HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community - PA2006-173CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
4-06
Agenda Agenda Item No. 14
October 10, 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 -173)
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?
RECOMMENDATION
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).
Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment
October 10, 2006
Page 3
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.
Prepared by:
i
r-ussel(&n6, Assistant Planner
Submitted by:
Patricia` Temple, anning Director
Attachments:
A. Draft City Council Ordinance
B. September 21, 2006 Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolution
C. September 21, 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.
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
AN
Jeffrey Cole, Chairman
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
AYES: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole and
Toerae
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(o)city.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-
L j
OA
RR 6R VILAGWO
L
0 ---
a cu Q& �.z
6q
!-jk'
CANYON OR
SONTA
A
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 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
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
In
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
AYES:
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
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 See -"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 P.bl3/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
1 ,
Secretary
FAWPOOCS9dr M2UdVJ4Mmwlnm Awftd mL"d
-3-
0
,JUN- ti- GMtkWtU) :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 signaturej -al on the
instrument the person W , 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 RICHAW TIN LLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.:OW007
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 R. 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
AUSO Viejo, California
Recorded In Official Records, Orange county
Tom Daly, clerk-Recorder
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, Esq.
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 heir eby 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 TI*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 5111 day of 2006.
sEI,COU= MASTER ASSOCIATION
By:
By::
-2-
Its: .Secretary
.JW- 2L- 2M(tB) 15:44 LAN! OFFICES OF RICHARD TIMELLY (FAX)M 5% 593
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 _YWACS California, this day
of _ r" 2006.
Preside t
Secretary
F�wroorneamon MaroWmbmcu�Fru.Vrunm��u.�.ya
-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 (oz proves to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person W whose names) mare
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
-he%ho /they executed the same in hi&fhes /their authorized
capacity(ie_s), and that by h4erheer/their signaturejon 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 )
On before me,
personally appeared
iseal)
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-
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