee shall pay the cost thereof. The provisions herein shall not apply to the extent such damage; liability or claim is caused by the willful misconduct or sole active negligence of the City, or the City's officers, officials, agents, employees or representatives. (Ping.) __ _
6. AM Site Plan Permit 99-16 is approved with the intent that the theater (Building 22) and the hotel (Building 15) are architectural landmarks for the project. If either the hotel or theater is not constructed, then alternative architectural landmarks shall be developed.
The development of alternative landmarks shall require the submittal and approval of an Amended Site Plan Permit including review by the City's Design Review Subcommittee, Planning Commission and City Council. This condition is in addition to Condition Nos. 38 and 39 which also relate to the theater and hotel buildings._ ••(Ping.) __
7. The commercial bridge shall include the following design revisions to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee and the City's architectural consultant: ••(Ping.) __ A. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the bridge.
B. Corbels on the lower bridge beam shall be the same dimension as the support posts.
C. Provide decorative posts between the bridge support columns and the decorative arch.
8. The reinforced earthen structure that supports the service road and utilities on the east side of the canyon shall incorporate the following design features to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee and the City's architectural consultant: ••(Ping.) __ A. The surface of the structure shall be constructed using integral earth-tone color concrete (such as green or beige) and have a rough surface.
B. The slope at the base of the structure shall be planted with native trees and other native plants to screen the structure.
9. Signage and Signage Monuments are not part of this review. Any signage for this proposed development shall require the owner or designee to submit for review and obtain approval of an Amended Sign Exception Permit. •• (Ping.) __ 497
Resolution No. 04-61 Page9
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
10. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner or designec shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all existing survey monuments are located in the field in compliance with AB 1414 for restoration by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (Eng.)__ __
11. Prior to issuance of any pennits, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to all of these imposed conditions to the Community Development Director or designee. The owner or designee understands that the resolution will be of no force or effect unless such written consent is submitted to the City. (Ping.) ___ _
12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and shall obtain approval by the City Engineer or designee, plans for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMPs). The owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Federal, State, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off and shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer or his designee that the required NPDES permits has been obtained. (Eng.) __ _
13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review a project binder containing the following documents: (Eng.) __ A. Notice of Intent filed with the California State Water Resources Control Board (NPDES Permit).
B. Water Quality Management Plan containing Operational Best Management Practices (BMPs ).
C. Copy of project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
D. Evidence of Compliance with the approved Regional Runoff Management Plan (ROMP).
14. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner or designec shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the project meets all requirements of the Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Drain Program, and Federal, State, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off. If final guidelines are not in place, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for, plans for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's). (Eng.) __
498
Resolution No. O 4-6 1 Page 10
15. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the City Engineer shall determine that development of the site shall conform to general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies, including specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage, and recommendations for further study. (Eng.)_
16. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the limits of grading shown on the Tentative Map must be verified by the Geotechnical Engineer. The owner or designee shall not be allowed to go beyond the limits as shown on the Tentative Map, unless approved by the Director of Community Development. (Eng.) __ (Plng.)_ __
17. Prior to issuance of any grading permits unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a 4(d) Section 7 or Section 10 permit has been obtained prior to commencing activities that would impact the gnatcatcher. •• (Plng.) __
18. Prior to issuance of any grading permit unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a Section 404 Permit and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement have been obtained prior to impacting wetlands and other waters of the U.S. hnpacts to applicable wetland habitats shall be mitigated in a manner acceptable to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG. ••(MM 4.12-1 a) (Plng.) __
19. Prior to issuance of grading permits unless previously provided, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that, at a minimum, plans and appropriate permits for the following on-site mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources have been approved:
A. Preservation of 6.90 acres of existing wetlands, and restoration and enhancement of an additional 4.6 acres of wetland habitat, located within the Marblehead Canyons (Lots C, G, Land S), as well the three detention basins (Lots K, T, XX).
B. Preservation of 10.4 acres of existing sage scrub habitat, and restoration and enhancement of 70 acres of sage scrub habitat, within the Canyons and open space adjacent to the preserved and restored wetlands.
C. Completion of the implementation of the measures required under the dudleya reserve translocation and management plan approved by the California Coastal Commission under CDP 5-97-136 in 1997, and CDP 5-03-013.
D. Provision for buffers around wetlands in canyon bottoms.
E. Funding under the Habitat Management Plan adequate to provide for long-term monitoring and management of preserved and restored biological resources. ••(MM 4.12-l.b) (Ping.) __
499
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 11
20. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that a monitoring biologist, acceptable to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game, has been retained and shall be on site during any clearing of coastal sage scrub. •• (Plng.L_
21. Prior to issuance of any grading pennits, the owner or des1gnee shall submit for review and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for an acoustical analysis report prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant. The report shall describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment and preliminary requirements.
Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy the following conditions:
A. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the owner or designee shall provide evidence acceptable to the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer or designee, that:
1) All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with operating and maintained mufflers.
2) No internal combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the City Engineer or designee.
3) All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control).
4) Stockpiling and/or vehicle-storage areas shall be located as far as practicable and out of view from dwellings to the extent feasible. 5) The City of San Clemente Noise Ordinance, limiting the hours of construction and construction equipment maintenance to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and to the days of Monday through Friday, excluding City holidays, shall be enforced.
B. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits and building pennits for the hotel, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All hotel guest rooms shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that these standards will be 500
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 12
satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances or shall indicate other appropriate mitigation measures.
•(MM 4.3-1.a, 4.3-1.c, 4.3-1.d) (Eng.)_ (Bldg.) __ _
22. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, rough grading plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer or designee. Said plans shall include provisions for:
(Eng.) __ _
A. Stockpiling of topsoil for placement on finished slopes.
B. Erosion and siltation control.
C. Dust control.
D. Planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes as required by the Grading Ordinance.
E. Temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging if necessary.
23. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, a fossil preservation plan shall be approved by the City Planner. A qualified paleontologist (able to meet the criteria of, and be experienced in scientific methods acceptable to, the section of Vertebrate Paleontology of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) identified in the pJan shall attend any pre-grade meetings and monitor grading operations. lf fossils are discovered, the paleontologist shall be empowered to divert or redirect grading in the vicinity of the remains in order to evaluate and salvage exposed prehistoric fossils. The plan shall provide for the following: ••(MM 4.7-1, 2.e) __ (Eng.) __ A. Sufficient time allowed for adequate evaluation and recovery operations to be completed. (MM 4.7-1, 2.a, 2.b)
B. Marine and non-marine terrace sediments and sand lenses in the Capistrano Formation to be screened routinely for micro-vertebrate and invertebrate remains. (MM 4.7-2.c)
C. All fossils collected to be catalogued, analyzed, and prepared to the point of identification, with the remains to be placed in the Orange County designated repository and/or a permanent systematics institution with a research and/or educational interest in fossils. (MM 4.7-2.d)
24. This project shall be subject to all provisions of the Archaeology Plan prepared by Gavin H Archer, RRPA, dated November 2002, as amended by the Archaeological Monitoring Treatment Plan dated February 20, 2003 and as further modified by the Coastal Commission by Condition No. 26 of Coastal Development Permit No. 5-03-013. •• (Plng.) __ _
501
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 13
25. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee, a precise grading plan as required by the City Grading Manual and Ordinance. (Eng.) ___ _
26. Prior to issuance of precise grading and building permits, lhe owner or designee shall submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with all pertinent requirements including, but not limited to, the City's Landscape Guidelines, apphcable Specific Plans, and guidelines contained in the City's Master Landscape Plan of Scenic Corridors except as modified by the Coastal Development Permit 5-03-013. A site-specific soils report, prepared by an authorized professional, regarding the tests and analyses of the agricultural suitability of the soil and recommendations shall be submitted for review for selected areas. (BP&R) __ _
The following standards shall apply for landscaping design, unless otherwise approved by the City or as modified by Coastal Development Permit 5-03-013:
• (Plng.L ____ (Eng.) (BPR) __ _
A. Minimum parkway tree size shall be 15-gallon for canopy trees and ten-foot ( 10') brown trunk height (BTH) for palms.
B. Trees shall be planted and staked at thirty-foot intervals in commercial parkway areas. Trees shall be located in a manner to avoid blocking public and private views to the fullest extent feasible.
C. Landscape materials within the private commercial lots shall be installed in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, landscape concept plans, construction drawings and professional practices.
D. Landscaping shall not conflict with vehicular sight distance and shall comply with Orange County EMA Standard 1117.
E. All parkway trees shall maintain the following distances from improvements:
1) 10' O" from water, sewer and storm drain lines;
2) 5' O" from hardscape (curbs, sidewalks, street lights, utility boxes, fire hydrants, post indicator valve, fire detector checks, etc.), unless an approved species is planted in a tree well with 24" deep, continuous circle, root control barriers that are securely fastened at the joint with ribs inward; 3) 5' O" from drive approaches; and
4) 25' O" from curb return at street intersections.
502
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 14
F. All landscape irrigation systems shall be designed using the City's reclaimed water standards. In the event reclaimed water is not available at the time the system is put into operation, the system may be connected to the potable water system.
When reclaimed water is available, the system shall be converted to reclaimed service. The owner or designee shall install reclaimed water service lines to the meter locations for future connection when reclaimed water is available.
27. Prior to issuance of precise grading and building pennits for Buildings 14, 17, 19, 22 or 24, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit landscape plans for the Caltrans right-of-way between Interstate 5 and the commercial pads. The landscape plans shall provide a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcovers which enhance the building facades in a manner acceptable to the City Planner or designee. •• (Plng.) __ _
28. Prior to issuance of precise grading plans and building permits for Buildings 14, 17, 19, 22 or 24, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit landscape plans for the Open Space Lots "SSS" and "1Tf'' (the slope on the south side of the commercial site) to be approved by the Community Development Director or designee. The grading plans and landscape plans shall include the following design features: ••(Ping.) __ _
A. Non combustible screen wall shall be natural finish and designed to blend into the natural environment to the fullest extent feasible.
B. Slope landfonn grading shall incorporate landform grading techniques such as variable slope ratios to create a more natural appearance.
C. The coastal sage scrub restoration within the Habitat Management Plan area shall incorporate plant materials with a variety of textures, colors and mature heights in a manner to create a gradation in height toward the commercial site to the extent consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and as approved by OCFA.
29. Prior to the issuance of grading and building pennits, the owner or designee shall be responsible for updating the City's mylar Precise Zoning Map by integrating the recorded map into the appropriate sheet(s) of the Zoning Map in a manner satisfactory to the City Planner or designee. (Ping.). __
30. Prior to issuance of building pennits, the owner or designee shall pay all applicable development fees in effect at the time, which may include, but are not limited to, RCFPP, public safety plan check, transportation corridor fees, etc. (MM 4.L-1) (Eng.) (Bldg.) __
503
Resolution No. o 4-6 1 Page 15
31. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings a list of all Conditions of Approval imposed by the final approval for the project applicable to the particular phase of development. (Bldg.)_ __
32. Prior to issuance of any grading permits and following lhe completion of initial grading/earth movement activities, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction' of the City Planner or designee that all areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel are marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking or storage of equipment or materials, or other such construction activities, shall be permitted within such marked areas. In addition, during construction activities, coastal sage scrub areas identified for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves, as recommended by the monitoring biologist. ••(MM 4.12-2.c, 2.d) (Plng.)_ __
33. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designec shall submit a copy of the City Engineer approved soils and geologic report, prepared by a Registered Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer, which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The soils report shall accompany the building plans, engineering calculations, and reports. (Bldg.) __
34. Prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise authonzed by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all underground public utilities necessary to allow construction to proceed for the Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program have been completed in accordance with the approved plans, and that the as-built progress plans for said improvements, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, have been submitted and approved by the City Engineer or designee. (Eng.) __
35. Prior to issuance of commercial building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, plans indicating all/any exterior fire-resistive features into the structures with exposed side facing to fuel modification zone and/or very high fire hazard severity zone that are required by building and fire codes. (Bldg) __ _
36. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee for, landscape plans which indicate that all ground-mounted utility structures and equipment, including, but not limited to, standpipes, backflow prevention/double detector check equipment, shall be located out of view, from a public street and/or adequately screened through the use of walls and/or landscaping, to the fullest extent feasible. (Plng.) __ _ 504
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 16
37. Prior to the issuance of precise grading plans or building perm1ts for any parking lots or parking structure, the owner or designee shall submit a parkmg lot construction phasing plan. Any parking areas disturbed but not developed as parking lot or parking structure shall be hydroseeded or treated in compliance with the City's erosion control standards to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee. ••(Ping.) __
38. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the theater (Building 22), as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit and obtain the approval of architectural construction documents indicating that the theater floor is relatively flat and the building is designed in a manner to a11ow for potential future adaptive uses other than a theater. ••(Ping.) __
39. Prior to issuance of building permits for Buildings 12 and 13 within the hotel development area, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall submit and obtain the approval for building pe1mits for the construction of the hotel and conference center (Buildings 14 and 15). If the hotel and conference center are not developed, then the owner shalJ submit an application for an Amended Site Plan Permit for the hotel development area including the possible redesign, modification or elimination of Buildings 12, 13, 14 and 15, as well as the parking lots and related improvements that serve those buildings. The intent of this condition is to ensure that the hotel portion of the site is developed in a comprehensive manner. •• (Plng.) __ _
40. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits and building pemlits for the hotel, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Building Official or designee for, a final sound attenuation plan. All hotel guest rooms shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an indoor standard of 45 dB CNEL in an habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-approved acoustical consultant shall indicate that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable City Ordinances. The report shall describe, in detail, the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report. •(Bldg.)__
41. Prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial buildings, the owner or designee shall submit plans for review and approval by_the City's architectural consultant. Staff shall review the buildings for compliance with the Amended Site Plan Permit and Design Review Subcommittee Meeting Minutes. This review is in addition to other standard submittal and review requirements. •• (Ping.) __ _
42. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Buildings 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, as shown on the site plan approved by City Council, the owner or designee shall subm1t for review by the City's architectural consultant, the City Planner or designee and the Design Review Subcommittee, architectural elevations for the following elevations: Building 16 North and South elevations; Buildings 17 and 19 West elevations; Building 18 North and 505
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 17
East elevations; Building 20 North, East and South elevations; Restaurant Buildings 9 and 12. ••(Ping.)_ __
43. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designcc sha11 submit for review and obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee for plans indicating the following (unless otherwise approved by the City's architectural consultant):
••(Ping.) __ _
A. Two-piece clay tile roofing shall be used with booster tiles on the edges and ridges and random mortar packing. The mortar shall be packed on 100 percent of the tiles in the first two rows of tiles and along any rake and ridgeline, and shall be packed on -20 percent of the tiles on the remaining field. Mortar packing sha11 serve as bird stops at the roof edges. The thickness of pack shaJI be determined by the City Planner or designee.
B. Variations in tile color and size between individual building segments is encouraged. Tile roofing for the theater (Building 22) should be larger than other buildings to correspond with the bigger scale of the theater.
C. Roof slopes shall vary from 3.5: 12 to 5.5:12 wilh an average of 4:12.
D. Stucco walls with a 'steel, hand troweled' (no machine application), smooth Mission finish and slight undulations (applied during brown coat) and bull-nosed corners and edges, including archways (applied during lathe), with no control/expansion joints.
44. Prior to issuance of any commercial building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and obtain approval of the Director of Community Development or designee plans indicating that the height of any roof mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall intended to screen the equipment. Shed roofs (non-full roofs) shall be a minimum width of 16-feet. The non-tile portions of the roof and the roofmounted equipment shall be painted in such a manner as to cause the equipment to blend with the roof when viewed from surrounding areas. Additional screening devices may be required in conjunction with tenant improvements if deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. •(Ping.) __ _
45. Building permits shall not be issued unless the project complies with all applicable codes, ordinances, and statutes including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Fire Code, Security Ordinance, Transportation Demand Ordinance, Water Quality Ordinance, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and the Uniform Codes as adopted by the City. (Bldg.) __
A. The type of construction and allowable building floor area of each building shall comply with 2001 California Building Code Section 504 and table 5-B. Prior to 506
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 18
issuance of building pennits, a licensed architect shall submit building area calculations to show that all proposed construction is within allowable building area code limitations for the proposed construction type.
B. Fire-resistance of exterior walls and openings must comply with 2001 Californai Building Code Section 503.3 and Table 5-A based on distances to actual and artificial property lines between buildings.
C. Provide handicapped accessible path of travel from the bus drop off areas to building entrances per 2001 California Building Code Section l 131B.4.
D. Provide accessible path of travel between all groups of buildings. Indicate path of travel to Buildings 6, 7 and 8 from other areas per 2001 California Building Code Section 1127B.l.
E. The number and size of handicapped parking spaces must comply with 2001 California Building Code Section l 129B and l lB-6.
F. Incorporate all/any exterior fire resistive features into the structures with exposed side facing to fuel modification zone and/or very high fire hazard severity zone that are required by building and fire codes.
46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit a copy of the City Engineer approved soils and geologic report, prepared by a registered geologist and/or soil engineer, which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The soils report shall accompany the building plans, engineering calculations, and reports. (Bldg.) __
47. Prior to the Building Division's approval to pour foundations, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the forms for the building foundations confonn to the front, side and rear setbacks are in confonnance to the approved plans. (Bldg.) __
48. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Planner or their designee for all street names and addresses associated with the project. (Ping.) __ _
49. Prior to the Building Division's approval of the framing inspection, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the height of all structures are in conformance to the approved plans. (Bldg.) __
50. Prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise authorized by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer 507
Resolution No. O 4-61 Page 19
or designee that all water, sewer and/or stonn drain facility improvements necessary to serve the development have been completed in accordance with the approved plans, and that the "as-built" plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, have been submitted and approved by the City Engineer or designee. (Eng.)_ __
51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence of the onsite fire hydrant system to the Fire Chief and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to building pennit issuance, and the applicant shall make provisions for the repair and maintenance of the system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guidelines for Private Fire Hydrant &/or Sprinkler Underground Piping." (Fire) __
52. Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map or the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" fonn shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected. (Fire) __ _
53. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 for additional information. (Fire) __
54. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to all portions of the exterior of every structure on site. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access. (Fire) __
55. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and City Staff of plans for all public or private access roads, streets and courts. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow-line to flow-line.
When a dead-end street exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Chief.
Applicable CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions such as speed bumps/humps, control gates or other modifications within said easement or access road unless prior approval of the Fire Chief is granted. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access." (Fire) __ _
56. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less 508
Resolution No. o 4-61 Page 20
than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelmes for Emergency Access Roadways and Fire Lane Requirements. (Fire)_ __
57. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Chief in consultation with the City Staff for a precise fuel modification plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of modifying vegetation to reduce the risk to structures. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for Fuel Modification Plans and Maintenance." (Fire)_ __
58. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer, under the supervision of the Fire Chief, shall have completed the portion of the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval shall be subject to an on-site inspection. (Fire)__ __
59. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain the approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Design and Installation of Emergency Access Gates and Barriers." (Fire)_ __
60. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire-fighting purposes and allweather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on site. Building pennits will not be issued without OCFA approval obtained as a result of an on-site impection. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 to obtain a copy of the standard combustible construction letter. (Fire)_ __
61. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief if required per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 for a copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to submittal. (Fire) __
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
62. Prior to the issuance Certificates of Occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that all exterior lighting is designed, arranged, directed or shielded per the approved plans, and in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on site, thereby preventing excess iJlumination onto adjoining site(s) and/or street(s). (Ping.)_ __
509
Resolution No. 04-61 Page 21
63. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall submit evidence that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) and lease agreements for the commercial development include a statement that: •• (Ping.) __ A. Delivery trucks shall be required to comply with the truck routing plan.
B. A parking management plan shall be included with each tenant lease agreement which requires that employees do not park in the parking lots adjacent to Buildings 9 through 15.
These statements shall be in addition to the CC&R requirements identified as Condition No. 17 for AM TIM 8817 as adopted by Resolution No 03-075.
64. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or des1gnee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that the project has been constructed in conformance with the approved sets of plans and all applicable, codes, ordinances, and standards. (Bldg.)_ __
65. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and/or acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer or designee, the owner or designee shall submit "as-built" plans prepared by a registered civil engineer for all applicable streets, traffic signals, street lights, sewer, water, storm drains, street signs, striping, traffic markings, painted curbs and all other required improvements. (Eng.)_ __
66. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the owner or designee shall install, if applicable, all underground traffic signal conduit, including, but not limited to, signal, phone, power and loop detector; and other appurtenances, including, but not limited to, pull boxes; needed for future traffic signal construction at the intersections listed above, and as needed for future interconnection with adjacent intersections per the City Engineer or designee's direction, in accordance with the submitted and approved street improvement plans. Estimated costs for this work shall be deducted from any cash-inlieu payments (financial security) required for corresponding signals as a condition of approval of AM TIM 8817.
(Eng.) __ _
67. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that the following have been installed per the approved improvement plans (if applicable): public and/or private street name signs, regulatory and informational signs constructed of high intensity sheeting and .080 aluminum, traffic pavement markings controlling arterial, collector and residential street intersections, centerline and Jane line striping, and curb painting. (Eng.) ___ ,
68. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Maintenance Manager or their designees 510
ResolutionNo. 04 _ 61 Page 22
that all street improvements have been completed and accepted and that any damage to new or existing street right-of-way during construction have been repaired/replaced. (Eng.) (Maint.) __
69. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer, or designee, for each Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program unless an exception is granted by the City Engineer, the owner or designee shall submit as built plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, depicting all underground public utilities compJeted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for that Development Phase. (Eng.) __
70. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director or designee that parkway trees have been planted and staked according to the submitted and approved landscape plans. (B,P&R) __
71. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for each Development Phase in compliance with the City-approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program, the owner or designee shall submit a letter, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect, to the Community Development Director or designee, stating that all materials for all landscaped areas and irrigation have. been installed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, in consultation with the Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director or designee, that all landscaped areas and 1mgation, including but not limited to median/parkway/slope landscaping and irrigation, have been installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. This requirement excludes the area covered by the Habitat Management Plan. (Plng.) (BP&R) __
72. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Buildings 2 through 5 or the parking structure, the owner or designee shall submit a letter, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect stating that all landscape materials and inigation including, but not limited to potted plants on the parking structure, landscape plantings at the perimeter of the parking structure and vines on trellis structures have been installed in accordance with the approved plans and standard professional practice.•• (Ping.). __
73. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief, and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner.
Please contact the OCFA at (714) 744-0499 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guideline for Installation of Blue Dot Hydrant Markers." (Fire) __ _
74. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the fire alarm and sprinkler system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (Fire)_ __
511
Reso]ution No. O 4-6 1 Page 23
75. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire lane plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions prohibiting parking in the fire lanes, and an enforcement method. (Fire)_ __
76. Prior 'to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fuel modification shall be installed and completed under the supervision of the Fire Chief with an approved plant pallet consistent with the approved Fuel Management Plan. The CC&R's or other approved documents shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones, including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation. The fuel modification zones shall be subject to triennial inspections.
(Fire)_ __
RELEASE OF FINANCIAL SECURITY
77. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Planner that the appropriate Association has been formed and that the CC&R's have been reviewed by the City Attorney, approved by same and recorded. (Ping.)_ __ (Eng.) __
78. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee that all survey monuments damaged or destroyed are restored. "Comer Records" shall be prepared for submission to the City Engineering Division and for filing with the County Surveyor's Office in compliance with AB 1414. All restorations of survey monuments shall be certified by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (Eng.) __
79. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit (if applicable) as-built plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, depicting all street, traffic signal, sewer, water, and storm drain improvements and street signage and signage placements, traffic markings and painted curbing and all required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or designee: (Eng.) __
80. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for, a videotape, filmed in the presence of a City Staff representative, of all sewer and drainage improvements (if applicable). The videotape shall become the property of the City. (Eng.) __
81. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall submit (if applicable) the following items, certified by a Registered Civil Engineer, to the Engineering Division:(Eng.) __ A. All construction improvement plans in digitized format (DXF file format). 512
Resolution No. O 4- 61 Page 24
82. 83.
84. 85.
*
•
••
B. Original mylars of all improvement plans corrected and certified by the engineer of record to be "As Built".
C. Duplicate mylars of the recorded Final Map.
D. Original mylars of all improvements and utilities at a scale of l "=40', or at an appropriate scale to be determined by the City Engineer or designee Prior to release of financial securities, the owner or designec shall submit to the City on 8 l/i'' x 11" sheet Centerline and Intersections Monument Ties signed and wet stamped by a Registered Engineer or Surveyor (Eng.)_ __
Prior to release of financial securities, the owner or designec shall provide a warranty bond in an amount of 25% of the faithful performance bond for each improvement accepted by the City. This warranty bond shall remain in place for one year from the date of acceptance of the improvement. (Eng.) __
Prior to the release of financial security, all water and sewer systems, e.g. pump stations, generators, reservoirs, PRV's, etc. shall be fully tested, in the presence of a City Staff, to verify system performance in accordance with design specifications. (Eng.) __ Prior to release of financial security, if any of the areas within the development were in a flood zone, the owner or designee shall file and obtain approval of a letter of map revision from FEMA to revise the FEMA flood zone map. (Eng)_ __ All Conditions of Approval are Standard, unless indicated as follows:
Denotes modified Standard Condition of Approval
Denotes project-specific Condition of Approval
i :\planning\marblehead\amspp99-16\amspp99-16commccres.doc 513
I
I
· RESOLUTION NO. 99-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
PLAN PERMIT 99-16/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-17/
SIGN EXCEPTION PERMIT 99-18, MARBLEHEAD
COASTAL PROMENADE, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OF A REGIONAL COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER
AT INTERSTATE 5 AND AVENIDA PICO
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1999, an application was submitted, and on June 2, 1999, completed, by Jim Johnson, MT No. 1, LLC, 16592 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92606, and SDC Partners/Craig Realty Group for approval of a Regional Commercial site plan and related entitlements. The approximately 700,140 square foot commercial development consists of 443,860 square feet of specialty retail (factory outlet/food court), 176,232 square feet of entertainment (theater/retail/restaurants), and 80,048 square feet of general retail (retail/restaurants) with associated site improvements on a 60.41 net acre site located west of the Interstate 5 freeway north of Avenida Pico; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 1999, and April 8, 1999, the City's Development Management Team reviewed the subject project for consistency with General Plan policies, the Marblehead Coastal Specific Plan (MCSP) and other City ordinances, codes and standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an initial study of the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 95-02 (SCH# 95091037) was certified on August 5, 1998, by City Council Resolution No. 98-40. FEIR 95-02 adequately addressed all potential impacts of the currently proposed project. There is no new evidence of potentially significant impacts due to changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken or due to any new information. Therefore, staffs determination is that the previously certified EIR is valid for the current request, and that no additional environmental documentation is required; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1999, April 29, 1999, and May 13, 1999, the Design Review Sub-Committee reviewed the proposed project and provided comments to the applicant; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999, and June 15, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject applications, considered evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject applications, and considered evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
CLEMENTE HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Attachment 6
514
I
' I
i
~
~
' '
Resolution No. 99-68 Page 2
SECTION 1: FEIR 95-02 adequately addressed all potential impacts of the currently proposed project. There is no new evidence of potentially significant impacts due to changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken or due to any new information. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that the previously certified EIR is valid for the current request, and that no additional environmental documentation is required.
SECTION 2: The proposed commercial development is permitted within the Regional Commercial (RCl) zone pursuant to the approval of a Site Plan Permit and, as conditioned, complies with all of the applicable provisions of the MCSP, the goals and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the development is being proposed in that:
A. The project complies with all applicable development standards of the MCSP RCI zone.
B. . The project complies with the General Plan's goals and objectives to establish the Marblehead Coastal site as a regionally identifiable community that provides for regional and visitor serving commercial uses and provides new employment opportunities.
C. The project complies with the RCl zone's purpose to provide retail and service uses to serve the region.
SECTION 3:
that is proposed in that:
The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development A. The project complies with the maximum floor area ratio allowed in the RCI zone.
B. The proposed 700,140 square foot regional commercial center, including the entertainment, factory outlet, and retail components, provides for the amount and mix of uses necessary to assure the economic feasibility of the proposed regional commercial center.
SECTION 4: The proposed commercial development, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity, in that:
A. The project's site design provides for adequate on-site circulation patterns.
B. The project will be required to construct, or reimburse the City for the project's "fair share" of, public infrastructure improvements to serve the development.
I
I
515
I
I
Resolution No. 99-68 Page 3
SECTION 5: The proposed commercial development, ·as conditioned, will not be unsightly or create disharmony with its locale and surroundings, and will not negatively impact surrounding land uses in that:
A.
B.
The design of the project, including the architectural style, berm and landscaping, will help mitigate visual impacts on the surrounding area.
The proposed Spanish Colonial Revival architectural theme is compatible with other existing commercial development in the City and with the City's image as the Spanish Village-by-the-Sea.
C. Deliveries are conditioned to occur no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. daily.
SECTION 6: The proposed commercial development will mimm1ze or eliminate adverse physical or visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design or location, and will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City, in that:
A. The proposed site layout and architectural design of the buildings and parking spaces are consistent with the MCSP's permitted uses and development standards in the RC! zone.
B. The applicant's proposed mix and type of uses in the factory outlet center, and other proposed uses on the site, are consistent with the MCSP's matrix ofland uses.
SECTION 7: The architectural treatment of the commercial project, as conditioned, complies with the San Clemente General Plan, MCSP and the San Clemente Zoning Ordinance in areas including, but not limited to, height, setback, and color, etc., in that:
A. The project exceeds the applicable mm1mum setback standards m the MCSP.
B. The project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable height standards in the General Plan and the MCSP.
SECTION 8: The architectural treatment of the commercial project, as conditioned, complies with the architectural guidelines in the City's Design Guidelines and the MCSP Design Guidelines in that:
A. The project consists of Spanish Colonial Revival style architecture.
B. The project incorporates pedestrian-oriented amenities including pedestrian walkways through the parking areas; pedestrian plazas with outdoor 516
Resolution No. 99-68 Page4
seating, landscaping and water features; and arcades, eave overhangs and trellises.
SECTION 9: The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in that the proposed Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style is compatible with other existing commercial development in the City and with the City's image as the Spanish Village-by-the-Sea.
SECTION 10: The proposed uses specified in Condition No. l.D, (a) through (m), of the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "A," are permitted within the RCl zone pursuant to the approval of a CUP and comply with all the applicable provisions of the MCSP and Zoning Ordinance, the San Clemente General Plan, and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the uses are being proposed in that:
A. The proposed uses, as conditioned, comply with all applicable development standards of the MCSP RCl zone.
B. The proposed regional and visitor serving commercial uses comply with the General Plan's goals and objectives to establish the Marblehead Coastal site as a regionally identifiable community.
C. The proposed uses comply with the RC! zone's purpose to provide retail and service uses to serve the region.
D. The design of the commercial development provides adequate parking to support the proposed convenience store use.
E. The proposed day care center use is conditioned to comply with all applicable Zoning Ordinance standards and state laws regulating such uses, and is conditioned with locational criteria to minimize other uses' potential adverse impacts on the day care use.
F. The proposed alcohol-related uses are conditioned to comply with all applicable City standards and policies, including Responsible Beverage Service training and specified hours of operation, and state laws.
G. The proposed free-standing kiosks and vendor carts are:
1) Consistent with the MCSP's development standards that encourage:
a) Outdoor food stands, newspaper stands, flower stands, ice cream or other vendors, and push carts, either permanent or temporary; and
b) Building clusters and outdoor use areas connected by strong pedestrian-oriented linkages.
I
I
517
I
I
Resolution No. 99-68 Page 5
H.
c) Required to comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance
standards for outdoor display that do not conflict with the purpose, intent and standards of the MCSP RCl zone.
The proposed outdoor dining associated with restaurants is located in a commercial center with more than 50 private parking spaces and is required to comply with all applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance related to outdoor dining areas on private property in non-residential zones that do not conflict with the purpose, intent and standards of the MCSP RCl zone.
SECTION 11: The design, including scale, length, materials and lighting of the signs within the Master Sign Program, as conditioned, is consistent with the intent of the design elements of the General Plan, Design Guidelines and MCSP zone in which the signs are proposed in that the design and scale of the signs are consistent with the character and nature of the proposed regional commercial project.
SECTION 12: The design, scale and materials of the signs, as conditioned, harmonize with the architectural design and details of the buildings they serve in that the proposed signs are compatible with the architectural style and scale of the buildings.
SECTION 13: The design and scale of the non-freeway-oriented signs, as conditioned, are appropriate to the distance from which the signs are normally viewed in that the signs are adequately visible from the abutting streets and within the parking lot.
SECTION 14: The design and materials of the signs provide a contrast between the background and letters in that the Master Sign Program provides for contrasting copy on the light background of the buildings.
SECTION 15: The design, scale and location of the buildings dictate the use of some freestanding signs in that there are multiple tenants in a large commercial center set back a substantial distance from the abutting streets, thereby necessitating the use of small numbers of free-standing center identification and multi-tenant signs near the street.
SECTION 16: The provisions of the Master Sign Program ensure consistency in design and style of all new signs.
SECTION 17: The provisions of the Master Sign Program do not address compatibility of the design and style of any existing signs on the buildings or site because there are no existing buildings on the site.
SECTION 18: All new signs within the Master Sign Program as conditioned, except as approved through the Sign Exception Permit findings below, are in compliance with the applicable design standards of the Zoning Ordinance and MCSP in that individual signs meet the maximum height, square footage and location requirements of Chapter 17.84 ofthe San Clemente Zoning Ordinance and Section 502 ofthe MCSP. 518
f
r
f
[
'
I
Resolution No. 99-68 Page 6
SECTION 19: There are unique or unusual circumstances relating to the size of the site and individual businesses, the location and orientation of individual businesses, proximity to street frontage and length of street frontage that do not allow the business to achieve the goals and objectives of Chapter 17.84 of the San Clemente Zoning Ordinance for adequate business identification in that:
A. The 60. l acre size of the site allows for the development of 700,140 square feet of retail square footage, which is significantly greater than any other commercial center in San Clemente.
B.
c.
D.
The region-serving nature of the commercial center predetermines tenancy by national retail tenants, with prescribed signage requirements as a condition ofleasing that exceed the City's standards.
Most of the retail tenants are set back a substantial distance across a parking lot from the project's street frontage.
The limitation of sign area to 64 square feet for national retail tenants or tenants within a large regional commercial center would be more restrictive than for other signs at similar commercial uses in the area.
SECTION 20: The granting of a Sign Exception Permit, as conditioned, is not contrary to the intent of the General Plan, Design Guidelines and MCSP zone in which the signs are proposed in that adequate, but not excessive, signs are proposed for the regional commercial center.
SECTION 21: The granting of a Sign Exception Permit, as conditioned, is not considered a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations of other similarly situated properties in that other national retail tenants or tenants within a large regional commercial center have signs larger than a 1: I ratio based on the business frontage.
SECTION 22: The granting of a Sign Exception Permit, as conditioned, does not adversely impact surrounding properties by increasing light, glare or noise in that the proposed signs on a parallel plane facing the existing Marblehead Inland residential community will be reverse pan channel letters, thereby reducing light by the creation of a "halo" effect around individual letters.
SECTION 23: The granting ofa Sign Exception Permit, as conditioned, does not create a traffic or safety hazard in that the signs along the freeway and the abutting streets are predominantly reverse pan channel letters ("halo lit") and will not produce excessive light or glare which could be distracting to motorists.
SECTION 24: The location of the site dictates the need for freeway-oriented signs to allow adequate business identification in that the subject property is located adjacent to the freeway between two freeway interchanges, and any signs along the rear of the commercial project are de facto freeway-oriented.
I -
I
519
I
I
Resolution No. 99-68 Page 7
SECTION 25: The design, scale, materials and location of the freewayoriented signs, as conditioned provide necessary business or center identification to motorists on the freeway without creating adverse visual impacts in that:
A~
B.
The signs will be reverse pan channel letters.
The freestanding signs will only be as high as necessary to allow visibility of the tenant sign area based on line of sight sections from the freeway to the sign structures.
C. The freestanding sign designs will be compatible with the architecture of the center, and enhanced by climbing vines.
SECTION 26: The design, scale and materials of the signs harmonize with the architectural design of the buildings they serve and are complimentary to the City's image as viewed from the freeway in that the sign structure designs utilize architectural elements integral with the buildings' style. 0
SECTION 27: The design and scale of the signs are appropriate to the distance from which the signs are normally viewed from the freeway in that the freestanding monument signs' design and scale are appropriately scaled for their locations adjacent to the freeway.
SECTION 28: The design, scale and location of the buildings dictate the use of some freestanding, freeway-oriented signs in addition to building-mounted signs in that the freestanding signs will provide center identification for numerous national tenants occupying the site with varying freeway proximity and visibility.
SECTION 29: The City Council of the City of San Clemente hereby approves Site Plan Permit 99-16/Conditional Use Permit 99-17/Sign Exception Permit 99- 18 to allow an approximately 700,140 square foot commercial development on the Marblehead Coastal property west of the Interstate 5 freeway north of Avenida Pico, subject to the above Findings, and the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 30: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 1999.
Mayor ~~ of~~ San Clemente, California
520
Resolution No. 99-68
ATTEST:
LERK of the City of
lemente, California
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )