Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Aeronutronic Ford - PA2006-173CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 14 October 90, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3233, rbunim @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -9 73) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ISSUE Should the City approve an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan prohibiting new residential subdivisions in Planning Area 5? Staff recommends the City Council approve Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 by introducing Ordinance No. 2006- and pass to second readings on October 24, 2006. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2006, Councilmember Daigle requested staff to prepare an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan (PC -24) in response to a letter received on behalf of the Belcourt Master Association (BMA). The BMA has recently amended their Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit the subdivision of any lot within the Association. The Association's letter (attached as Exhibit 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7,2006 — Attachment A) requested the City to amend both the General Plan and Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to prohibit further subdivision of lots and to limit the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. It specifically requests to reduce the density of dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 5 of the PC to 47, which is consistent with the existing number of lots. At the Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment October 10, 2006 Page 2 August 8, 2006 City Council meeting, the initiation of this amendment was unanimously approved. On September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units, and prohibit residential subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units in accordance with the association's letter. During public comment, Bruce Kermott, BMA attorney and author of the letter, expressed the BMA is satisfied using the language of the recently adopted General Plan stated in the September 7, 2006 Staff Report. The Planning Commission found Mr. Kermott's comments to be in contradiction to the original letter submitted to the City of not allowing subdivisions completely. Further, to allow for a property currently merged to revert back, a dwelling unit must be available for the potential additional lot. Therefore, reducing the density is not necessary. This item was continued to September 21, 2006, and the Planning Commission directed staff to provide analysis of the language of the recently adopted General Plan versus the original request (Analysis can be referenced in the September 21, 2006 Staff Report on page 2 — Attachment A). The Planning Commission had concern of approving an amendment inconsistent with policies of the recently approved General Plan. At the September 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission determined that language consistent with the recently approved General Plan is appropriate and recommends that the City Council amend the Aeronutronic Planned Community text to include: Except as authorized by a General Plan Amendment (GPA), no new residential subdivisions resulting in additional dwelling units are permitted. Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots to the extent permitted in the General Plan. A draft City Council ordinance that includes the revised language as recommended by the Planning Commission is provided as Attachment "A ". Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Notice of this hearing was publis 300 feet of Area 5 and posted advance of this hearing consist appeared on the agenda for this website. Prepared by: Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment October 90, 2006 Page 3 hed in the Daily Pilot, mailed t at the community entrances a ent with the Municipal Code meeting, which was posted at i V6------ r-ussel(Aun6, Assistant Planner Submitted by: o property owners within minimum of 90 days in Additionally, the item City Hall and on the City Patricia` Temple, anning Director Attachments: A. Draft City Council Ordinance B. September 21, 2006 Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolution C. September 29, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes D. September 7, 2006 Staff Report E. September 7, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT A DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE ODINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -004 TO AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PC -24) PROHIBITING NEW SUBDIVISIONS IN AREA 5. (PA 2006 -173) WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community to consider reducing the density from 48 to 47 dwelling units within Planning Area 5, and prohibiting new subdivisions; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 and September 21, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted five ayes and one noes to recommend approval of this Planned Community Development Plan amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach City Council on October 10, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, Planning Area 5 in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently regulates the density of Planning Area 5 to 48 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 46 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 47 lots; and WHEREAS, the reduction of density is not necessary to prevent new subdivisions with the addition of new language in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community text; and 4 City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. _ Paoe 2 of 2 WHEREAS, to maintain the original number of dwelling units in Planning Area 5 and to prohibit future subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units, an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is necessary; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed, and determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines); and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -004 to amend Area 5 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community as depicted in Exhibit A. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , and adopted on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 771 EXHIBIT "A" The following changes will be made to Section VIII of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Standards: SECTION VIII - CUSTOM LOT RESIDENTIAL/AREA 5 This area is intended to provide residential housing and related community facilities. Except as authorized by a General Plan Amendment (GPA), no new residential subdivisions resulting in additional dwelling units are permitted. Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots to the extent permitted in the General Plan. A. Uses Permitted 1. Single Family Dwellings. 2. Conventional subdivisions on a Planned Community, as defined in Section N, Definitions. 3. Custom Lot. 4. Community recreational facilities. 5. Temporary model complex and appurtenant uses. 6. Tennis Courts. B. Development Standards Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size permitted shall be 9,000 sq. ft. 2. Maximum Building Height. All buildings in Areas 5 & 8 shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 37 feet or an average height of 32 feet. Setbacks The following setbacks shall apply to all structures excluding garden walls or fences. a. Front Yard A minimum setback of twenty (20) feet for the dwelling unit shall be maintained. This shall be measured from back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. b. Side Yard Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. 062596 -1103 / F31331 -M /44925.28 15 1 C. Rear Yard A minimum of ten (10) feet shall be maintained for the rear yards. d. Setbacks - Garages Two car garages with direct access shall be setback from five (5) to seven (7) feet average or a minimum average of twenty (20) feet measured from back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed from back of sidewalk. A minimum of eighteen (18) feet measured from back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk shall be permitted with roll -up or other type garage doors approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Additional garage spaces need not meet the above criteria. A minimum of five (5) feet for side -on garages shall be maintained. 4. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences, with the exception of tennis courts, shall be limited to a maximum of eight (8) feet. When there is a grade difference between properties, fences shall be limited to a maximum of 8 feet, plus the amount of the grade differential between properties, except within the front yard setback where fences, hedges and walls shall be limited to six (6) feet. Wing walls, where an extension of a residential or accessory structure is to be constructed may be eight (8) feet in height. At street intersections, no such appurtenance shall exceed two (2) feet in height measured from curb height within the triangle bounded by the right -of -way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty (30) feet distant from the intersection of the right -of -way lines prolonged. 5. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to attach the garage to the dwelling structure and may also extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the side or rear property lines. In side yards, the maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. Trellis areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, trellis areas shall not exceed 25 percent of the remaining open space of a developed lot. Trellis and beam construction shall be so designed as to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total trellis area as open space for the penetration of light and air to the covered area. 6. Parking Parking for residential uses shall be in the form of not less than three (3) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Maximum Site Area Coverage 062596 -1103 / F31331-OD2/44925.28 T11 I The maximum site area coverage for any residential lot shall be 60 percent of such lot. 8. Architectural Features Architectural features, such as but not limited to cornices, eaves, and wing walls may extend two and one half (2 %) feet into any front, side or rear yard setback. 9. Tennis Courts Tennis courts are allowed and may be within 3' of the rear and side property lines. The courts are permitted fencing up to 12' in height. The courts lighting shall use 27' max height, square tubular and painted posts with 1000 watts metal halide lights in a flat pan fixture. All tennis court lighting shall be designed in such a way as to prevent light from shining directly on the adjacent residential properties and to insure that the lighting does not adversely affect night vehicular traffic along MacArthur Boulevard. All tennis court lighting shall be subject to a use permit. 062596 -1103 /F31331 -002 /44925.28 17 M ATTACHMENT B SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 STAFF REPORT AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 September 21, 2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 - 3233, rbunimO, city. newaort- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ISSUE Should the City approve an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5, and /or prohibit residential subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units? BACKGROUND On September 7, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units, and prohibit residential subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units. This item was continued to September 21, 2006 and the Commission directed Staff to analyze the recently adopted General Plan language and the original initiated request. Project At the July 25, 2006 City Council meeting, Councilmember Daigle requested staff to prepare an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan (PC -24) in response to a letter received on behalf of the Belcourt Master Association. The Belcourt Master Association has recently amended their Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit the subdivision of any lot within the Association. it Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment - Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 2 The Association's letter, attached as Exhibit 3, requested the City to amend both the General Plan and Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to prohibit further subdivision of lots and to limit the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. It specifically requested to reduce the density of dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 5 of the PC to 47, which is consistent with the existing number of lots. At the August 8, 2006 City Council meeting, the initiation of this amendment was unanimously approved. DISCUSSION Analysis The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community text contains specific development standards for the development of custom residential lots within Planning Area 5, including a 9,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement. Several lots within the planning area, particularly the lots at the end of each cul-de -sac, are substantially larger than the minimum required lot size, and could possibly be resubdivided into 2 smaller but conforming lots. Therefore, in order to preclude future subdivisions and to maintain current lot configurations and density, an amendment to the PC text is required. It is important to note the existing configuration of Planning Area 5. Currently, 46 dwelling units exist on 47 lots. The original approval allows for 48 dwelling units on 48 lots. What/where is the reason for the decrease in lots and dwelling units? • The parcel located at 9 Leesbury Court contains 2 legal lots, but only one dwelling unit on one of the lots - the other lot is landscaping. These lots were not formally merged. • The properties on the north side of Cheshire Court are three combined lots forming two legal lots with one dwelling unit each. Staff's analysis provides two alternatives: 1. Amend the PC text for Area 5 using the language similar to that of the recently adopted General Plan not allowing for subdivisions except for reverting back to the underlying lot configuration. The density will stay at 48. • This would not allow for new subdivisions resulting in additional lots not previously planned by the original development. • The density will not need to be reduced from 48 to 47 because the language will prevent subdivisions that were not consistent with the original subdivision. This will allow the property on Cheshire Court to go back to the underlying }a- Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 3 lots and not require an amendment to the PC text increasing the density back to 48. 2. Amend the PC text for Area 5 to not allow for subdivisions, and reduce the density from 48 to 47. This option will not allow for any subdivisions. However, it will allow for the property on Leesbury Court to build a dwelling unit on the existing lot they currently use as landscaping. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of Area 5 and posted at the community entrances a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution, which adds language similar to that included in the General Plan. This recommendation is based on option 1. The Commission could also recommend the original request by adopting the resolution in the original Staff Report. Prepared by: Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Exhibit: Draft Resolution Submitted by: Patricia Temple, Planning Director 13 RESOLUTION NO. 1698 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -004 TO AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PC -24) FROM 48 TO 47 DWELLING UNITS AND TO PROHIBIT NEW SUBDIVISIONS IN AREA 5. (PA 2006 -173) WHEREAS, On July 25, 2006, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community to consider reducing the density from 48 to 47 dwelling units within Planning Area 5, and prohibiting new subdivisions; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 and September 21, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law. Evidence, both written.and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, Planning Area 5 in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently regulates the density of Planning Area 5 to 48 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 46 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 47 lots; and WHEREAS, to maintain the original number of dwelling units in Planning Area 5 and to prohibit future subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units, an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is necessary; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed, and determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines); and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 2 Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -004 to amend Area 5 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community as depicted in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21"' DAY OF September 2006. WN L3' Jeffrey Cole, Chairman Robert Hawkins, Secretary AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole and Toenae ABSENT: Henn and Peotter ABSTAIN: McDaniel [5 ATTACHMENT C . SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 2920 Newport Boulevard Continued to he Newport Beach Brewing Company has operated a restaurant/brewpu October 5, 2006 ursuant to Use Permit No. 3485 since 1994. This permit was issued by the City in 1993 and it was subsequently amended in 1999. City has received severs mplaints related to the operation of the use and the Planning Commission will valuate the complaints, the operational character of the use and the condition under which the use operates. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission may require alteration of the operation or it may delete or modify conditions of approval. The Commission also may conclude that no changes are necessary and revocation of the Use Permit is not being considered at this time. OQ Staff requests to continue this item to October 5, 2006. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to approve the consent calends as modified. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge Noes: None Absent: Peotter and Henn Abstain: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 ITEM NO.4 (PA2006 -173) PA2006 -173 mend the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Devetopment Plan to Recommended ecrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling for Approval nits to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would increase welling units. Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: • This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from the Belcourt Master Association. • The original, amendment would reduce the number of dwelling units from 48 to 47 to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit future subdivisions. • A second amendment has been proposed that would allow language from the General Plan to allow for reverting back to the underlying lots and that is okay with the Homeowners' Association. • The new recommendation on the resolution attached as exhibit A show the Planned Community Text, which remains at 48 units and allows for reverting back to the underlying lots. Ms. Temple noted that, should the Commission decide to pursue the original language, it is included in the staff report of the previous meeting. Commissioner Hawkins asked if anyone had spoken to the Council. Assistant City Attorney Harp answered this fully addresses the Council concerns. Ms. Temple noted that the alternate discussion came about after question (relating to how this fits within the just adopted General Plan. Should th Page 2 of 6 AA file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 Page 3 of 6 ig Commission adopt the new recommendation with the new resolution, be staffs intention to show to the City Council both options at the 1. They could approve either action. Choosing the new nendation with a statement of your rational of the citywide poli ency would be helpful. Hawkins asked staff to restate the 48 lot preservation. Mr. Bunim noted the language of the General Plan it allows for reverting back to he underlying lot lines, which would be 48 lots. If we decrease the number of nits to 47 from 48, there is one property that is currently the size of two lots on heshire there would not be a dwelling unit for them to revert back to if we ecrease it to 47. it would require another PC text amendment to allow for that 8th lot. Chairperson Cole noted it is also consistent with the proposed General Plan language that requires no subdivision of existing lots with the exception for reversion purposes only. Mr. Bunim answered it is consistent with the existing language in the proposed General Plan. Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:37. Mr. Harp noted that the current plan allowed 39 units and the current language resolves potential conflict between what the General Plan currently says. Chairperson Cole stated this would be consistent with the intent of what the association requested, which is not to further subdivide any lots that have no been subdivided already for additional units in the community. Commissioner McDaniel noted he was not in attendance at the last meeting; however, he has listened to the recording for this item and is able to vote tonight. Jeff Hilton, member of the law offices of general counsel for the Homeowners Association, noted: • He has been in contact with staff and has reviewed the proposed language with the association board president. • They agree that the language satisfies most of their concerns. • They would like to add a sentence if the Commission feels it would be of benefit. 'The above right of re- subdivision is not transferable to other lot or between lot to lot.' Some owners have been talking about not wanting to re- subdivide and have spoken to other owners about transferring rights. I the General Plan precludes that sufficiently, then the language is no necessary. If it is not the case, we submit to adopt this language to the end of the proposed resolution. Ms. Temple noted it is staffs opinion that no additional regulation could be achieved by adding that language. If someone sold the rights to their unit to ome other person, it could not be utilized unless the rules that are left in affect ould allow subdivision because you could still only have one unit per lot. it is of necessary to preserve this protection. file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 10/03/20006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 Page 4 of 6 ommissioner Hawkins added that the lot itself is transferable and that right ould go along with that sale. His concern is this language would trip up sales of Igrovertv in the association. Helton noted this language is transferring rights lot to lot. Owners transfer rights to subsequent owners for purchase certainly. The idea is to make it r to anyone who is considering a transference that this is not allowed. He noted he and the association are in agreement with staffs recommendation. comment was opened. rblic comment was closed. I V o Harp noted minor edits in Exhibit A. )mmissioner Hawkins offered modified language: "Except as authorized by i amendment of the General Plan (GPA), new residential subdivisions that Auld result in additional dwelling units are prohibited." He asked staff out the second sentence. s. Temple answered that it means that the General Plan assumes the number units for purposes of the citywide densities in each area. The number of units at would be' supported by the original subdivision. This is actually the policy of a new General Plan. Bunim added that the current General Plan allows for 39 units. If you were to vert back to the underlying lot lines on the one property you would need 48 its. It does need an exception and does need to be exempt from the current aneral Plan requirements. This current language is consistent with the existing meral Plan because it gives that exemption and it is consistent with the aposed General Plan. >. Temple noted the number of lots in the old General Plan was in error cause the number that was established did not account for the fact that the ries of lots that were intended to be a neighborhood park for serving the vate community ended up using the subdivision instead. That is something at we would correct through a normal course of action which, depending on the ieframe and what we were dealing with, might have been a General Plan nendment, but it would not have been considered one that is a true iendment that increases entitlement because the homes were already there. rmmissioner Hawkins noted he is suggesting that the General Plan set the mber at 48. >. Temple answered this is not a General Plan Amendment consideration, this an amendment to the Planned Community. There was an amendment asked to allow one of the original lots to be further subdivided with a General Plan iendment. At that point, the City Attorney's office said no, that was not propriate under the existing General Plan. Harp noted that before 1988 there were originally 39 lots. The park that was are got subdivided and the 9 additional lots were added to make it 48 lots. re of those was merged so that brought the total down to 47. The 1988 rneral Plan came about and the number that was used was 39. When an plicant came in to see about subdividing a lot that previously had not been arged, they were told they would need a General Plan Amendment because 1Ct General Plan said that there could only be 39 lots total. The ambiguity that file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006\09212006.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 Page 5 of 6 xisted at the time was whether or not when they adopted the 1988 General Plan they intended to go with what was on the ground (47 dwelling units) o hether they intended to mirror the PC text of 48 and that is why a General Plan mendment is needed. iairperson Cole noted this was discussed at the last meeting and is the staff report. was made by Commissioner McDaniel to adopt resole iding approval of Planned Community Development Amendment to the City Council. ommissioner Peotter noted that the applicant has eliminated the ability to rbdivide in their CCR's. They are asking us to police their association. It is no good policy for the City to do. He noted he does not support this application as sets a precedent. hairperson Cole noted: • This was generated by the City Council. • This will be consistent with the new General Plan, which would not allo for subdivisions anyway. So it is reinforcing something that is already theoretically approved. . Have we done this for other communities where we are enforcing policy? Harp noted that there was an ambiguity here and a problem that we ng by clarifying. He affirmed that the motion included the language cha the first sentence in Exhibit A. The maker of the motion agreed. Temple answered that the City has not to date actually adopted any spe s that were originated within CCR's in any planned community or comma ered by covenants, codes or restrictions. However, the City has t roached at least three times to consider such an action and the City Cour imon response was if you as a community can agree to apply for it, mea all the community members would sign the application then we w sue it as a normal application. They had to show that consensus w ans a 100% concurrence. In this case though, we are not just enacting zoning something which is solely within the CCR's, it is also in our prop( feral Plan. missioner Eaton noted because this language of the General Plan is in t General Plan, if the new General Plan is ratified by the voters, I think tl lion will come up again in order to be consistent with that language. It is t t of the State Law that zoning, be it a PC text or conventional zoning, stent with the General Plan so I think our action with this resolution ;Iy consistent with that. ommissioner Hawkins noted he shares some of the concerns raised b) ommissioner Peotter. However, he supports the motion for reasons o )nsistency with the new General Plan. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge oes: Peotter bsent: Henn �b file: //F: \Users \PLN\5hared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/21/2006 Page 6 of 6 All -2A file : //F: \Users\PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 10/03/2006 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - At the last City Council agenda the approved the General Plan Update Implementation Program. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no report. c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Committee - Ms. Temple noted that staff had circulated a re-drafl of the implementation plan and there was still concem about the level o detail. There was another meeting with two of the committee members (Selich and Toerge) to get a feeling of what areas and magnitude the would like to see this scaled back. It was concluded that someQ modifications to the information presented needed to be "made for furthe feedback from the committee members. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Hawkins noted he had received call from a member of the public regarding copies of draft minutes. Ms Temple said she will look into the matter. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Peotter would like t talk about the organization, number and language of the conditions an how they should be accessed. Ms. Temple noted that other issues fo consideration by the Planning Commission for the by -laws may includ procedures and will be brought forward at some point in the near futur and possibly at the same time. Discussion continued. f. Project status - Chairperson Cole noted that with the workload that is to be addressed it would be helpful to consider having two meetings in November instead of the one that is listed. Following discussion, it was agreed to call for two meetings in November on the 2nd and the 16th. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 6 All -2A file : //F: \Users\PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \09212006.htm 10/03/2006 ATTACHMENT D SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 STAFF REPORT 9:a. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.5 September 7, 2006 TO: . PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 - 3233, rbunim(ocity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ISSUE Should the City approve an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to decrease the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units, and prohibit residential subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 to the City Council by adopting the attached draft resolution. DISCUSSION Site Description & Background The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC -24) is located within the surrounding streets of Bison Avenue, MacArthur Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and Jamboree Road. Planning Area 5 is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 2 Vicinity Map K-- SISON AV ---------- SONG EkAy OR WRE Cr 5- OA RR OBR CT VILAGWO 4 L i C�p i { 1 0 a cu Q&6q ...... L- F LE --ke... " W "V- A- CANYON VOR SONTA to RD A. f2- M Aeronutronic Ford PC - Area 5 Current Development, Single Family Residential. To the north: Commercial, Multi-Family, Institutional To the east: Multi-Family Residential To the south: Multi-Family and Single Family Residential To the west: Single Family Residential 15 l� Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 3 The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Text was adopted in 1979 to establish the zoning classification and development standards for the community in conjunction with the approval of the tentative tract map. Design standards such as setbacks, minimum lot size, lot coverage, parking requirements, and height limitations were adopted to ensure the protection of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit, and insure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is currently broken up into 8 different planning areas (Exhibit 2). In 1981, a tract map application and an amendment to Planning Area 5 were approved eliminating a park site and increasing the permitted number of lots from 39 to 48 residential lots, thus allowing the build out to a maximum of 48 lots. However, in 1986, a series of resubdivisions occurred with lots on Cheshire Court, ultimately resulting in the merger of three lots into two lots, reducing the actual density of the area by one unit (47). Project Background At the July 25, 2006 City Council meeting, Councilmember Daigle requested staff to prepare an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan (PC -24) in response to a letter received on behalf of the Belcourt Master Association. The Belcourt Master Association has recently amended their Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit the subdivision of any lot within the Association. The Association's letter, attached as Exhibit 3, requested the City amend both the General Plan and Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to prohibit further subdivision of lots and to limit the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. It specifically requested to reduce the density of dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 5 of the PC to 47, which is consistent with the existing number of lots. At the August 8, 2006 City Council meeting, the initiation of this amendment was unanimously approved. General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan (Statistical Area L -3 — AF Area 5) is designated for Single Family Detached uses and currently allocates a maximum of 39 dwelling units for the area. It appears that the 1988 Land Use Element Update erroneously established 39 units as the maximum and did not account for a prior amendment of the Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community which permitted a maximum of 48 dwelling units within Planning Area 5. However, as previously stated, 47 lots currently exist as a result of the 1986 resubdivision merging 3 lots into 2 lots. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 4 The new comprehensive General Plan Update has eliminated specific dwelling unit limitations for the Planned Community area and has established a policy (LU 4.2) prohibiting subdivisions. LU 4.2 specifically states as follows: "Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories. (Imp 6. 1, 11.1)" Therefore, an amendment of the recently adopted, but not effective, comprehensive General Plan update is not necessary. Should the General Plan update not be approved in November at the ballot, an amendment of the 1988 Land Use Element would be necessary for consistency. Analysis As stated, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community text contains speck development standards for the development of custom residential lots within Planning Area 5, including a 9,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement. Several lots within the planning area, particularly the lots at the end of each cul -de -sac, are substantially larger than the minimum required lot size, and could possibly be resubdivided into 2 smaller lots. .Therefore, in order to, preclude future subdivisions and to maintain current lot configurations and density, an amendment to the PC text is required. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of Area 5 and posted at the community entrances a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction September 7, 2006 Page 5 Prepared by: Submitted by: w--- Russell Bu im, ssistant Planner AGreggWarez, nior Planner Exhibit: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Land Use Map 3. Belcourt Master Association letter P�L 0 EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION 3a 'SS RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 - 004 TO REDUCE THE . DENSITY IN PLANNING AREA 5 OF THE AERONUTRONIC FORD. PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PC -24) FROM 48 TO 47 DWELLING UNITS AND TO PROHIBIT NEW SUBDIVISIONS. (PA 2006 -173) WHEREAS, On July 25, 2006, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community to consider reducing the density from 48 to 47 dwelling units within Planning Area 5, and prohibiting new subdivisions; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held by the Newport Beach Planning Commission on September 7, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered.by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, Planning Area 5 in the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently regulates the density of Planning Area 5 to 48 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 47 lots; and WHEREAS, to maintain the as -built lot configuration of Planning Area 5 and to prohibit future subdivisions that result in additional dwelling units, an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is necessary; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed, and determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines); and NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Planned Community Development Plan 5k ..... ..... City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 2 Amendment No. 2006 -004 to amend Area 5 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community as depicted in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7"' DAY OF September 2006. BY: Jeffrey Cole, Chairman AN Robert Hawkins, Secretary U ABSENT: JL Exhibit "A" The following changes will be made to the Section I - Statistical Analysis: SECTION I - STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, & 8 Note: The Statistical Analysis for Planning Area 4 and its Sub -areas is set forth in Section IX. Gross PM Buildable Maximum Type Area Acres Net Acres Acres DU Planning Areas 1 18.6 16.2 12.3 50 2 18.6 17.5 12.7 54 5 33.0 26.0 17.3 4947 6 15.1 14.4 10.4 54 7 17 16.0 11.6 56 8 12 11.5 8.5 168 Subtotal 114.3 101.6 72.8 430.429 PERCENTAGE OF SITE COVERAGE Planning Area 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 8 Building Footprint 14.6% 28.0% Parldng Areas 21.7% 5.0% Landscape and Pedestrian 63.7% 27.0% Circulation Streets 31.5% Perimeter Open Space 8.5% 062596- 1103/F31331- 002144925.28 2 33 The following changes will be made to Section VIII of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Standards: SECTION VIII - CUSTOM LOT RESIDENTIAL /AREA 5 This area is intended to provide residential housing and related community facilities. A. Uses Permitted 1. Single Family Dwellings. 2. Conventional subdivisions on a Planned Community, as defined in Section N, Definitions. 3. Custom Lot. 4. Community recreational facilities. 5. Temporary model complex and appurtenant uses. 6. Tennis Courts. B. Development Standards Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size permitted shall be 9,000 sq. ft. Future subdivisions resulting in the creation of new lots shall be prohibited. 2. Maximum Building Height. All buildings in Areas 5 & 8 shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 37 feet or an average height of 32 feet. 3. Setbacks The following setbacks shall apply to all structures excluding garden walls or fences. a. Front Yard A minimum setback of twenty (20) feet for the dwelling unit shall be maintained. This shall be measured from back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. b. Side Yard Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. C. Rear Yard A minimum of ten (10) feet shall be maintained for the rear yards. d. Setbacks - Garages Two car garages with direct access shall be setback from five (5) to seven (7) feet average or a minimum average of twenty (20) feet measured from back of 0625961103 / F31331 -M / 44925.28 1, 15 "4 curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed from back of sidewalk. A minimum of eighteen (18) feet measured from back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk shall be permitted with roll -up or other type garage doors approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Additional garage spaces need not meet the above criteria. A minimum of five (5) feet for side -on garages shall be maintained. 4. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences, with the exception of tennis courts, shall be limited to a maximum of eight (8) feet. When there is a grade difference between properties, fences shall be limited to a maximum of 8 feet, plus the amount of the grade differential between properties, except within the front yard setback where fences, hedges and walls shall be limited to six (6) feet. Wing walls, where an extension of a residential or accessory structure is to be constructed may be eight (8) feet in height. At street intersections, no such appurtenance shall exceed two (2) feet in height measured from curb height within the triangle bounded by the right -of -way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty (30) feet distant from the intersection of the right -of -way lines prolonged. 5. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to attach the garage to the dwelling structure and may also extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the side or rear property lines. In side yards, the maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. Trellis areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, trellis areas shall not exceed 25 percent of the remaining open space of a developed lot. Trellis and beam construction shall be so designed as to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total trellis area as open space for the penetration of light and air to the covered area. 6. Parking Parking for residential uses shall be in the form of not less than three (3) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Maximum Site Area Coverage The maximum site area coverage for any residential lot shall be 60 percent of such lot. 8. Architectural Features Architectural features, such as but not limited to cornices, eaves, and wing walls may extend two and one half (2 Y2) feet into any front, side or rear yard setback. 062596 -1 1031 F31331-002 / 44925.28 165 9. Tennis Courts Tennis courts are allowed and may be within 3' of the rear and side property lines. The courts are permitted fencing up to 12' in height. The courts lighting shall use 27' max height, square tubular and painted posts with 1000 watts metal halide lights in a flat pan fixture. All tennis court lighting shall be designed in such a way as to prevent light from shining directly on the adjacent residential properties and to insure that the lighting does not adversely affect night vehicular traffic along MacArthur Boulevard. All tennis court lighting shall be subject to a use permit. 062596 -11031 F313314)02144925.28 17 "�� EXHIBIT 2 AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP �1 ( m Am )(§ ) «2■ \� \`. 22 k /... L ± » E�� _ 7, _ \ §2/ .� a: U.- - If`2;" m c -, 10- tE® 30 -a $§ E �« .a a 3 a A A C2 E # �45 })A�/!! ?kc) 22§' Ri§ii§)2;` Z °� 2 #k \� . q�� 7!/■/!#8#k$ «\|)) \ � t2 `� / a . § � EXHIBIT 3 BELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION LETTER t� JJN- 21- 2006(WED) 15 :43 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TIMELLY (FAX)949 5813 5993 P. 002/007 LAW OFFICES OF RicnA&D JN. TXXNELLY RICMARO k TINNELL'T 85 ARGONAUT. SUITE 100 O IJ _ wl1 Y '>•lY.e +COUNTAY Oe G ORIV SUITE ISO JErr RCY M• NvLTON AISSO VTIIJO. C'atLIFOIWIA 02660, PA4M OCSERT. CA 02211 BRUCE R. AERMOTT 6401 000 -oada 17001 00"MI5 Ti RRI A, MORRIO PAX 10401 zee-"Oil r" 17001 001'• * EMAIL MW*1V@h0NSWAISCOT SAM aIEOO O VIRMINGNAM ORIVE. SUITE YOO June 21, 2046 GARWPP•eT TNC rCA CA OZOO74M iettal ZVO.0900 .rAx lettal d5o•GGaT REPLY TO ALISO VIVO AOORESV Vint Facsimile (949) 6443139 and U.S. Mail Aaron C. Harp Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Tentative Parcel Map Application Submitted by Pfeiler & Associates Property Location: 6 Barreager.Court (Lot 23 of Tract No. 11450) Owners: Riphard M Macklin and Brenda L Macklin Parcel Map No.: NP2006-026 (PA2006488) Public Hearing Date: June 22,206 at 630 p.m. (Off Calendar) Dear Mr. Harp: The Law OfficesofRichard A. Tinnellyreprosents the BelcourtMasterAssociation ( "Association") which is the governing body for the above - referenced address. The Association asked us to inform you that 86% of the Association members voted to amend the Declaration ofCovenant% Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R's'j to prohibit any lot split such as that referenced above, and pending before the Planning Department. The Association is composed of 211 lots (members). Outof211 ballots, 183 were returned and 182 voted to prohibit the subdivision of lots within the Association. Only one (1) member voted in favor. The amendment was recorded'in the Orange County Recorder's Office on May 9, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006000311748. A copy is enclosed for your review. The specific language approved by the members is as follows: "'No Further Subdivision.' No Owner sball partition or subdivide his or her Residence and/or lot including, without limitation, any division of any Residence, lot and/or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units" This language is inserted in both the Custom Lot Restrictions at Article XXI and in the Use Restrictions at Article XT of the CC &R's. We reviewed the CC &R's and, pursuant to the relevant portion of Article XVL Section 16- 18(a): "... amendments to the Declaration may be enacted by the vote or written assent of (i) sixty -siic and ruo- thlyds percent (66- 213%) of the total voting power of the Master Association; .. ' 0 JM- 21- 2008(WED) 15:44 LAN OFFICES OF RIC1-M TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.003/007 June 21, 2006 Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach Page 2 Based upon the fact that more than the required 66-2/3 %Q majority of members voted to prohibit the further subdivision of lots within the Association, the CC &R's were property amended and, therefore, NO lots within the Belcourt Master Association may be subdivided. in orderto insure that the policies ofthe City ofNewport.Beaeh and the BelcourtWsterAssociation are synchronized, the Association is requesting that the City incorporate the following changes into the General Plan and the Planned Community text for Region 5 to bring them into conformance with the Subdivision Code and the CC&R's. 1. Modify both the General Plan and the Planned Community te2a for Region 5 of Belcourt to reflect 47 lots allowed, which equals the current as -built conditions. 2. Provide within the Planned Community text for Region 5. of Belcourt a provision that prohibits subdivision of any existing lot to mirror the amendment to theCC&R's which was approvers by 86% of the members of the Association. 3. Add a provision to the Planned Community text which provides that if two (2) lots are combined, the eliminated lot does notbecome available for subdivision of any existing lots. Thank you in advance foryourcooperation. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the undersigned. BRK:cak Enclosure cc: Jan Harriman, Belcourt Master Association Jaime Murillo, Planning Department Homer Bludau, City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Larry Tucker Planning Commission Leslie Daigle, Councilwoman Tod Ridgeway, Councilman Ed Selich, Councilman Very truly yours, Law Offices of RTC RD LLV HRUC R.KE TT Via Facsimile (949) 752 -6362 (949) 644 -3203 (949) 6443020 (949) 644 -3229 (949) 752.0885 (949) 266 -8561 (949) 723 -5204 EdSelich@adelphia.net FAMOCSIa*=rao9anuu e�amtswai�e�lvtapxe.�pm.aev .eimwe.o�.oan�.wva In ,1JN- 21- 2008(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD Tr4RLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P:004/007 When Recorded, Return To: LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. TINNELLY 85 Argonaut, Suite 100 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Jeffrey M. Hylton, Esq. FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF Recorded In Official Records, orange County Tom Daly, clerk- Recorder 0111111M 15,00 2006000311746 03:18pm 05/09106 116 200 A17 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CMORMED COPY COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR BELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA THIS FIRST AMENDME NT TO DECLARATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ( "First Amendment ") is being made on the date set forth hereinbelow, with reference to the following facts: A. Reference is hereby made to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( "Declaration ") for Belcourt Master Association, Orange County, California, recorded on March 24, 1982, as Instrument No. 82- 101131 of the Official Records of Orange County, California, effecting certain real property situated in the City of Newport. Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly described as Lots 2 -6, 14 -16, 22, 23, 28 -30, 36 -39, A, B and C inclusive of Tract No. 11450, as per a map filed in Book 491, on Pages 42 -46 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 22, 1981, and Lots 37 -49, A, B, C and D inclusive of Tract 11449, as per a map recorded in Book 491, on Pages 12 -16 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 3, 1981, and, subsequent to the annexation thereof pursuant to the Article of the Declaration entitled "Annexation," any real property which shall become subject to this Declaration. B. The Declaration may be amended only by vote or written consent of the Members representing at least sixty -six and two - thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the total voting power of the Association. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 of the Declaration, the Declaration is amended by adding Section 11 -21, and subsection a. to Section 21 -1, as follows: JM- 11- zdMMLU) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 1. `Section.-11-21. `No Further Subdivision.' No . Owner shall partition or subdivide his or her Residence and /or lot including, without limitation, any division of any Residence, lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units." 2. Section 21 -1. "a. No Further or subdiv: including, Residence, parcels or Subdivision - No Owner shall partition ode his or her Residence and /or lot without limitation, any division of any lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, other units." In all other respects, the Declaration shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this First Amendment to be executed this a-"' day of M0. 2006. SELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION By: By: -2- Its: Secretary 43 e .JUN- LI- ZUUUlWtu) 10:4a LAW Uf -tlUt5 lt- HIL 1MU I1NNtLLr (W)M Miff bpi KWld/bbr The undersigned hereby certify under penalty of perjury that they are respectively the President and Secretary of Belcourt Master Association, and that the foregoing First Amendment was duly adopted by the owners of the real property described herein, in full conformance to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 thereof, and with Section 1355 of the California Civil Code. Executed at n ym a° � California, this V day of " &` , 2006. Preside t f Secretary FAWPOOCS9dr M2UdVJ4Mmwlnm Awftd mL"d -3- 0 ,JUN- ti- GMUkWtU) :Ib:4b LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P. 007/007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE personally known to me (ox proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person( whose name(V +s/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that -heish /they executed the same in hi-s,'hen /their authorized capacity(ies),.and that by hireP.__ /their signaturejal on the instrument the person(.s.), or the entity upon behalf of which the personj,c,L acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. _ COMMbam 0 1491 so NokY hick - Canada omnO+CarM �MCarnwGa+�+s.hn242 (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to. me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted; executed the instrument, WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) -4- �5 �3- ATTACHMENT E SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ki Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Pagel of 4 Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 PA2006 -173 (PA2006 -173) Continued to 09/21/2006 d the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan ase the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwel to 47 dwelling units and to prohibit subdivisions that would incre rig units. Bunim, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff review: . This item was initiated by the City Council in response to a letter from Belcourt Master Association. This amendment would reduce the number of dwelling units from 48 to to be consistent with the number of existing lots and to prohibit fut subdivisions. nissioner Peotter asked what difference does it make? Their CCR's subdivisions. Temple stated that the existing area has a number of lots which are ;lent size to meet the planned community sub - division standards that wo r those lots to be split. The City Council in initiating this at the request of eowners association, I can only presume, that the association wishes the weight of the City along with the Association CCR's. Clauson noted that originally there was a certain amount of lots authorized subdivision that was part of the original subdivision plan which the CCF based upon. It was an issue of having the City amend their cod ,opriately to make sure that those properties were not further subdivided ?ase the number of lots available for development in the subdivision. O )erty would get to subdivide and the rest would not. The reason there is not 48 is another property consolidated. Cole verified that property would lose the opportunity to in the Clauson noted the number proposed reflects the number of dwelling i lots that currently exist. The City Council wants to make sure that all erty owners do not further subdivide their property. They want to keep livision in the condition that it is in now. this. Peotter, following a brief discussion, noted he was not in comment was opened. Kermott, attorney for the Association and author of the letter, noted: . There wouldn't be a problem if the people who consolidated wanted later on to divide it. To allow anyone to take advantage of that lot is inappropriate and unfair. http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 This came from the homeowners themselves, they took a vote and turned in votes with 182 voting to prohibit the subdivision of lots within Association and 1 voted against it. . Referring to page 6 of the staff report that references LU 4.2 that subdivisions except from the GPA requirements and may be rest to the original underlying legal lots. Temple noted that if the Planning Commission is concerned about this, come back and re -work this. Kermott stated they would allow that but we wouldn't want anyone else immissioner Henn noted this would uniformly apply to any landowner w iuld want to do this. He clarified if we do go forward with this and at a la to a landowner consolidated two lots, that landowner would not be able bdivide those lots for even more subdivisions would be prohibited. Is t Temple noted the land use language referred to is in the 2006 Land Us ment and would allow the resubdivision for the purpose of conversion to th final underlying subdivision without a General Plan amendment. In thi ticular case, we have a proposed amended to the planned community text fc specific planning area to actually reduce the permitted number of dwellin :s based on how many lots exist on actual mapping of today. The question i fold; 4 would be a question of whether any amendment to the plannin nmunity text had occurred in association with a consolidation, which wouldn required by the City. In this particular case we would have to go back an iew the Land Use Element and how we structured this amendment to see if ild still require a general plan amendment, or whether a further amendmer to the planned community to increase the dwelling unit number would b uired. Given the fact the testifier is comfortable with the land use language ik it would be best for us to continue this until the meeting of the 21st. Let u iew these issues and ask do you want this ability to revert to the origins Ierling subdivision be incorporated, and then we could restructure this into a sropriate way. way this was written it was at the request of the homeowners group led by the City Council and that is what you see is what you get and we .ing the number commensurately. continued. nmissioner Toerge noted he is prepared to support the recommendation City Council. Peotter, Henn and Cole supported a continuance as staff. Kermott noted that the homeowners have said you can't subdivide. So, t I want to be in a position where someone from their community goes to and they say yes, you can subdivide. Now, the homeowners associa Page 2 of 4 http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /PbiAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 Page 3 of 4 ive to initiate a lawsuit against that person as they might have that ability to because the Planning Commission said so, but you can't because of what corded against your property. We don't like to be at odds with the City so tf what we are hoping to do, to get an amendment that says you can't furtt ibdivide the property. What happens in the future if two of the current 47 k erge, I don't know. mmissioner Toerge noted we just addressed this recently in Newport Height: Cliff Drive and it was very clear that it required a General Plan Amendment tc ahead and subdivide the lot because it was against the current General Plan. s is an easy one. They have to go for a General Plan Amendment, that is the : they take. I am prepared to vote. nmissioner Hawkins noted that there are enough questions that staff has prudential course is to continue this item. Kermott stated that what you have before you is what the Association wants. nissioner Eaton asked do we try and make it consistent with the Gene language or do we try and make it consistent with what the applicant g for? In that balance I would like it to be consistent with the General PI age and it might be that staff wants guidance. son Cole noted there was a consensus to have it consistent with Plan language. was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item to None McDaniel BUSINESS: USINESS to the late hour, it was decided to forego these items. a. City Council Follow -up - b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - c. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Coastal Committee - Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - http: / /www. city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas/mn09- 07- 06.htm 10/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 09/07/2006 e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futu agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - Page 4 of 4 ADJOURNMENT: 12:20 a.m. JADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 51 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mn09- 07- 06.htm 10/03/2006 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COU CIL AGENDA 14 1 D- o- 6 agen'daltem No. _4 August 8, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3233, rbunim Ocitv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT:. Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ISSUE " t Should the City Council initiate an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to consider decreasing the maximum density permitted in Planning. Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units, and prohibiting further subdivisions? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2006- initiating the Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 to decrease the maximum dwelling units (48) in Planning Area 5 to be consistent with number of lots (47), and to prohibit any further subdivisions. BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2006 City Council meeting, Councilmember Daigle requested staff to prepare an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan (PC) in response to a letter received on behalf of the Belcourt Master Association. The Belcourt Master Association has recently amended their Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit the subdivision of any lot within the Association. The Association's letter, attached as Exhibit B, is requesting the City to amend both the General Plan and Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to prohibit further subdivision of lots and to limit the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction August 8, 2006 Page 2 It specifically requests to reduce the density of dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 5 of the PC to 47; which is consistent with the existing number of lots. DISCUSSION General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan (Statistical Area L -3 — AF Area 5) is designated for Single Family Detached uses and currently allocates a maximum of 39 dwelling units for the area. It appears that 1988 Land Use Element Update erroneously established 39 units as the maximum and did not account for a prior amendment of the Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community which permitted a maximum of 48 dwelling units within Belcourt Planning Area 5. However, as a result of a resubdivision in 1986 merging 3 lots into 2 lots, a total of 47 lots currently exist. The new comprehensive General Plan Update has eliminated specific dwelling unit limitations for the Planned Community area and has established a provision prohibiting subdivisions. Therefore, an amendment of the recently adopted comprehensive General Plan update is not necessary. Should the General Plan update not be approved in November at the ballot, an amendment of the 1988 Land Use element would be necessary for consistency. Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community r -� The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is currently broken up into 8different planning areas. Planning Area 5 is designated for Custom Lots and currently permits a maximum of 48 dwelling units. As mentioned, currently only 47 lots exist within the area as a result of a previous merger of lots. Therefore, in order to eliminate the potential of.a future subdivision and to maintain the as -built lot configuration of the planning area, the development regulations of the Aeronutronic Ford PC should be amended to prohibit future subdivisions and change the maximum number of lots permitted under the. Statistical Analysis for Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units. Environmental Review Requests to initiate code amendments are considered feasibility or planning studies by staff, and are statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15262 of the Implementing Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Notice Public notice is not required to initiate a code amendment. Should the amendment be initiated by the City Council, the formal code amendment application will require noticed public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council. However, this item was included on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's web site. The Belcourt Master Association received a copy of this report. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction August 8, 2006 Page 3 Prepared by:. v. /// 1�7 Russell Bunir , ssistant Planner Exhibit: .Submitted by: Patricia L. Temp e, PI nning Director A. Draft Resolution of Intent B. Belcourt Master Association letter 0 RESOLUTION NO. , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY [PD 2006 -004] TO REDUCE THE DENSITY IN PLANNING AREA 5 FROM 48 TO 47 DWELLING UNITS AND TO PROHIBIT NEW SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the zoning regulations of a Planned Community of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently regulates the density of Planning Area 5 to 48 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 47 lots; and WHEREAS, to maintain the as -built lot configuration of Planning Area 5 and to eliminate future subdivisions, an amendment to the Aeronutronic. Ford Planned Community is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The City Council hereby initiates Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS a DAY OF AUGUST 2006. 0 NOES; ABSENT; MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK a ,JUN-21,- 2008(WEO) 15:43 LAW OFFICES OF RICRAW TIN LLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P. W007 I.Aw OFFICES Or RicaA1tD A. TXXNJXLLY RICMARO 4 TINNELLY Q SS AROONAUT. SUITC 100 im .ICTrRCY M. MTLTON ALLSO VIIIJC. CALIAOR7lrA 02600 sT6M COUNTRY CWS ORIM SURE ISO ■/ OCSCRT. CA 92211 13RUCE k ArAMOW 10491 600 -0066 17001 002.0636 TCRRI A. MORRIS PAX 10401 600 -SPOJ FAX "eat "2.0 ~s CMAIL 9AM 01=0 I.SO 61RMINOMAM 0RINE. SUITE 200 r� J June21, 2006 e..wDIrM1RT.TMC.LC.r, CA Gi0074�21 - (6601 !ICO.000C rpx 1ASeI 5e0o66T - REPLY YO AuSO V1CJ0 A00wca5 Via Facsimile (949) 644.3139. and U.S. Mail Aaron C. Harp Assistant City Attorney City ofNewport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Tentative Parcel Map Application Submitted by Weiler & Associates Property Location: 6 Barrenger Court (Lot 23 of Tract No. 11450) Owners! Rirhard E. Macklin and Brenda L Macklin Parcel Map No.! NP2006-026 (PA2006-088) Public Hearing Datc, June 22, 2006 at 630 pm- (Off Calendar) Dear Mr.I4arp: The Law Offices ofRichardA. Tinnellyrepresents the BelcourtMasterAssociation ("Association') which is the governing body for the above - referenced address. The Association asked us to inform you that 86% of the Association members voted to amend the Declaration ofcovenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( "CC&R'r) to prohibit any lot split such as that referenced above, and pending before the Planning Department. The Association is composed of211 lots (members). Out of2l l ballots, 183 were returned and 182 voted to prohibit the subdivision of lots within the Association. Only one (1) member voted in favor. The amendment was recorded'in the Orange County Recorder's Office on May 9, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006000311748. A copy is enclosed for your review. The specific language approved by the members is as follows: "'lip Further Subdivision. No Owner shall partition or subdivide his or her Residence and/or lot including, without limitation, any division of any Residence, lot and/or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units." This language is inserted in both the Custom Lot Restrictions at Article )m and in the Use Restrictions at Article XT of the CC &R's. We reviewed the CC &R's and, pursuant to the relevant portion of Article XVL Section 16.1$(a): ... amendments to the Declaration may be enacted by the vote or written assent of (i) sixty -silt and two-thirds percent (66- 28%) of the total voting power of the Master Association; ..." JUN- 21- 2006(K D) 15:44 LAUD OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 June 21, 2006 Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach Page 2 • OTIA Based upon the fact that more than the required 66 -2/3Vq majority of members voted to prohibit the further subdivision of lots within the Association, the CC &R's were property amended and, therefore, NO lots within the Belcourt Master Association may be subdivided. In order to insure that the policies ofthe City ofNewport Beach and the Belcourt Master Association are synchronized, the Association is requesting that the City incorporate the following changes into the Central Plan and the Planned Community text for Region 5 to bring them into conformance with the Subdivision Code and the CC&R's. Modify both the General Plan and the Planned Community text forRegion 5 of Belcourt to mEleat 47 lots allowed, which equals the current as -built conditions. 2. Provide within the Planned Community text for Region 5 of Beleourt.a provision that prohibits subdivision ofany existing lot to mirror the amendment to the CC&R's which was approved by 86°% of the members of the Association. 3. Add a provision to the Planned Community text which provides that if two (2) lots are combined, the eliminated lot does not become available for subdivision of any existing lots. Thank you in advance foryour cooperation. Should you have any questions or concerns, piease feel free to contact the undersigned. BRK.cak Enclosure cc: Jan Harriman, Belcourt Master Association Jaime Murillo, Planning Department Homer Bludau, City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Larry Tucker Planning Commission Leslie Daigle; Councilwoman Tod Ridgeway, Councilman Ed Selich, Councilman Very truly yours, Law Offices of RLC RDA LY BRUC R. TT Via Facsimile (949)752 -6362 (949) 644 -3203 (949) 644 -3020 (949) 644 -3229 (949) 752-0885 (949) 266 -8561 (949) 723 -5204 EdSelich@adelphia.net rrwroocsscewn MntaNMcwm ts�mawtee)< ttem. tr�wporruaxt�Pwacneo�r,o�o6.�yd (n 1N 21- 2MOED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.004/007 When Recorded, Return To: LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. 85 Argonaut, Suite 100 Aliso Viejo, California Recorded In Official Records, Orange county Tom Daly, clerk•Rccorder 1111111111 15.00 TINNELLY 2006000311748 03.18pm 05/0910.6 92656 116.200At7 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 OAO Attention: Jeffrey M. Hylton, Eso. FIRST. A1,12NOMENT 'WNFORMED COPY TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR BELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ( "First Amendment") is being made on the date set forth hereinbelow, with reference to the following facts: C) A. Reference is hereby made to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") for Belcourt Master Association, Orange County, California, recorded on March 24, 1902, as Instrument No. 82- 101131 of the Official Records of Orange County, California; effecting certain real property situated in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly described as Lots 2 -6, 14 -16, 22, 23, 28 -30, 36 -39, A, B and C inclusive of Tract No. 11450, as per a map filed in Book 491, on Pages, 42 -46 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 22, 1981, and Lots 37 -49, A, B, C and D inclusive of Tract 11449, as per a map recorded in Book 491, on Pages 12 -16 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 3, 1931, and, subsequent to the annexation thereof pursuant to the Article of the Declaration entitled "Annexation," any real property which shall become subject to this Declaration. B. The Declaration may be amended only by vote or written consent of the Members representing at least sixty -six and two - thirds percent (66 2/3 %) of the total voting power of the Association. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 of the Declaration, the Declaration is amended by adding Section 11 -21, and subsection a. to Section 21 -1, as follows: 1 JUN- 21- 2006(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RIaM TIN aLY (FAX)949 588 599.`3 P.005/007- 1.. "Section 11 -21. `No Further Subdivision.' No owner .shall partition or subdivide his or her Residence and /or lot including, without limitation, any division. of any Residence, lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units." "a. No Further or subdivc including, Residence, parcels or Subdivision - No Owner shall partition ode his or her Residence and /or lot without limitation, any division of any lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, other. units." In all other respects, the Declaration shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this First Amendment to be executed this 5"" day of 2006. BEI,COURT MASTER ASSOCIATION By: By:: -2- Its: .Secretary .JlW,2L-2WNED) 15:44 LAN! OFFICES OF RICHARD TINfELY (FAX)W 5% 5M The undersigned hereby certify under penalty of perjury that they are respectively the President and secretary of Belcourt Master Association, and that the foregoing First Amendment was duly adopted by the owners of the real property described herein, in full conformance. to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 thereof, and with Section 1355 of. the California Civil Code. Executed at �jbn y1{aCZA California, this .�� day of _ r" 2006. Preside t Secretary F�wroorneamon MauoW �ommamFru Munm��uwd -3- M JM- 21- 2006(ED) 15:45 LAN OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P. 007/607 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE 1. personalty Known to .me (or proven to me on the oasis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Ls.1 whose names) mare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that -he%he /they executed the same in hi&fhes /their authorized capacity(ie_s), and that by h4erher/their signaturej.�l on the instrument the person Ls), or the entity upon behalf of which the personysl acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) (Seal) On , before me, , personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) -4- i, Richard E. Macklin From: Richard E. Macklin [RMackffnr@MacklinCos.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:37 AM To. 'don2webb@earthiink.net' Subject: AGENDA AMENDMENT PA2006 -173 loft "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED :° t "p Attachments: LTRBELCOURT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RE MACKLIN PROPOSED LOT SPLIT.pdf; Letter to City re Amend GP.pdf Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: On the Agenda tonight, August 8, 2006, is a proposed Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006-173). I encourage you to vote again the proposed Resolution. My wife and I are the only homeowner that the proposed resolution will affect, and if the City Council acts in favor of such Resolution, it will deny us our due process of the law to oppose the unlawful action by Belcourt's HOA. As you may be aware, we submitted an application to divide our residential lot in Belcourt to provide a separate parcel. After, the submission to the City of Newport Beach. and the Beicourt HOA, the HOA took action W prohibit the division of such lot. The action by the HOA is clearly ex post facto. The HOA is asking the City Council to circumvent the due process of law, that we are rightfully entitled to, and add another layer of complexity to the situation. Please see the attached letter from our attorney, and myself, regarding this matter and further explains the facts. Respectfully yours, Richard Macklin 6 Barrenger Court Newport Beach, CA The Macklin Companies, Inc. 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -2514 949 - 752 -8977 voice 949.752 -9227 fax, 707 - 222 -2188 efax email: RldackfinAMackfinCos.com Confidentiality Notice: This transaction, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the Intended recipient, or it has been forwarded to you, or you have received this in error, you are hereby noted that any review, di'ssemination, or distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. And you should immediately destroy and delete the original 8/8/2006 •r s ._. Allen Maddns www.allenmatkins.com Allen MA&m Leek Gamble Mallay & Naleis LLP Armm*salLaw 1900 Main Street, P Floor I Wine, CA 92614 -7321 Telephone: 949.553.13131 Facsimile: 949.553.8354 Stephen R Thames E-mail: slhamee(rtJa(leemad=.com Direct Dial: 949 8515422 File Number: M5129-001/OC776535.01 April 28, 2006 VIA FACSEVULE (949 -582 -7796) & FIRST -CLASS MAIL Board of Directors Bcicourt Master Association do Progressive Community Management 27405 Puerta Real, Suite 300 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Re: 6 Barrenger Court, Newport Beach, California 92660 R77=1 J ,- 1 = This firm represents Richard and Brenda Macklin. The Macklin are the owners of the refer- enced residence (Lot 23 of Tract No. 11450), which is located in the residential community subject to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Belcourt Master Association dated March 8, 1982 ( "CC &Rs "). As you are aware, Mr. and Mrs. Macklin recently applied to the City of Newport Beach ( "City") to divide their lot into two parcels. The purpose of this letter is to address recent actions you have purportedly taken on behalf of Belcourt Master Association ( "Association') with respect to the Macklin' application. At the outset, the April 14, 2006 letter you caused Bruce Kermott, Esq. to send to the City on behalf of the Association is extremely troubling for at least the following reason: First, the letter's representation that an objection to the Macklin' application is being made on behalf of the Associa- tion is in fact a misrepresentation. We are aware of no action by the Association's Board of Directors ('Board ") or its homeowner members to suggest that Association as a whole was objecting to the Macklin' application, one of the Association's own members. Second, the letter materially misrepre- sents the authority granted to the Association by the CC &Rs. Contrary to the letter's contention that the Association would have to approve division of the parcel, not a single provision in the 76 pages of the CC&Rs grants the Association such authority. Indeed, the fact that the letter is consigned to quot- ing the CC&I& introductory Recitals for this apparent "authority" is proof enough that the CC &Rs do not prohibit the Macklins' application and that the Association is plainly overstepping its power. The subsequent April 21, 2006 memorandum the Board sent to the Association's members is even more disturbing. In it the Board proposes to now amend the CC&Rs without a meeting of its members. Apparently conceding that its previous claim of dominion over the Macklin' application Los Angeles I Otaage ComrW I Sea Diw I Cenmry City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights Allen Matkins Leck Cmmble Mallory & Natsis UP Attorneys at Law Board of Directors April 28,2006 Page 2 was baseless, the Board now seeks to amend the CC &Rs in an attempt, ex % facto, to manufacture that power. First, as 20 -year residents in the community, the proposed amendment unduly impinges on the Macklins' property rights and expectations, including their right of free alienation of property. Such expectations should come as no surprise to the Board, as several residents have themselves grounded their objections to the application on their own alleged "expectations." Secon despite the amendment's professed universal application, as a practical matter no lot other than the Macklins' could be subdivided absent demolition of the existing structure, something which is highly unlikely. Thus, it is plain that the proposed amendment is a retaliatory measure specifically directed only at the Macklin, an abuse of the Board's functions and powers outlined by the Bylaws and CC &Rs. Given the above, it has become clear that the recent action against the Macklins are being driven by a few vocal opponents who have drawn faulty conclusions about the "damage" their application would cause. The Board would be wise to be fair to all its members and listen to all of their concerns. That includes the Macklin. That the Board has violated Civil Code section 1355(b) by requiring votes on the amendment to be returned only 13 days after sending out its one -sided recommendation demonstrates that it is improperly interested in hearing and presenting only one side, a clear breach of any notion of due process, and a clear breach of its fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the Macklin will consider all rights and remedies at law and in equity, and by this letter waive none. In the interim, however, we demand that the Board immediately withdraw, with notice to all Association members, its faulty April 21, 2006 notice to take action without a meeting by written ballot to amend the CC&Rs, and additionally withdraw its objections to the Macklin' application on file with the City. We look forward to your prompt response and action. If you will be represented by counsel with respect to this demand by the Macklin, please forward this letter immediately to such counsel for response. Otherwise, should you wish to discuss this matter further, please direct all communica- tions to the undersigned. Very truly yours, Stephen R. Thames SRT jam Richard and Brenda Macklin 6 Barrenger Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 - 752 -8977 June 23, 2006 Mr. James W. Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 90658 -8915 RE. 6 BARRENGER COURT Newport Parcel Map Nu. 2006-026 (PA2006 -088) POSTPONEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the Notice of the Staffs recommendation to postpone the above - mentioned item on the Planning Commission's calendar until a later date. I also want to thank you for the time you took with me to discuss this matter and to inform me of the history surrounding the planning and approval process of Belcourt, especially Area 5. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it is very significant that any flaw in Belcourt's Master Plan, Area 5, was caused by the developer, JM Peters, sometime between July 1980 and August 1981 — 25 years ago -- and not by any recent action or discovery. The mistake was created in 1981 when the developer, JM Peters, abandoned the Community Park (Lot 27 of Tract Map 11043), and elected to subdivide that Park in order to sell nine additional lots (new Tract Map 11605): the Master Plan was mistakenly not amended to reflect the nine additional lots. The Master Plan's failure to accurately state the nine additional lots was perpetuated down through the years, even though the Master Plan was amended several times (1980, 1981, 1986 and again in 1988). Tract Map 1 1450 therefore remained unchanged at "40 lots" since the date it was first recorded in 1981. Originally, Tract Map 11043 (27 lots including the Community Park site) and Tract Map 11044 (28 lots), recorded in 1981, totaled 55 lots and defined Area 5 of the Master Plan. Tract Map 11450 (40 lots) and Tract Map 11605 (9 lots) replaced Maps 11043 and 11.044 and were recorded in February 1981 and November 1981, respectively, for a total of 42 lots. Tract Map 11450 and Tract Map 11605 should have defined the boundary of Area 5 of the Master Plan. According to the Master Plan, and for no apparent reason other than a typographical error, however, Area 5 is limited to 39 lots. . Page I of 3 t Any proposed adjustments, corrections, or modifications to the Belcourt Master Plan should therefore be limited solely to Tract Map 11605, which introduced the nine lots not accounted for by the Master Plan. It should be clear that Tract 11605 has different lot sizes and configurations from any of the other defined Areas within Belcourt. And, Tract Map 11605 was the last Map to be recorded in the series of amendments. If indeed there is now a need to correct the Belcourt Master Plan, 25+ years later, it should only affect Tract Map 11605 and NOT Tract Map 11450. If the City is contemplating a reduction of density or eliminating a lot within Area 5, it should consider looking at the one lot on Leesbury Court where no house has been built. Any suggestion to reduce of the number of lots further would be unreasonable since Area 5 has already been given a density reduction from 55 to 49 lots, and because the application was filed before the typographical error in the Belcourt Master Plan (and PC text) was discovered. Moreover, the City's own in -house study, conducted just prior to our application, effectively confirmed the existence of 49 lots under the current Master Plan. After the City completed its independent study, it stated that no Master Plan amendment was necessary, and accurately stated that our application did comply with the Master Plan (and the PC text). The City then gave us the "green light" to proceed to the next step, commence engineering and incur the related cost of the application; we did so, in good faith. It is also important to point out that any suggestion by the HOA or any of the other homeowners, that our application is not consistent with the "original intent," of the Master Plan, ignores history. In fact, the "original intent" of lM Peters was to create smaller lot sizes (7,500 to 9,000 square feet), which is the reason Belcourt CC&R's were never amended to reflect larger.lots with lower density as suggested by the HOA. _Last but not least the recent amendment to the CC&R's by the HOA post dates this apOlication and is therefore ex post facto Therefore, we request that the City of Newport Beach Planning Department leave Area 5, Tract Map 11450, as it was "originally intended," planned, and approved. And, if any accommodations; amendments or changes need to be considered or implemented, they should be limited to Tract Map 11605. The portion of Area 5 reflected in Tract Man 11450 has always been 40 lots and thus should remain 40 lots. Alternatively, if the City determines that Leesbury Court, or Tract Map 11605 needs to be added to Area 5, then the total number of lots should be amended to reflect both Tract Map 11450 and 11605, as approved and recorded, with no fewer than the.actual 49 lots. Page 2 of 3 To reiterate: any attempt to correct 1 nomphical errors in the Master Plan by an amendment that could render our application null and void would not only come after - the -fact, it would alter existing development rights originally intended by the developer, approved by the City, and relied upon by this applicant- Please reject any such attempt to gerrymander a reduction of lots based on this decades -old mistake. submitted, Patricia Temple, Planning Director Leslie Daigle, Councilwoman Jamie Murillo, City of Newport Beach Russell Bunim City of Newport Beads Stephen R. Thames, Esq., Allen Maddus Page 3 of 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -004 (Aeronutronic Ford) (PA2006 -173) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC -24) to prohibit new residential subdivisions in Area 5. Planning Area 5 is a portion of the Belcourt Master Community Association and is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. U6-A"M• A.� LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -004 (Aeronutronic Ford) (PA2006 -173) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC -24) to prohibit new residential subdivisions in Area 5. Planning Area 5 is a portion of the Belcourt Master Community Association and is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach pwe� 10co -Ms — I- II -vb at>d A gA�a,�lcAill '�Tlat- q•z�o6 r to Tyr Pr idri 5ity fJ0( - a•ti1 �� PW" Wak, - +4% VYK" 1-0 Ptb 1- z?-o � w Y' 41 ' F •tj �Fa 3 F ��.. -• i A' .p. mx a,�� 3 rp u Mfr � Y z� A 1 cy tfi` G`a53C��'' x p ` hw4 A d+x I S �r Aeronutronic Ford (PC -24) F � Planning Area 5 ''SC � .. 300 300 ft Mailing Radius E T Auaustl2006 PC -24 Areas 300 Mailina.mA ELLSWORTH FAMILY TRUST HICKS FAMILY TRUST 711 BAY HILL DR 12 BELCOURT DR #8 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LIDO VILLAGE LLC LLOYD SHARON R FAMILY TRUST 15 RUE CHATEAU ROYAL 101 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BELCOURT MA R ASSN RYPINSKI FAMILY TRUST *NO SITE ESS* 670 W 17TH ST #D4 IRVINE, 0 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 BELCOURT TER ASSN SMITH ROBERT /C FAMILY TRUST *NO DRE SITE SS` 9 WEYBRIDGE CT IRVINE A 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MCCARTHY HISNER RICHARD W 1992 TRUST 25 GLENEAGLES DR 21 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BELCOURT STER ASSN SCHMIDT BARBARA S FAMILY TRUST *NO SITE DRESS* 401 BAY HILL DR IRVINE 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KARAM FAMILY TRUST CHAMOIS LTD 27 GLENEAGLES DR 4 CHESHIRE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MURREL FAMILY TRUST HARRIMAN 38 HILLSDALE DR #23 42 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DOUPE 1982 TRUST KARP FAMILY TRUST 46 HILLSDALE DR #27 1 CHADBOURNE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHUDNOVSKY FAMILY TRUST FRATT FAMILY TRUST 2 HILLSDALE DR 3 BARRENGER CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SVADJIAN FAMILY 65 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MORSE FAMILY TRUST 103 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 EXEL 111 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KISHI FAMILY TRUST 26 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 QELCOURT MASTER ASSN *NO SITE ADDRESS* IRVINE, CA 0 BELCOURT MA TER ASSN *NO SITE AD PRESS* IRVINE, C RALLY FAMILY TRUST 36 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BELCOURT STER ASSN *NO SITE RESS* IRVINE, 0 TROOP ALANITRACEY 1986 TRUST 52 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 S & A RESIDENTIAL 25 CHATHAM CT #52 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SERRA FAMILY TRUST GRIBBEN FAMILY TRUST MARASCA 7 CHESHIRE CT 23 CHATHAM CT 4 CHADBOURNE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SMITH BELCOURT STER ASSN BELCOURT MAS R ASSN 6 CHADBOURNE CT `NO SITE DRESS" 27405 PUERTA #300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE, A 0 MISSION VI O, CA 92691 IRVINE CO OF W VA FDK REALTY CORP DSI NEWPORT GROWTH & 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2 GLENEAGLES DR 18552 MACARTHUR BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE, CA 92612 LIPSON FAMILY TRUST COLE 1715 PLAZA DEL SUR 901 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HEBERT FAMILY TRUST CAHI - FRANCINI FAMILY TRUST 8 GLENEAGLES DR 10 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BARRY SAVEN & AVRIL SAVEN IRVINE CO OF VA 19609 PINE VALLEY WAY 550 NE WP T CENTER DR NORTHRIDGE, CA 91326 NEWPO BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE CO OF VA IRVINE CO OF VA 550 NEWPO CENTER DR 550 NEWP T CENTER DR NEWPO EACH, CA 92660 NEWP BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE CO OFr VA HORWITZ C/J FAMILY TRUST 550 NEWPOYCT CENTER DR 36 BELCOURT DR NEWPO EACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ONE FORD RD COMMUNTY ASSN 16645 VON KARMAN AVE #200 IRVINE, CA 92606 MILLER 20 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KATOVSICH DENNIS F 1991 TRUST 1007 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE CO OVN VA 550 NEWP T CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 UDKOFF FAMILY TRUST 1001 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BELCOURT MA *R ASSN FRACCHIA FAMILY 2003 TRUST SCHREIBER 27405 PUER REAL #300 6 JUPITER HLS 58 BELCOURT DR #29 MISSION JO, CA 92691 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KLEIN FAMILY TRUST PEARCE DAVID/D 2002 TRUST BELCOURT ASTER ASSN 5 WEYBRIDGE CT 509 BAY HILL DR `NO SITE DRESS" NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE A,0 COHEN FAMILY TRUST WILES LYLE FAMILY TRUST 16 BELCOURT DR #6 701 BAY HILL DR 26 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BLIER RENATE ACKERMANN GARY FREDRICK ALMAS 25 E FIES 27 CHATHAM CT 8055 FLORENCE AVE PHOENIX, AZ 85021 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DOWNEY, CA 90240 VICTORIA ESPERANZA AMICK HELAINE S ASHTON YVONNE ATTYAH 715 BAY HILL DR 403 BAY HILL DR 18 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SIAVASH BAHADOR ROBERT & KATHERINE BAILEY ROBERT A & RANDY M BAIRD 1990 S COAST HWY #5 65 HILLSDALE DR 32 BELCOURT DR LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOSEPH L BEAVER ROBERT J BECKER TERRACE BELCOURT 417 BAY HILL DR 5 HUNTINGTON CT 1601 DOVE ST #190 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HAROLD BERAL DANA H BERGMAN RICHARD BIZAL 8 CHATHAM CT 16 CHATHAM CT 27 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN S & FRANCES BLOWITZ BRUCE & JULIE BLUMBERG BONNIE V BOCK 8 LEESBURY CT 2 SAWGRASS DR 4 HUNTINGTON CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 J CLARK BOOTH JESS R & MICHELLE M BOOTH HELENE BRACK 505 BAY HILL DR 79 HILLSDALE DR 59 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES E & LOIS L BROWN JOHN BYERLEIN WILLIAM L CAPPS 3 CHATHAM CT 24 BELCOURT DR 4 LEESBURY CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FENTON D CAREY ROBERT D CASEY WARREN H CAVES 23 HILLSDALE DR #5 801 MUIRFIELD DR 1 BARRENGER CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES R & KELLY L CHAMBLISS JOHN D & KAREN K COCHRAN RICHARD COHN 5 JUPITER HLS 4521 CAMPUS DR #321 18 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE, CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SUSAN R CONNELL JOHN & J BYPASS CONNELL R H & T J CONSIDINE 44 BELCOURT DR 16 HILLSDALE DR 301 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PETER C COOPER PAUL J COUCHOT WILLIAM J CRAWFORD 45 BELCOURT DR 2 JUPITER HLS 73 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NATALIE R CURTIN D & L DANNER LEONARD G & JILL M DAVIS 20 BELCOURT DR 33 BELCOURT DR 4 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOSEPH DEFRANCO JOHN M DEVINE JOAN A DIEMER 12 CHATHAM CT 2020 W VALLEY RD 513 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, M148304 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARK DINGES GREGORY C DIROCCO RAMESH DOLWANI 53 BELCOURT DR 3 CHESHIRE CT 26 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KAREN M DON ROBERT R DRYDEN J S & LAURIE J DUNGAN 309 BAY HILL DR 3 HUNTINGTON CT 30 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SANFORD EDWARD MARY K ELAM TAMARA ERIKSMOEN 19 GLENEAGLES DR 109 BAY HILL DR 705 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 GHOBAD FAKHIMI PHILIP D FARMAR RONALD LINN FELSOT 18 HILLSDALE DR 1 CHESHIRE CT 48 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN & COURTNEY FEW JAMES EDWARD JR FINKS LAURIE G FIRESTONE 610 NEWPORT CENTER DR #500 1015 MUIRFIELD DR 7 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HENRIK & PATRICIA FISKER MAYBELLE FJELLSTROM 10 WEYBRIDGE CT 1017 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MELISSA FONTES DONNA J FRANKLIN 45 HILLSDALE DR 203 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHRISTY FULBRIGHT DENNIS GAGE 120017TH ST #3000 7 HUNTINGTON CT DENVER, CO 80202 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RAYMOND E & ERICA J GERRITY MAZIAR GHODSIAN 907 MUIRFIELD DR 32 HILLSDALE DR #20 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TODD E GORDINIER BETH M GORDON 2 WEYMOUTH CT 805 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DONALD S GRANT GERALD L GREER 6 LEESBURY CT 55 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PAUL HACHIGIAN WILLIAM M HALL 4 JUPITER HLS 703 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH,. CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARILOU B HARMON CHARLES W NESTER 22 GLENEAGLES DR 63 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHARLES R HILTON BENNETT MASON HIRSCH 87 HILLSDALE DR 24 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARK G HOGLUND JOHN M HOLLENBECK 511 BAY HILL DR 61 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BONNIE JOY FLAMM 56 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOSEPH S FRIES 23 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ALAN LEE GERMAN 48 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ANN M GLASSMAN 3 WEYBRIDGE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ROBERT M & CONSTANCE M GRAHAM 22 BELCOURT DR #3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHRISTINE GRUZYNSKI 519 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 VONNA LEA HAMMERSCHMI T 501 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ROBERT L HICKS 2 BARRENGER CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HARRY B & DOLORES C HOFFMAN 14 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES N HOLMES 16 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MICHAEL J HOWARD CHENG S & MEI -MANN HUANG 6 CHATHAM CT 5 CHESHIRE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CO IRVINE CO IRVINE 550 NEWPO CENTER DR 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT EACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JASON JHWANG 17220 NEWHOPE ST #102. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 COMMUNITY IRVINE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR #7THFL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ROY P JACKSON ALEXANDER N & NORA JAMIAS JIMMY JIANG 26 CHATHAM CT 209 BAY HILL DR 1 LEESBURY CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JEANNE M JONES BEVERLY ANN JONES ROBERT J JORDAN 8 LOS MONTEROS DR 52 BELCOURT DR 411 BAY HILL DR MONARCH BEACH, CA 92629 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BARRYKJOSSELSON R MICHAEL JOYCE HERBERT W KALMBACH 4 WEYBRIDGE CT 30 HILLSDALE DR 1011 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 STANLEY KAY MARK & NANETTE KEHKE JAMES T JR KELLEY 419 BAY HILL DR 8 CROOKED STICK DR 2 CHADBOURNE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NELLY K KELLY KAREN L KENDRICK AREIA I KIM 709 BAY HILL DR 43 HILLSDALE DR 8 CHADBOURNE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHONG LING KIM WILLIAM J & MICHELLE B KING ROBERT L KINTON 1 WEYMOUTH CT 2801 W COAST HWY #260 81 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BRYAN G KLECKNER JAMES M KLEIN VICTOR L KLEIN 5 CHATHAM CT 7 WEYBRIDGE CT 61 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PETER J KOETTING STANLEY M KURZET J M LANNI 8 GLENEAGLES DR 8 CHESHIRE CT 21 OLD COURSE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RALPH M LARES WARREN C & MARIE - FRANCE LAURIE K LEGGIO 22 HILLSDALE DR #15 LEFEBVRE 60 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4 WEYMOUTH CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES D LEWIN RICHARD A LEWIS RICHARD A LEWIS 1 CHATHAM CT 2 WEYBRIDGE CT 6 WEYMOUTH CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN FUU LIU EDWIN L LLEWELLYN MAI NGUYEN LY 11 GLENEAGLES DR 10 CHATHAM CT 1003 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 VIRGINIA M MACDONALD RICHARD E MACKLIN THOMAS A MADDEN 405 BAY HILL DR 6 BARRENGER CT 4 BARRENGER CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HOWARD H MAGOR JOAN C MAIFELD EDWARD & MINDY MANN 83 HILLSDALE DR 34 HILLSDALE DR 12139 SUMMIT CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 JOYCE MARCARDICAN DEBBIE A; MARHEINE RONALD MARTEL 46 BELCOURT DR 41 HILLSDALE DR 105 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THADDEUS FRANK MARTIN GARR MARTIN P & M MARX 29 MUSICK 34 GLENEAGLES DR 39 HILLSDALE DR IRVINE, CA 92618 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DONALD E MATTHEWS SAMUEL L & ARLENE MAYHUGH ROBERT W & ARLEEN MCCAFFREY 305 BAY HILL DR 11 CHATHAM CT 40 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MICHAEL W MCFADIN RICHARD A & TRACY L MEIER ELLIOTT C MERCER 3 JUPITER HLS 2 LEESBURY CT 14 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LESLIE METCALFE RICHARD W JR MILLAR GLENN B MILLER 613 BAY HILL DR 71 HILLSDALE DR 50 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN A & NANCY A MILLER PHILLIP FIROOZ MOHSENI EDWARD A MONEY 17 HILLSDALE DR 911 MUIRFIELD DR 22 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATHELINE MARIE MORENO MICHAEL DAVID MOSER ROBERT M MOSS 809 MUIRFIELD DR 9 CHATHAM CT 555 VICK PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 JAY E MYERS HAROLD NEWMAN ROBERT M NIBEEL 10 HILLSDALE DR 8 HILLSDALE DR 7 WEYMOUTH CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SCOTT & LISA D NIEDERMAYER DONALD NORTHRUP ARTHUR S NOWICK 49 BELCOURT DR 11 HUNTINGTON CT 24 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 D MICHAEL OLSON JOHN S O'MEARA FORD RD COMMUNITY ONE 1019 MUIRFIELD DR 5 WEYMOUTH CT 4041 MACARTHUR BLVD #500 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FORD RD COMM, 1TY ONE PHILIP W ONEIL GREG O'NEILL 4041 MACARTWJR BLVD #500 12 GLENEAGLES DR 21 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT CH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MAURICE F O'SHEA THOMAS J & VICTORIA L OTTERBEIN DAVID PAIK 211 BAY HILL DR 17 GLENEAGLES DR 28 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 GARY L PALO LOREN C PANNIER SEUNG KYU PARK 6 BELCOURT DR 40 BELCOURT DR 38 BELCOURT DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RAMONA PARKINSON PATRICIA E PASSY RONALD N PAUL 85 HILLSDALE DR 64 BELCOURT DR 175 E DELAWARE PL #8903 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHICAGO, IL 60611 JAMES M JR PETERS MARTHA A PETERSON WILLIAM J POPEJOY 2411 BAYSHORE DR 803 MUIRFIELD DR 29 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES A & M POSTAL SELMA i POZNANOVICH TERRENCE J QUINN 20 HILLSDALE DR 20 CHATHAM CT 307 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 AMIE E RAIGER ELEANOR M REED ELLIOT B REIFF 15 GLENEAGLES DR 609 BAY HILL DR 6 GLENEAGLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN M RESTAINO JOHN R RETTBERG FRITZ HENDRICK REYNOLDS 4 WEYMOUTH CT 42 BELCOURT DR #37 601 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TAMERA RICHARD JAMES F RICKETTS JOANNE GANTT ROLLANS 377 BAY HILL DR 607 BAY HILL DR 12 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TOMMY A JR ROMERO MARCIA ROSENBERG ARTHUR STEVEN ROSTEN 2000 BEACH ST #102 615 BAY HILL DR 6 WEYBRIDGE CT SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NAR E ROTH MARY N RUBENSTEIN BENJAMIN D RUBIN 29 GLENEAGLES DR 54 HILLSDALE DR 21 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 TIMOTHY J RYAN WILLIAM B SAGE BARRY SAYWITZ 9 HUNTINGTON CT 507 BAY HILL DR 9 CHADBOURNE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KATITZA SCHMIDT BURTON SCHWARTZ DAVID SEAGO 14 GLENEAGLES DR 2 BELCOURT DR 815 MUIRFIELD DR #62 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ITZHAK SHABTAI FRANCIS P SHANAHAN JAMES J JR SHEA 5 LEESBURY CT 8 WEYBRIDGE CT 42 -600 BOB HOPE DR #406 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92650 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 DONALD ROY SHEETZ KATSUHIRO SHITANISHI GLEN SIMONIAN 25 HILLSDALE DR 62 BELCOURT DR 1 HUNTINGTON CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JANET K SIMPSON R SEPARATE PROP STAROW ELIZABETH H STEINBERG 905 MUIRFIELD DR 4 HILLSDALE DR #55 517 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN M STELMACH ALAN D STEWART ROBERT A STOCKMAR 4 BELCOURT DR #12 9728 VERLAINE CT 2 CHESHIRE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LAS VEGAS,; NV 89145 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 L S STONEY KEN STUART PETER J & GAIL STULIK 3961 HOSPITAL RD #425 44 HILLSDALE DR 413 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 EDWARD SVADJIAN ROCKY A TARANTELLO ALEXANDER H TISCHLER 54 BELCOURT DR 27 WHITESANDS DR 34 BELCOURT DR #41 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES D & P M TUCCINARDI GLADYS A TURNER ROBIN R TURNER 6 HILLSDALE DR #56 15 CHATHAM CT 4 CHATHAM CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JANA L TURNER J & J UPHOFF RANELLE S URBAN 409 BAY HILL DR 515 BAY HILL DR 707 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOUIS J VIGNES LINDA LORRENE WAESTMAN ANITA WATUMULL 50 BELCOURT DR 69 HILLSDALE DR 15 HILLSDALE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DAVID L WEBB DAVID I WEINSTEIN MARY J WELSH 67 HILLSDALE DR 201 BAY HILL DR 15375 BARRANCA PKWY #E102 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE, CA 92618 RICHARD H WHEATON MARTIN E JR WHELAN SUSIE H WILEY 77 HILLSDALE DR 2 CHATHAM CT 1013 MUIRFIELD DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DONNA F WILLIAMS BARBARA G WILLIAMS MARK WULFF 909 MUIRFIELD DR 1015 GRAND CT 205 BAY HILL DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33487 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 STEVEN LEE YAMSHON RHACKSEUNG YOON KAVEH ZAMANI 57 HILLSDALE DR 47 BELCOURT DR 2040 HAWKINS CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOS ANGELES, CA 90001 MAXINE ZEIDMAN VIRGINIA C ZENZ BELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION 903 MUIRFIELD DR 75 HILLSDALE DR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY MGMT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 27405 N VIEJ REAL 2691 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 BONITA CANYON PUBLIC BONITA CANYON PUBLIC BONITA CANYON PUBLIC 2985 BEAR ST #A 2985 BEAR ST #A 2985 BEAR ST #A COSTA MESA, CA 92626 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 BONITA CANYON PUBLIC 2985 BEAR ST #A COSTA MESA, CA 92626 RAYMOND E & LORI N BERG 24 Old COURSE NEWPORt BEACH, CA 92660 HEMPHILL - DOLLET 8 JUPITER HLS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 EUGENE DAVIS SR BISHOP 26 OLD COURSE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JOHN K ANDREWS 22 OLD COURSE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 COMMUNITY IRVINE 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR #7THFL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 WILLIAM K KNOX CHARLES S LOEB COURSE DRIVE OLD 7 JUPITER HLS .. 28 OLD COURSE DR 30 OLD COURSE DR -. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006-004 (Aeronutronic Ford) (PA2006 -173) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community (PC -24) to prohibit new residential subdivisions in Area 5. Planning Area 5 is a portion of the Belcourt Master Community Association and is generally described as the area south of Bison Avenue, west of MacArthur Boulevard, north of Huntington Court, and east of Belcourt Drive. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that this project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that the proposed action Is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act_(CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on October 10.2006. at the hour of 7:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 6443200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Office of the City Clerk CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3884 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On c? J ?Cl 1 C)6 2006, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2006 -004 (Aeronutronic Ford) (PA2006 -173) p o� �aot Pc Date of Hearing: October 10, 2006 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961,. and .4 -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: September 30, 2006 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 2, 2006 at Costa Mesa, California. l 0 Signature RECEIVED 2W1 CCT -5 fall 9= 07 orfla- C THE 0-H CLEII i CITY Of iS FrCp'i f,'Ef;;