Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1_Materials Received_PA2011-013Materials Received /Correspondence Item No. 3.1 Minimum Side Setback Determination PA2011 -013 Broadmoor SeaView PC No. 18 Letter to Joel Fick Analysis of PC No. 18 and Exhibits January 14, 2011 Submitted by: James and Patricia White 2. James and Patricia White 2603 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 759 -1434 January 14, 2011 Mr. Joel Fick Acting Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Mr. Fick, Thank you for meeting with us last Wednesday. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the documents that support the conclusion that the "approved plot plans" controlled the building envelope for Broadmoor, the original builder of the development, and for any future modifications by the homeowners of Sea View. Approved Plot Plans and PC No. 18 Each of the three plot plans has check numbers and the notation, "appr" with an approval date written in hand on them (see Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). These approved plot plans are referred to in this letter as the "APPs" and show the setbacks and footprint for each house with dimensions to: (1) the street side property line, (2) the blank wall side of the house property line (referred to as the zero side) and (3) in almost all cases, the opposite side property lines. When the window side of two houses face each other and both are oriented toward a common property line and they are both more that 10 feet away from that line, then a dimension is shown for only the house that is closer to the line because when one house is more than 10 feet away from the line, the 10 foot separation rule is satisfied. The opposite side property line occurs eleven times throughout the development and is the line between two houses that face each other. All the houses in Sea View were originally designed with a blank side with no windows and one door opening for fire egress from an atrium and the side opposite the blank side with many windows and usually the front door. The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District Amendment No. 18 adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1975 and referred to in this letter as "PC No. 18" (see Exhibit 4) states: 1. In Section IV.D. Setbacks from Streets, that "Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the project, a final setback map shall be submitted to the Community Development Director indicating the setbacks to all building areas proposed in the development'. 2. In Section IV.E. Setbacks from Property Lines that "All setbacks listed under this subsection refer to all property lines not affected by Subsection D above. Dwellings may orient towards the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions ". R 3. In Section IV.E. Rear or Front Yard that "The street and view side setbacks shall be established on the approved site plan ". These statements: "a final setback map shall be submitted.....indicating the setbacks to ALL building areas" and "setbacks listed under this subsection refer to ALL property lines" and "setbacks shall be established on THE approved site plan" indicate that there must exist approved plot plans which delineate setbacks from all property lines. The documents which are exhibits to this letter prove conclusively that the plot plans submitted for each of the three tracts which comprise Sea View are the approved plot plans, APPS, which establish the setbacks and building footprint for each house in Sea View, PC No. 18 was incorporated into The Broadmoor Sea View Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the "CC &Rs ", which were recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California on September 14, 1976, in Article VII of the CC &Rs as a document entitled Planned Community District Regulations Broadmoor Pacific View, prepared by Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates on October 23, 1975, and revised and Approved on January 12, 1976 (see Exhibit 5). 1 have reviewed both PC No. 18 and the Planned Community District Regulations and find then to be substantially the exact same word for word document except for the title. Therefore, the Sea View Homeowners Association is bound by PC No. 18 because it is included in the CC &Rs and since PC No. 18 establishes the setbacks and shows the footprint for each house, then that footprint cannot be modified without approval of both the HOA architectural review committee and the City through a specific process. Thus the open space between and around many of the houses that was created in the original development design is preserved. PC No. 18 was modified by Modification 1055 which was filed with the City on July 6, 1976 (see Exhibit 13) which clearly states that houses were oriented to take advantage of views and the distance between some houses was minimized to create more open space at the end of streets and cul -de- sacs. Our goal has not been to stop remodel activity in Sea View but rather to develop a clear path for a homeowner to follow when designing the remodel of a house that includes building outside the original footprint. List of Exhibits 1. Broadmoor Sea View Plot Plan for Tract 9260, marked as Plan Check 456 -76 and marked approved 8- 31 -76. 1 am providing sheets 1 through 6 of 48. The remaining sheets are building construction drawings. 2. Broadmoor Sea View Plot Plan for Tract 9047, marked as Plan Check 1132 and 1133 and marked approved 11- 19 -76. lam providing sheets 1 through 4 of 55. 3. Broadmoor Sea View Plot Plan for Tract 9261, marked as Plan Check 1177 and 1178, stamped with a date of Janl1, 1977 and marked approved 2 -3 -77. I am providing sheets 1 through 4 of 50. 4. PC No. 18 adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1975. 5. Planned Community District Regs., Broadmoor Pacific View, prepared October 23, 1975 and revised and approved January 12, 1976. 6. Emails between Jamie and Pat White and Jaime Murillo dated September 01 and 9 ", 2010. 7. Map which appears to be a grading map showing street and view side setbacks, no date shown. 8. Letter to Patrick Alford from James and Patricia White dated October 26, 2010. 9. Letter to James White from Patrick Alford dated November 2, 2010. 10. Setback Map for Tract 9047, 167 lots received by the City, October 28, 1975. 11. Map of street addresses for Sea View showing 167 lots but in a different configuration than is shown on Setback Map of 10/28/75. 12. Hand written letter from Jamie White to Patrick Alford, no date, but probably after November 2, 2010. 13. Modification Application Number 1055 dated 7 -6 -1976. 14. Modification Committee Findings and Action Number 1055 dated July 20, 1976, 15. Broadmoor Seaview Plot Plan for Tract 9047, sheets 1 through 4 for Tract 9260, sheets 3 and 4 for Tract 9261, two sheets not numbered, all part of Modification 1055 marked pages 1 through 9 and stamped submitted July 6, 1976 (although the day of the month is difficult to see). .16. Letter from James Campbell to James White dated November 9, 2010. 17. Tract No. 9260 marked as accepted and filed June 17, 1976. 18. Tract No. 9047 marked as accepted and filed July 22, 1976. . 19. Tract No. 9261 marked as accepted and filed July 22. 1976. Note that the survey for all 3 tracts was completed in February of 1976. 20. List of Affected Homeowners. Background Sometime last year, our neighbor, Mr. Gregg McConaughy, presented us with a preliminary rough drawing of what he intended to build as a bedroom and bathroom addition. The City .Planning Department had told his architect that there was no setback requirement from our common property line. I thought that could not possibly be correct, so I visited the planning department desk on the first floor of your building and over a few days time got several different answers as to what setback is required from our common property line. Finally, I was told that the planning department had had a meeting to discuss the matter and concluded that the common property line setback was zero. I did not believe that was hue, so I contacted Jaime Murillo by email (see Exhibit 6) which started my search for the meaning and intent of PC No. 18. Jaime concluded in his email to me that, "PC No. 18 is extremely flexible and doesn't have a minimum side yard setback requirement, with the exception that buildings must maintain a minimum 10- foot separation ". Still not satisfied my wife and I met with Jaime at which time he provided us with what looked like a preliminary grading map which showed only street and view side setbacks (see Exhibit 7). This map is a very preliminary grading plan, as there are significant differences between how the project was graded and the contour lines on the plan, and may have been used to propose some preliminary ideas about street and view side setbacks. The setbacks fiom the street shown on the map are in many cases different than what is shown on the APPS, which do correctly show what was actually built. Jaime explained that side yard setbacks were not addressed in PC No. 18. My wife and then went to lunch, discussed our meeting with Jaime and concluded that what we were being told just did not add up. We have each been in the real estate development business for over twenty years. We then went back to the city offices, found Jaime, and told him we were not satisfied. Jaime then asked Patrick and a fellow from the building department to join an impromptu meeting to discuss this issue. During this meeting one interesting point that came up was that they did not know when and how the door in the blank wall of each and every house got there. They just did not seem to know when or how that was approved. This is a significant point because it is this door, an opening in the blank side of the house, that caused the house to be a minimum of 4 feet away from the property line instead of the zero setback that is referred to in PC No. 18 Section IV.E., paragraph "Side Yard". The houses are built 10 feet apart as is requited under the "Side Yard" paragraph, except those that are the subject of the Modification 1055. Therefore, the zero setback allowance that is specified in the "Side Yard" paragraph was not used due to the opening in the blank wall side of the house and could not be used on the opposite property line because that other side of the house has many windows and in most cases the front door. As Sea View was actually built there is no circumstance that would allow for a zero setback to any property line. The meeting ended with our being told that the City could really not be of any help to us other than to say that the buildings had to be 10 feet apart and beyond that it was up to the Sea View HOA to set the development standards. Still not satisfied with what I was being told, I wrote a letter to Patrick Alford (see Exhibit 8). Ih that letter dated October 26, 2010, I conclude that PC No. 18 clearly states that the setbacks from ALL property lines are established by dimensions shown on the approved plot plans, the APPS. In the letter I requested an official written opinion of the setbacks from all property lines as are indicated in the PC No.18. On November 2, 2010, Patrick responded to my letter (see Exhibit 9). I had asked him to provide me with a site or plot plan which showed the setbacks to all property lines as was required in Section IV.D. of PC No. 18. Patrick, in his letter to me concluded that a setback map (see Exhibit 10) was submitted to and approved by the then - Community Development Director as provided for in Section IV.D. of the PC No. 18 text. He noted that only front and rear setbacks were identified. This map, entitled Setback Map, Tract 9047, was received by the City on October 28, 1975 and is another copy of the same map that Jaime gave me. As I mentioned above, this map is inconsistent with what is built in Sea View. For example, on Yacht Vindex, eleven lots are shown, but only ten lots exist on that street and on Yacht Daphne four lots are shown, but five lots exist on that street. The setbacks of 18 feet from the street, shown on the map, have not been followed in about 20 cases. Further, on lot 146 this map shows a 5' typical setback from toe of slope, while PC No. 18 requires 10'. Finally, the lot lines as shown in many cases are very different from those shown on the APPS. The snap does indicate top of slope or view side setbacks to be 3 feet typical as is specified in the PC No. 18 text. Another map (see Exhibit 11) indicating the Sea View street addresses shows many lots in a quite different configuration to that of the "Setback Map" provided to us by Patrick. Patrick's letter in his opening paragraph recites the issue of whether setbacks were established by an approved site plan but he does not address that issue in his letter. At the end of his brief letter he concludes that Section IV.E. "street and view side setbacks" refer to front and rear setbacks and not side setbacks. It is true that the paragraph under Section W.E. "Rear or Front Yard" defines the setbacks from top of slope or the view side at 3 feet and the toe of slope or rear yard at 10 feet and it also says that these will be established on the approved site plan. It does not say that side yard setbacks will not be established on that same approved site plan. In fact the side yard setbacks are clearly shown on what I have referred to above as the APPS. This is such an 1 incomplete and incorrect conclusion that I felt the planning department had not conducted a thorough review of my question nor was the department taking my request seriously. Modification No. 1055 Soon after my meeting with Patrick, while looking at the microfiche copies of various maps for Sea View, I discovered that there were some houses in Sea View that were closer together than 10 feet apart. I wrote a hand written note to Patrick and asked that he look into this issue (see Exhibit 12). Within a day or so, I think, he called me on the telephone and said that he had found a Modification Application No. 1055 dated 7 -6 -76 and approved 7 -20 -76 (see Exhibits 13 and 14). Patrick told me that attached to Modification 1055 is a plot plan consisting of nine pages that appears to be dated July 6, 1976, which is the same date that Modification App. 1055 was filed with the City (see Exhibit 15). These plot plan pages do not include any dimensions nor do they include the entire development since Yacht Vindex, Yacht Maria and Yacht Camilla are omitted. This makes sense because those streets did not have lots that were part of Modification 1055. The Modification 1055 form lists the lots that are involved in Modification 1055. All of these lots are at the end of their respective streets and the houses are blank side to blank side, except for lots 1 and 2 of Tract 9047. The house on lot 2 has been oriented to have its blank side toward lot 1 instead of toward lot 3 in order to take advantage of both an ocean and valley view. Section IV.E. of PC No. 18 "Setbacks from Property Lines" states: "Dwellings may orient towards the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions ". In the "Present Use" block of the Modification 1055 form are the hand written words "5' side yards" indicating that side yard setbacks had been set on some plan. In the "Request" block of the form are written the words: "That one lot receive an easement for (undetermined word or letters) use from the other and the side yard setbacks be reduced to 4' each or total 8' ". That is interesting because I had been told that side yard setbacks had not been addressed by PC No. 18 nor established on any document and now we see conclusively that side yard setbacks had been determined, as evidenced by the statements on the Modification 1055 document, and were established on the APPS. Modification 1055 reduced from 5' to 4' the side yard setbacks for the lots specified on Modification 1055. In fact upon careful analysis of all the APPs I have found that except for the specific lot pairs that were the subject of Modification 1055, where the separation was reduced to 8 feet total, all of the other houses are separated by a minimum of 10 feet. An exception to this is the lot pair 22 -23 of Tract 9260, which is not part of Modification 1055, is only 8 feet apart. I suspect they were meant to be listed on the Modification 1055 but just did not get listed. It seems that the plan checker did not pick up the discrepancy. Interestingly, most of the houses that are not part of the Modification 1055 have.a setback from the property line of 4 feet on the blank wall side of the House. This is a change from what was indicated in the "Present Use" block of Modification 1055. Only lot 2 and the pairs of lots 1I- 12, 24 -25 and 34 -35 of Tract 9260 have a setback of 5 feet from the blank wall side of the house to the property line. Lot 12 of Tract 9261 appears to have a 6 foot setback from the blank wall side of the house to the property line. These discrepancies point to the fact that the only place to see a complete picture of the setbacks that were approved prior to the issuance of building permits is on the APPS. Again, this is the only complete and therefore controlling set of documents, therefore, they must be the "approved plot plans" mentioned in PC No.18. that were to establish all the property line setbacks. The concept of "approved plot plans" was in the PC No. 18 language and now we see it again in Modification 1055 in the document that indicates that Modification 1055 was approved on the condition: "I. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans ". It is reasonable to assume the when the word. "development" is used here it means the entire development and not just the lots that were the subject of Modification 1055. There should be no question that the Sea View development was to proceed in substantial conformance with PC No. 18 as modified by Modification 1055 and all incorporated into The Broadmoor Sea View CC &Rs. Therefore, the Sea View Homeowners Association is bound by PC No, 18, as modified by Modification 1055, because it is part of the CC &Rs. In the body of the approved Modification 1055 form, its approval is granted on the condition: "That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans" and for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is in general conformance with the Planned Community Development Standards for "Broadmoor Pacific View." 2. The reduced separation between structures will occur only at the ends of streets or cul -de -sacs where the end dwelling units will be reversed so as to eliminate blank walls along the exterior side yards of the subject lots. 3. The proposed development is a better site solution than originally planned since more open space will be provided at the ends of streets and cut -de -sacs. Because of the language in Modification 1055, the body of evidence that Sea View was to be a planned community developed under standards contained in PC No. 18 as modified by Modification 1055, which standards are to be clearly defined in a set of approved plot plans is strong and complete. Meeting with Jim Campbell I was therefore completely surprised when Patrick, in view of what he had just provided to me, still denied that there were approved plot plans that controlled the development of Sea. View initially and in the future. Therefore, I asked to meet with Jim Campbell to either set up a planning commission hearing or hopefully have Jim understand the evidence and provide me with a written official ruling from the City that the approved plot plans showed the setbacks to all property lines that those setbacks may not be modified without approval from the City and the Sea View architectural committee. The meeting with Jim Campbell was set or November 4, 2010. My wife and I met with Jim. He listened to my presentation during a one hour meeting with Patrick in attendance. During the meeting Jim seemed to realize that it is difficult to conclude that a zero side yard setback is allowed in Sea View. He said that he thought it would be easy to defend a decision on his part that a four foot side yard setback could be imposed. Patrick did not seem so inclined but the meeting ended with our believing that Jim had understood our presentation. I was quite surprised when I received his letter affirming the planning department's opinion that a zero side yard setback is allowed in Sea View (see Exhibit 16). He cited the "Side Yard" paragraph of Section IV.E. "A zero side yard setback between the structure and the lot line shall be permitted on one side provided there are no openings on the zero side yard wall and that a total of ten (10) feet shall be provided between structures ". He went on to say: "a zero foot side setback is permitted as long as a minimum often (10) feet is maintained between structures. Beyond that, the PC text is silent in regards to side setbacks ". Jim's logic fails to include the phrase: "provided there are no openings on the zero side yard wall ". Further, he fails to recognize that Modification 1055 states in the "Present Use" block of • the form, the hand written note, "5' side yards ". This setback was required since there is an opening (door) in each and every house. The document granting approval for Modification 1055 conditions that the development be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans. Further, as I have recited above the reasons for the approval are that Modification 1055 improves the development since it creates among other considerations more open space for the house at the end of a streets and cul -de -sacs. Jim interprets that since the zero provision was not used on the blank wall side of the house (it could not be used there because there was an opening) that it could be used on the opposite property line as it was referred to in the first paragraph of Section IV.E. That interpretation ignores the fact that the side of the house that is opposite the blank wall always contains multiple windows and often the front door and, therefore, would not be eligible for a zero setback. Conclusion and Other Affected Lots In the beginning of this letter I said that this all began because my neighbor wants to add a bedroom and bathroom to his house. The Sea View Architectural Review Conunittee, "ARC" approved his plans after meeting with the planning department and being told that a zero side yard setback was allowed as long as the structures were 10' apart. Subsequently, we appealed that decision to the HOA board of directors and they overturned the approval because as was stated in the HOA attorney's letter to McConaughy: "the ARC was not aware of PC No. 18." Further, the Board determined that in view of the 10' foot separation of structures provision in PC No. 18 that in any event a 5 foot side yard setback should be the compromise for the common property line between our two houses. McConaughy has recently resubmitted plans to the ARC with the 5 foot setback. We are an original owner of our home and have believed for the 30 plus years we have lived here that the open space between our homes was to be permanent and that our view of the valley could not be blocked by landscaping or structures. The view issue we will leave for the judgment of the ARC and HOA Board but the issue of whether the APP controls the footprint of the original houses and that a change to that footprint is a change to PC No. 18 is really the subject and essence of this letter. I have included in this letter copies of the final Tract maps 9047, 9260 and 9261 (see Exhibits 17, 18 and 19). All the documents I have.presented in this letter conclusively show that there are approved plot plans and that Modification 1055 conditions that the development must be in substantial compliance with those approved plot plans. Therefore, it should be concluded that for a Sea View homeowner to add new construction to his home outside the original footprint, approval from the Sea View ARC must be granted and then an application and approval to modify PC No.18 must be secured from the City. This would be a most reasonable conclusion given the overwhelming evidence and analysis that we have provided in letter. In cases where there is no opposition from neighboring lots, the City approvals could be granted administratively. However, in the event of opposition, the homeowner proposing the modification of PC No. 18 would have the opportunity to request a planning commission hearing. If there is a dispute, then a public hearing affords the parties the opportunity to present their argument to the full planning commission, an unbiased body accustomed to making such decisions. This creates a professional and experienced forum at little cost to all concerned. I There are 20 other property owners in Sea View who are affected by this common property line situation. I have attached a list of their names and addresses (see Exhibit 20). I have visually inspected each lot . and each of their homes seems to be in its original side yard building footprint. This would then be the first time in Sea View that this situation has come up. I have contacted each affected property owner and most of them want to be informed and included in discussions because this outcome will set a precedent for future development of their lots and their neighbor's lot. We thank you for yom courtesy and interest in conducting a thorough review of this issue. Also, we want to acknowledge the time and courtesy that Jaime, Patrick and Jim have shown us throughout this process. Sincerely, am ss White Patricia Wh' e Cc: Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager (without Exhibits) Councilman Keith Curry (without Exhibits) IN EXHIBIT 1 12- jt,LLj"Io4 09926 eD 'ugjsn4 -p , Ajq ~jj ZD&L� fi LN C, A � D 1-5i rl � JC1 S3WOH HWWC HUM t I I H HIM Hill: ui UT LLI ttg tvLL] -lei OOZE -e- _ -4 S31 1-2 Z-7 I HI \ \} /� �� ) ��\ 3 T f'L w" t �= ` ✓ YZ' 0£Zb -44S f4tLl'lal 08926 'a� `u!lsal 'PNq auw! 7dffiLL �! `saucy M + e C�� CGS WE? S3WOH �Wat/OtiB s d{ L- IT Ll Jai_ n� .. . m % 4s s i + ° < rRI l ® LAI 1- Lle x: r a , F A,y g Y��_81 z oezv-CtS 114L) -194 08926 - ea \yl4sq -pniq auwl ZoEt —i `saunq joowPeu+q 1 s6120k WM S3NOH avows � i :tt 133v�9 33S X X EXHIBIT 2 2 20 . >� . :. �. y.. §, I® / FOP - «z \/\ { �! ), ( 3 ) /(� � G\ z � \ . \ � � Ll-- x ' xlw (`3 A ilh CIA M-3 q r X 4 ;:S 3 e wL�\� ® � X 1 \ a A .7�W st IP � X £ `N. ass I x c. m fi 1 QQ dx �zr� N E, qry d' 1 ,1 t 1 , �A tu@ - rye ✓,%`�F %rlum (" a 9 �3,.'�'n1 J 'v' y � �'+a 1 �4R�""3 I rte✓ // x' EXHIBIT 3 21 i sas Y EXHIBIT 4 33 31- The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District Amendment No. 18 Adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1975 WC/ LEGEND C� LAW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL o DOD MOD MIR= PARK AND RECREATION AREA OPEN SPACE AREA RESERVOIR `kauh;Behblprbst 9 ssacistew .Ib..ugwµ .nyp.ulx.... M1 MIM •a M..r. ��..yy n.'.n �.wm...lafn u.ie.r.1.... BROADMOOR PACIFIC VIEW LAND USE PLAN INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV Subsection A Subsection B Subsection C Subsection D Subsection E Subsection F Subsection G Subsection H Subsection I Subsection J SF,CTION V Subsection A Subsection B Subsection C Subsection D Subsection E TABLE, OF CONTF,NTS Paec STATIS'T'ICAL ANALYSIS I GENERAL 1 DEFINITIONS 2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 Permitted Uses 2 Minimwu Lot Size 3 Maximum Building Height 3 Setbacks from Streets 3 Setbacks from Property Lines 3 Fences, Hedges and Walls 4 Trellis 4 Parking 4 Maximum Site Area Coverage 4 Architectural Features 4 COMM[ 1NITY RECRF,ATIONAL FACILTTIFS 5 Permitted Uses 5 Maximum Building Height 5 Setbacks 5 Landscaping 6 Parking 6 INTRODUCTION The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District within the City of Newport Beach has been prepared in accordance with Amendment No. 18 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1975, to provide low density residential development within a 50 -acre parcel being subdivided from the Pacific View Memorial Park. The purpose of this PC (Planned Community) District is to provide a method whereby this property may be classified and used for residential development while also allowing flexibility of land use and development standards. Except as expressly stated within the text of this PC (Planned Community) ordinance, all applicable provisions and requirements of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Law shall apply. SECTION]. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BROADMOOR PACIFIC VIEW Type Area Acres D.U. /acre Low Density 1 45.9 Res. Dwelling Unit Park 2 2.5 Natural Open 3 1.6 Space 96 D.U. Per/D.U. Ponulation 175 3.6 630 TOTAL 50.00 175 3.6 630 SEC:170N 11. GENERAL An estimated total population of 630 persons is anticipated for the planning area. This figure has been used in estimating the need for community facilities. Schouls The community of Pacific View falls within the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. In an effort to anticipate the maximum number of school students to be generated by the total community, the highest student per unit factor was applied. The following figures represent a projected total student enrollment based upon anticipated numhers ordwelling units to be constructed. AREA 1 NEWPORT -MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Rccrcation Private park and open space areas totaling approximately 2.5 acres are proposed to serve; the recreational needs of Broadmoor Pacific View. In addition, a natural open space area has been provided in the north portion of the project area. 3 G;' Students/ Dwelling Type Dwelling Unit Units Students Elementary (k -5) .55 175 96 Junior High (6 -8) .30 175 53 Senior High (9-12) 35 175 61 TOTAL 210 Rccrcation Private park and open space areas totaling approximately 2.5 acres are proposed to serve; the recreational needs of Broadmoor Pacific View. In addition, a natural open space area has been provided in the north portion of the project area. 3 G;' All private open and recreational areas within the development boundaries will be maintained by 'a private community association established by and consisting of homeowners within the subject development. Uniform Building Code No portion of this text withstanding, all construction within this Planned Community shall comply with the regulations of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Newport Beach, SECTION 111. DEFINITIONS The following definitions refer to the permitted uses described in the Development Standards contained in this ordinance: Conventional Subdivision on a Planned Community A conventional subdivision of detached dwellings and their accessory structures on individual lots where the lot size may be less than the required average for the district, but where the density for the entire subdivision meets the required standards and where open space areas are provided for the enhancement and utilization of the overall development. SECTION IV. LOW DENSTI'Y RESIDENTIAL A. Permitted Uses 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Conventional subdivisions and conventional subdivisions on a Planned Community concept. 3. Parks, playgrounds, recreation or open space and green areas, riding, hiking, and bicycle trails and related facilities or a non - commercial nature. 4. Accessory buildings, structures, and uses where related and incidental to a permitted use. 5. One (1) on -site unlighted sign, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, to advertise the lease, rental or sale of the property upon which it is located. Such sign may show only the name, address and the phone number of the owner, but shall not show the name, address, telephone number of any other description or identification of any person, firm or corporation other than the owner of-aid property. 6. Two (2) permanent community identification signs. Such signs may be lighted and may show only the name of the community. 7. One street identification sign at the entrance of each street. Such signs may show the street name, house numbers and owner's name. S. Conmtunity, recreational facilities and structures, subject to the development standards contained in Section V. Community Facilities, ofthis ordinance. -R) B. Area Per Dwelling A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet shall be provided. However, an average area of 8,000 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit except as approved by a use permit for cluster development- For the purpose of this section, average area per dwelling shall he defined as the average of all developed areas (to include parks, recreational and permanent open space) exclusive of all areas reserved for vehicular rights -of -way not including private driveways divided by the total number of dwelling units. C. Maximum Building Height All buildings ishall comply with the restrictions established by the 24128 foot height limitation disdict. D. Setbacks fronn cts The followin� minimum setbacks shall apply to all dwelling structures (not to include garden walls Ir fences) adjacent to streets. Said setbacks are to be measured from the curb line. Setback from Street Designation Curb Tine Local Access Street 5' Local Non - Access Collector Street 10' Garages shall conform to the building setback requirements above except that front facing garage setback shall be as follows: B. 1) Where a sidewalk exists, the setback shall be 3 feet or a minimum of 20 feet, measured from' the back of walk. 2) Where no sidewalk exists, the setback shall be 5 leet or a minimum of 20 feet, Measured from back of curb. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the project, a final setback map shall be submi6d to the Community Development Director indicating the setbacks to all building areas ,proposed in the development. The Community Development Director shall review said mdp and all future modifications of the setbacks shown on this map in view of setbacks listed to this ordinance and/or sound planning principles and shall either approve, moth , dis ve the setbacks shown or re er�It to matter to the Planning Commission for a determination. In the case of modilicalion or disapproval, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission lbr further consideration. All setbacks Listed under this subsection refer to all property lines not affected by Subsection D above. Dwellings may orient towards the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions. 4 -1 Rear or Front Yard The building setback on the view side shall be a minimum of three (3) feet from the top of the slope. The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the toe of the slope. The street and view side setbacks shall be established on the approved site plan. Side Yard A zero side yard setback between the structure and the lot line shall be permitted on one side provided there are no openings on the zero side yard wall and that a total of ten (10) feet shall be provided between structures. F. Fences, Hedges, and Walls Fences shall be limited -to a maximum height of eight (8) feet and are allowed within all setback areas, except in the street side and view side setback where a maximum height of three (3) feet shall be maintained. The maximum height of fences within the view side setback may be increased to six (6) feet provided they are or wrought iron, clear glass or other open type constriction. . G. Trellis. Open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the property line in the side yard, except that such trellis structures may extend to one (1) foot from the side property line provided they are fire resistant construction in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The maximum height of the trellis shall be eight (S) feet These areas shall not to be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, trellis areas shall not exceed 20 percent of the remaining open space of a developed lot. Trellis and beam construction shall be so designed as to provide a minimutn of 50 percent of the total trellis area as open space for the penetration of light and area to areas which it covers. H. Parking Parking for residential uses shall be in the form of not less than two (2) garage spaces and two (2) uncovered guest spaces per dwelling unit. Guest parking may be located on street or off street. Cluster development guest parking shall be as required by a use permit. I. Maximum Site Area Coveraee For aggregate building coverage, the maximum shall be 50 percent of any lot. For the purpttse of this ordinance, coverage shall include all areas under roof, but shall not include trellis areas. I A_ rchitectural Features 1. Architectural features, including fireplaces, balconies, bay windows, cornices and eaves, may extend to two and one -half (2 -1f2) feet into any front, or rear yard setback. These architectural features may extend to one (1) foot from the side yard property line 42, except that such architectural features may extend to the side property line provided they are fire protected in acenrdance with the requirements of the City of Newport Reach, and that a minimum of four (4) feet separation is maintained from similar projections or structures on an adjacent lot. 2. Uncovered balconies, decks, patios, walls or railings to a height of four (4) feet above the pad elevation may project a maximum of eleven (11) feet into the view side setback of a maximum of eight (8) feet beyond the top of slope adjacent to the unit, only on approximately 20% of the lots as indicated on the Setback Map. Each balcony, deck, patio, wall or railing shall be selected from one of three standard designs submitted by the developer and shall in each case be subject to the approval of the Modification Committee. SECTION V. COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The following regulations apply to the development of private community recreational facilities. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans, elevations and any other such documents deemed necessmy by the Community Development Developer shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Developmem Director. A. Permitted Uses The following uses, provided they are in conjunction with private community recreational facilities and not commercial in nature, shall be allowed. 1. Parks, play grounds, tennis courts, pool, recreation or open green areas, riding, hiking and bicycle trails and related facilities. 2. Accessory buildings, structures and uses related and incidental to a permitted use. 3. Signs identifying or giving directions to permitted. uses and facilities. No sign shall exceed thirty-five (35) square feet in area. B. Maximum Building Heieltt All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for the 24128 foot height limitation district. C. Setbacks Twenty -five (25) feet from all residential property lines, and ten (10) feet from any strectside property lines. No structure shall be located closer to a residential structure on an adjacent site than a. distance equal to twice the height of the non - residential building. The height of the non - residential structure above the grade elevation of the residential site shall apply. Structures which abut a park, greenbelt or other pennanent open space may abut the common property lines. 4) D. l.andscanine A minimum of ten (10) feet (depth) of continuous landscaping shall be maintained adjacent to all street or highway rights -of -way in the community recreational facilities area, except for perpendicular access driveways and pedestrian walkways. Landscaping shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height within ten (10) feet of an intersection or access drive. E. Parkin Parking for twelve (12) vehicles shall be provided within the Community Recreational Facilities area. location of said parking is subject to review of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review said facilities and require the amount of off -street parking deemed appropriate, relative to the intended use and activities of such facilities. 1-1,. 1 EXHIBIT 5 .t, 4(o PLANNED COWTUNI ITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS BROADMIOOR PACIFIC VLEW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: RAUB, BM". FROST & ASSOCIATES 1401 Quail Street Newport Beach,. California 92663 Octobar 23, 1975 Revised and Approved January 12, 19.76 FUME �--m Uub Y 00 W)T M'1107E 47 H '--9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION � I SECTION I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 2 SECTION R GENERAL 2 SECTION ILI DEFINITIONS 3 SECTION IV LOW DENSITY RESIDENTL4L 3 Subsection A Permitted Uses 3 Subsection B Kinimum Lot Size q Subsection C Maximum Building Height q Subsection D Setbacks from Streets q Subsection E Setbacks from Property Lines I Subsection F Fences, Hedges and Walls 5 Subsection G Tr�U ;s 5 Subsection H Packing 5 ' Subsection I Maximum Site Area Coverage 5 Subsection J Architectural Features 6 SECTION V COMMUNITY .RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 6 Subsection A Permitted Uses 6 Subsection B Maximum Building Height 6 Subsection C Setbacks 6 Subsection D Landscaping 7 Subse�Aion E Parking 7 H '--9 The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District within the Citv of Newport Beach has been prepared in acco °dance with Amendment No. 18 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1975, to urovide low density - esidential development within a 50 -acre parcel -being subdivided from the Pacific View Memorial Park The purpose of this PC (Planned Community) District is to provide a method whereby this property may be classified and used for residential develop- ment while also allowing flexibility of lard use and development standards. Except as expressly stated within tiie text of this PC (Planned Community) ordinance, all applicable provisions andrequirements of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Law shall apply. 1 I _q SECTION I. STATISTIC_ L ANALYSIS BROADMOOR PACIFIC VIEW Type Area Acres D.U./acre D.U. Per /D. 7. Population Low Density 1 45.9 175 3.6 630 Res Park 2 2.5 Natural Open Space 3 1,6 . TOTAL 50.0 175 3.6 630 S13CTIO-N It. GENERAL An estimated total population of 030 persons is anticipated for the planning area. This figure has been used in estimating the need for community facilities. Schools The eommuni!yof Pacific View falls within the Nets port -Mesa Unified School District. :•: an effort to anticipate the maximum number of school students to be generated by the total ^ommurdty, the highest student per unit factor was applied. The following figures represent a projected total student enrollment based upon anticipated numbers of dwelling units to be constructed. AREA 1 NEWPORT -MESA '.3N[FLED SCHOOL DfSTRICT Students / Dwelling Type Dwelling Unit Units Students Elementary (k -5) .55 175 96 Junior, High (6 -6) .30 175 53 Senior High (9 -12) .35 .I75 61 TOTAL 210 Recreation Private park and open space areas totaling approximately 2.5 acres are proposed to serve the recreational needs of the 'residents of Broadmoor Pacific View. In addition, a. natural open space area has been provided in the north portion of the project area. All private open and recreational areas within the development boundaries will be maintained by a private community association established by and consisting of homeowners within the subject development. 2 t� (� Uniform Building Code _ No portion of this text wiLhstanding, all consti- ceion within this Planned Community shall comply with the rEgulation� of the Uuiform Building Code as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. SECTION III. DEFINYPIONS The following definitions refer to the permitted uses described in the Develop- ment Standards contained in this ordinance: 1. Conventional Subdivision on a Planned Community Concept A conventional subdivision of detached dwellings; and their accessory structures on individual lots where the lot size may be lass than the required average for the district, but where the density for the entire subdivision meets the required standards and where open space areas are pzovided for the enhancementan.d utilization of the overall develop- ment. SECTION IV. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL A. Permitted Uses 1. Single family detached dwellings. 2. Conventional subdivisions and conventional subdivisions on aPlaruted Community concept. Tw 3. Parks, playgrounds, recreation or open space and green areas,• riding, hiking, and bicycle trails and related facilities of a oon- commmercial nature. h. Acccessory buildings, structures, and uses where related and in- cidental to a permitted -use. 5. One 11) onsile unlighted sig-a, not exceeding two (2) square feet in a! ea, to advertise the lease, rental or sale of the property upon which it is located. Such sign may show only the name, address and the phone number of the owner, but shall not show the nacre. address, telephone number or any other description or identifica- tion of any person, firm or corporation other then the owner, of said property. 6. Two(2) permanent community identification signs. Such signs may be lighted and may show only the name of the community. 4. One street identification sign at the entrance of each street. Itch signs may show the street name, house numbers, and owt.ers name. S. Community recreational facilities and structure3, subject to the development standards contained in Section V, Community Facilities, ® of this ordinance. 3 B. Area Per Dwelling A minimum lot size of 4. 500 square feet shall be provided. Hocv,:ver, an average area of 8, 000 square feet shall be provided for each dwel- ling unit except as approved by a use permit for cluster development. For the purpose of this section, 'average area per dwelling shall be defined as the average of all developed areas (to include parks, recre- -ational and permanent open spat&) excl'.isive of all areas reserved for vehicular rights -of -way not including individual private driveways divided by the total number of dwelling units. C. Maximum Building Height All buildings shallcomply with the restrictiins established by the 24(28 foot height limitation district. D. Setbacks from Streets The following minimum setbacks shall apply to,all dwelling structures (not to include garden malls or fences) adjacent to streets. Said set- backs are to be measured from the curb line. Setback from Street Designation Curb Line Local Access Street 5: Local Non- Access Collector Street to, Garages shall conform to -he building setback requirements above ex- cept that front facing garage setbacks shall be r s foHacrs: 1) Where a sidewalk exists, the setbrrk shall be 3 feet or a minimum of 20 feet, measured from the back of walk. 2) Where no sidewalk exists, the setback shall be S feet or a mintmuin of 20 feet, measured from back of curb. .Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the .project, a final setback map shall be submitted to the Community Development Director indicating 'lie setbacks to all building areas proposed in the development. The Community Development Director shall review said map and all future modifications of the setbacks shown on this map in viewof setbacks listed in this ordinanceand {or sound planning principles and shall either approve, modify, disapprove the setbacks shown, or refer the matter to the Planning Commission foe a determination. In the case of modification or disapproval, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Comtniscion for further consideration. E. Setbacks from Property Lines All setbacks listed under this subsection refer to all property lines not affected by Subsection D above. Dwellings may orient towards the opposite property line in v ^der to take advantage of view conditions. ti 4 4=7,) Rear or Front Yard The builclirg setback on the view side shall be a minimum of three (3) feet from the top of slope. The rear yard Setback for nonview lots shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the toe of slope. The street and view side setbacks shall be established on the approved site plan. Side Yard A zero side yard setback between the structure and the lot line shall be permitted on one side provided there are no openings on toe zero side yard wall and that a total of ten (101 feet shall be provided between structures. F. Fences, fledges, and W4 Us Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet and are allowed within all setback areas, except in the street side and view side setback cohere a ma'c muaa height of three (3) feet shall be main- tained. ':he maximum height of fences within the view side setback may be increased to six (61 feet provided they are of wrought iron, clear glass, or other open type construction_ G. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction shall bepermitted[o extend from the dwe.ing to within three (3) feet of the property line in the side yard, except that such trellis strictures may extend m one (1) foot from the side property line provided they are fire resistant construction in ac- cordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The maximu'.n height of the trellis shall be eight (8) feet. These areas shall notbe considered in calculating lot area coverage: however, trellis areas shalt not exceed 20 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 area to areas which it covers. 1-1. parking Parking for residential uses shall be in the form of no: than two (2) gavage spaces and two (2) uncovered guest spaces per dwelling unit. Guest parking may be Located onstreet or offstreet. Cluster develops ent guest parking shall be as required by a use permit. 1. Maximum Ste ftrea Coverage For aggregate building coverage, the maximum shall be 5G percent of any Lot. For the purpose of this ordinance, coverage shall include all areas under roof, but shall not include trellis areas. T. Architectural Features - 1. Architectural features, including fireplaces, balconies, bay win- dows, cornices and eaves, may extend to two and ona -half (2 -1 /2) feetintoanyfroni, or rear yard setback. These architectural features may extend to one (I) foot from the side yard property line except that such architectural features may extend to the side properly line provided they are fire protected in accordance with the reouirs- ments of the City of Newport Beach, and that a min.mum of four (4) feet separation is maintained from similar projections or stric- tures on an adjacent lot. 2. Uncovered balconies, decks, patios, walls or railings to a height of four (4) feet above the pad elevation may project a maximum of eleven (11) feet into the view side setback of a marimum of eight i0) feet beyond the top of slope adjacent to the unit, only on approxi- mately 2010 of the lots as indicated on the Setback Map. Each balcony, deck, patio, wall or railing sha' be selected from one of three standard designs submitted by the developer and shall in each case be subject to the approval of the Modification Committee.. SECTION V. COW.LMUNITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The following regulations apply to the development of private community recreational facilities. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans. elevations and any other such documents deemed necessary by the Community Development Director shall besubject to the review andapproval of the Community Development Director. A. Permitted Uses The following uses, provided they are in conjunction withprivate com- murdty recreational facilities and not commercial in nature, shall be allowed: 1. Parks, play grounds, tennis courts, pool, recreation or open green areas, riding, hiking and bicycle trails and related facilities. 2. -Accessory buildings, structures and uses related and incidental to a permitted use. 3. Signs idertif yir. .gor giving directions topermitted uses and facilities. No sign shall exceed thirty -five (35) square feet in area. B. iWaximuri 3uilding fleight All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for the 24128 foot height limitation district. C. Setba-.ks Twenty -five (25) .feet from all residential properly lines, and ten (10) feet from any streetside property lines. No structure shall be located closer to a residential structure on an adjacent site than a distance i equal to twice ,the height of the non - residential building. The height of the nua- residential structure above the grade elevation of the residen- tial site shallapply. Structures which abut a park, greenbelt or other permanent open space may abut the common property lines. D. Landscaping A minimum of ten (10) feet (depth) of continuous laudscaning shall be maintained adjacent to all street or highway rights -of -way in the com- munity recreational facilities area, except for perpendicular access driveways and pedestrian walkways. Landscaping shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height within ten (10) feet of an intersection or access drive. E. Parkin Parking for twelve (12) vehicles shall be provided within the Community Recreational Facilities area. Locatinn of said puking in subjtcl to review of the Community Development Director. The Conununity Development Director shall review said facilities and require the amount of offstreet parking deemed appropriate, relative to the intended use and activities of such facilities, W �a J Mm— 'I—, f D a s t T vw "'M - "I ean fi SECTOR 4 0 HARBOR 3 VIEW HILLS y SPYGLASS SPYGLASS r HILL HILL Nl4s Pg11EW m EMOAP IA ANY ARK RES, BAY W0 D A TS PAC%f%' UP- do"QUIN MILLS 0 LEGEND 17-1 LOW MEDIUM. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL' wo low MOEM3 PARK :0 AREA EEM OPEN 3PACe AREA RESERVOl—, BROADMOCIR PACIFIC VIEW -"Ti LAND USE r�' " - 'J(D EXHIBIT 6 ,�-5 - C3 Page 1 of 2 Jamie and Pat White From: Murillo, Jaime ]JMurillo @newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:01 PM To: Jamie and Pat White Subject: RE: The Broadmoor Pacific ViewPC (Panned Community) District Amendment No. 18 Jamie, It was a pleasure meeting with you today. As we discussed, the Broadmor Pacific View PC sets forth the development standards for a new development in your community. With regard to side year setbacks, the PC is extremely flexibility and doesn't have a minimum side yard setback requirement, with the exception that buildings must maintain a minimum 10 -foot separation. The Building Code does not specify required setbacks, but rather regulates the type of construction and allowances for opening depending on how close the structure is to the property line. I would advise you to speak with a Building Department Engineer for further details on the Building Code. With regard to your CC &R's, the City does not regulate or enforce CC &R's and we are not a party to the HOA easements. I hope this information is helpful. Thanks, Jaime J,a,IRIE N4URILLO t: Ty orr i4EAivr"OR- BEACH P (09A,0�) JL- 4-3='09 i- 4-�949) 6- 441:-352=1 Y'Pfjl'TP- c- ACHGA.GGn" From- Jamie and Pat White [mailto:p2jwhite @cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:24 PM To, Murillo; Jaime Subject: The Broadmoor Pacific ViewPC (Panned Community) District Amendment No. 18 I Mr. Murillo, I would appreciate your comments regarding the above sited PC. This email will delineate my questions which I would like to review with you tomorrow In our 10:00 AM meeting. The reason for my request is that our neighbor, Mr. McConaughy, is proposing a room addition to which we are opposed for reasons regarding side yard setback and blocking of view. Therefore: 1. In Section II. General a paragraph is entitled Uniform Building Code and indicates that all construction within this PC shall comply with UBC as adopted by the City of NB. With respect to side yard setbacks I would like to understand if the UBC sets any side yard setback standards in a residential neighborhood_ 2- In Section IV. Low Density Residential paragraph E. Setbacks from Property Lines, the only reference to side yard setback is where it talks about a zero side yard setback between the structure and the lot line on one side provided that there are no openings on the zero side yard wall and that a total of fen (10) feet shall be provided between structures. This is very inconsistent with the development because every house in this development originally had a door in the side of the house which is referred to as the zero lot line 9/9/2010 Page 2 of 2 side. In fact there is no zero lot line in this development. Please refer to the Broadmoor Seaview Plot Plan PC 1177 and 78 sheet 1. All the sited homes on this sheet and all the other sheets show the property line at a minimum of four feet away from the house on what I refer to the zero side of the house, that being the side where the only opening Is a door the purpose of which was to provide fire aggress from an atrium which is typical in each house. The Supplementary Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions grant to each house next to another house a 4 foot easement for the purpose of landscaping. Thus the PC has no clear definition of what the setback is allowed to be on the other side of the house. All this brings us to the question of who has the authority and responsibility to establish the setback from the lot line on the other side of a house from the "zero side ", understanding that in fact there is no zero side. I hope this email allows you to prepare for our meeting tomorrow. Thank you: James White 9/9/2010 G0 EXHIBIT 7 (�:lI 6--�'? �7� "� EXHIBIT 8 6 66 James and Patricia White 2003 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 759 -1434 Date: October 26, 2010 To: City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Mr. Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Re: The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District Amendment No. 18 Dear Mr. Alford, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Seaview documents with us last Friday. We appreciate your input. This letter is to ask for clarification and confirmation of our interpretation of "The Broadmoor Pacific View PC (Planned Community) District Amendment No. 18, adopted by the City Council on July 18, 1975, refereed to in this letter as the PC. If you find a difference to our interpretation, which is stated in the final paragraph to this letter, please provide the documents that support your position. I have understood that if we do not agree with the opinion of your staff we may request a full Planning Commission hearing. I will refer in this letter to our community as Seaview. I wish to emphasize, our goal is to find the facts as they may be determined by whatever documents that exist. This should certainly be able to be accomplished with the assistance of RBF Consultants, the successor to the engineering company of Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates, that prepared the documents and your staff. It will be helpful to refer to both the Plot Plan dated 1 -3 -77 and the PC as you read through this letter. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for Broadmoor Sea View made September 13, 1976 and recorded in the county records on September 14, 1976 are referred to in this letter as the "CC & R's ". Article VII of the CC & R's, states that any changes of various kinds in Seaview, "shall not be inconsistent with those certain Planned Conurnmity District Regulations, Broadmoor Pacific View, City of Newport Beach, California prepared by Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates, dated October 23, 1975, revised and approved January 12, 1976 ", thereby creating the zoning standards and regulations by which future improvements to Seaview may be made. The Planned Cominunity District Regulations referred to in the CC & R's is, I believe, an amendment to the original PC. The issues that we are trying to clarify are setbacks and rights to views. I understand that the City does not get into view issues and, therefore, it will be satisfactory that you only address the setback issue. The PC discusses setbacks in Section IV, Subsections D and E. There is some additional information in Subsection F that may be relevant to our request. Our review of the PC is as follows: Subsection D. Setbacks for Streets. This subsection specifies the setbacks from streets. It also includes as the final paragraph the following: "Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of the project, a final setback map shall be submitted to the Community Development Director indicating the setbacks to all building areas proposed in the 6-7 development'. Use of the words "building areas" in the quoted sentence above indicates to me that there is a map showing the building envelope into which a building may be built or possibly a site or plot plan showing the actual footprint of each home. In fact there is such a map and it is entitled, Broadmoor Seaview Plot Plan for Tract No. 9047, dated 1 -3 -77, and referred to in this letter as the Plot Plan. This is certainly the map that Broadmoor submitted to the city prior to the issuance of building permits and it shows the setbacks for each house from all the property lines. In the absence of any other map showing the "building areas ", one must conclude that this Plot Plan for Seaview, dated 1 -3 -77 is the Plot Plan for tine Phase in which our home is built and is the map referred to in the above quoted sentence that was required to be submitted before the issuance of building permits. Subsection E. Setbacks from Property Lines. Subsection E begins with the sentence, "All setbacks listed under this subsection refer to all property lines not affected by Subsection D above ". Since Subsection D deals only with the setbacks from the street it can be concluded that Subsection E will specify setbacks from all the other property lines. The next sentence, "Dwellings may orient towards the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions" raises the question of what is meant by "the opposite property line." The houses all have a blank side, meaning that there are no windows in the wall of that side of the house; like you would find in a zero lot line development, except Seaview is not a zero lot line development. In fact there is a door on this blank wall to provide fire code egress from bedrooms or an atrium. The property line on this side of each house in Seaview is a minimum of 4 feet away from the blank wall of the house. This is sometimes referred to as the zero side. As you know, the neighbor on the blank wall side of the house has an easement allowing him to landscape the area between the property line and the blank wall of the house. Since it would make no sense to orient the blank side of the house, which has no windows, towards the opposite property line to take advantage of a view, it is conclusive that the opposite property line is that line which is nearest the windows side of the house, thereby affording the house a particular view that was deemed valuable by the original developer. This opposite property line occurs between two houses -that face each. Refer to the Plot Plan for additional clarity. Notice the zero or blank wall side verses the window side of the ]rouse, and again the window side of the house is the side in closest proximity to what is called the opposite property line. All the property lines around a house are addressed directly in Subsection E. except the setback from the opposite property line. The opposite property line is between two houses that face each other and are at the end of the cul -de -sac. The houses were oriented on the lot to take advantage of a view and each lot and its related house are unique as to the view and floor plan and therefore it would have been impractical to assign a one size fits all setback distance. Rather these setbacks are delineated on the approved site plan that was required to be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. The paragraph referred to in the paragraph 1 of this letter which starts with the words, "Prior to the issuance of....." indicates that the setbacks to all building areas can be found on a final setback map. The only map which shows setbacks to all property lines is the Plot Plan. So it must be concluded that the setback from the opposite property line can only be found oil the Plot Plan because of the unique character and view of each of these lots. If one were to purchase a house that had a view and where most houses were 10 feet apart and a particular lot at the end of the cul -de -sac had a lot of open space between the houses because the houses had been oriented to take advantage of a view across their common property line; where would one find the definitive protection of the open space and the view afforded by the orientation of the house on the lot and it's specific setback from the opposite property line? That assurance can only be found on the Plot Plan and the Plot Plan is the only map known to exist that specifies all the property line setbacks for each particular lot. Subsection E goes on to describe "Rear or Front Yard" setbacks. Most of the houses in Seaview, as can be seen from the Plot Plan have garages which orient towards to street. When the house is built on top of a slope, the yard at the end of the house opposite from the street is called the view side and therefore the view side property line. When the house is built at the bottom of a slope that same yard is called the rear yard and therefore the property line is called the rear property line. Subsection E clearly specifies the building setbacks required from the top and toe of the slopes for these view and rear yards. The next item is Side Yard. In this paragraph is discussed a side yard setback of zero with the stipulation that the buildings be 10 feet apart. Since there is no circumstance in Seaview where the property line is in the same place as the blank side building wall, it is hard to see what this paragraph means except that buildings must be 10 feet apart. In fact all the houses in Seaview have a setback from this side yard property line that is a minimum of 4 feet. 2. Subsection F. Fences, Hedges, and Walls. This subsection specifies that fences can only be 3 feet high in the view side setback. This substantiates the theory that views are protected across a common property line with the neighboring house. In conclusion the PC clearly states that the setbacks from all property lines are contained in the PC document and an approved site plan. Since the Plot Plan is the only known document that delineates the setbacks from all the property lines it must be concluded that it is the map referred to in the PC. I look forward to your official written opinion of the setbacks from property lines that are described in the PC. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. _Yo EXHIBIT 9 �rr 72 ' .: .: PLANNING DEPARTMENT F0 November 2, 2010 James White 2003 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Interpretation of Broadmoor Pacific View PC Text Setback Regulations Dear Mr. White, In response to your letter dated October 26, 2010, 1 have investigated the issue of the establishment of setbacks in the Broadmoor Pacific View Planned Community. At issue is whether setbacks were established by an "approved site plan" referenced in Section IV, Subsection E of the PC text remains in effect. More specifically, is whether the side setbacks were established by this site plan and remain in effect. After reviewing the project files, I have concluded that only the front and rear were established by a setback map. I have based this conclusion on the following facts: A Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 1975, states that "[ilnstead of establishing traditional front and rear setbacks, the applicant is proposing to establish street -side setbacks and view -side setbacks. The applicant has prepared a specific setback plan which will establish these setbacks for each lot." There is no mention of side setbacks. • The setback map was approved by the then - Community Development Director as provided for in Section IV, Subsection D of the PC text, only front and rear setbacks were identified (see attached). Based on this information, I can only conclude that the "street and view side setbacks" in Section IV, Subsection E refer to the front and rear setbacks, respectively, and not the side setbacks. Please feel free to contact me at 949 -644 -3225 or PAlfordCcDnewportbeachca.gov if you have any questions. Sire Patrick J. Alford Planning Manager 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 /`S Telephone: (949) 644 -3200 • Fax: (949) 644 -3229 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us -H EXHIBIT 10 -/5 v Y r pn g AIR 0 0 �n EXHIBIT 11 /11 80 a �..n. EXHIBIT 12 8t 3 Ali ?IiS 117' 73, 411 WO e-- 25 ��a EXHIBIT 13 9l �8 �::4:.� �;> �j EXHIBIT 14 qI 92, (W�.;J i-Jr EXHIBIT 15 011,5 qG 67 x I 2 0 0 C I � wi s 1r Lo Cst a$R � g IT ,d. All_, Frf - -2 1 s; EXHIBIT 16 10-- / lab M, lywOrNmi November 9, 2010 James White 2003 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Broadmoor Pacific View PC Text Side Setback Regulations Dear Mr. White, At our meeting on Thursday, November 4, 2010, you requested a formal interpretation of the side setback required by Section IV, Subsection E of the Broadmoor Pacific View Planned Community (PC) text. Specifically, you wanted.to know what the minimum side setback is from the side property line opposite the zero side setback property line. Upon further review of the PC text, I have concluded that the side setback could be zero (0) feet, provided a minimum of ten (10) feet is provided between structures. I know this is not the answer that you wanted to hear. However, in regards to side yards, Section IV, Subsection E of the PC text states: Side Yard A zero side yard setback between the structure and the lot line shall be permitted on one side provided there are no openings on the zero side yard wail and that a total of ten (10) feet shall be provided between structures. Development in Broadmoor Pacific View is permitted a 0 -foot side setback as long as a minimum of ter! (10) feet is maintained between structures. Beyond that, the PC text is silent in regards to side setbacks. Therefore, I do not have the authority to impose additional setback requirements. Please feel free to contact me at 949 - 644 -3210 or JCampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov if you have any questions. Sincerel 'j, mp James Campbell Acting Planning Director 109 m EXHIBIT 17 112. v, O .>b MI SHEET —L_ OF SHEETS TRACT N °- 9260 (POP.'ICN SEMI TRACE NO. 904]) 24648 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. _ A 3;3e N' 9]H .-. BEING A PORTION TF M"OCK9 92 $ NF CO IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, OnEY AS SHCNI!cON A MAP RE'IRLFL N SOUP!, PAC= 88 OF Mi$CE"AR.CUi P.ECORLMAFE,P, -:(MS OF GRAIiSE COUNTY, NAUaWCAu YU :l CALIFORNIA. I.MD�GPLYLEtaxy Pawd�' FN FEBRUARY, 19T6 22.049 ACRES 70 LOTS AND LOTS A- J,INCLUSIVE WILLIAM J. FROST L.5 3109 WE THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ALL PARTIES HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INVEREST IN THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP, WHEREBY CONSEMTTO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF SAID MAP." SHOWN WITHIN THE COLORED BORDEN LINE ANO WE HEREBY OFFER FOR C- DICATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN EASEMENT IN AND OVER LOTS A,3A,D,E,F,G,HJAND J AS SXDWN FOR U EAWNCYANO PU3LIC SECURRY INGRESS APO EGRESS AND PUI UTILITY PURPOSES: THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWNI THE DOMESTIC WATF0.015TRI0JTION SYSTEM AND APPURTENgNC =S AND TH° SFA'FACBLLECTION SYSTEMAND APPURTENANCES LOCATED WITHIN SAID LETTERED LOTS AND EASEMENTS' ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO SAM [DUEL ORWE,EXCEAT AT StREET INTERSECTION. BROADM )OR HOMES, /NC, a corporoPion. GLENN H. 9RENGLE 5, EEl9 GUSENT E%EC'JTIVE VICE PRE51]ENY VICE PRESCIENT FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORA'ION,TRUETEE UNDER CEECEOFTRUST RECORDED IN BOOK II612, PAGE 1624 OF B.R., b-/D /N BcoK /1732, ODE /633 CF O.R. . 1 VICE RES ICE T ASZ� T 9 -c my STATE OF CALIFURMA) 65 COUNTY OF 'ORANDS .I ', ON THIE.S_0AY Qly, L_,19i6, BEFORE IIE,I_ A ,VOTARY PUBLIC 'JJ YYp FOR SAID (AUNTY AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED GLEAN H GPENGLE INCWN TO ME TO BE THE -RAT N- NLE ?RESIDENT ANJ fl'10 6'!AF ON 'µOIYN TO ME T9 BE THE VILE PRENvIOENT CF BMIAC.V.00R X0.1!ACS. INC.. A CORPORATION. THE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE VIITHIN USTRUMENT AND KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE PERSONS WXO EXECUTED TPE WITH. NSTAIDEM ON BEHALF BF LRMEIN RAYON HEREIN NAMED AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH CORPORATION EXECUTED THE SAME. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL: nn AT CUNN ... N SW,AES..�1> NMARV PUBLIC I TA E. - —1 SAID COUNTY AND STATE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5 E COUNTY OF ORANGE c3 ON THS -C L15 OF 'l',1976, BEFORE MP All"ll /F IEN- A NOTARY PJBLIC IN AND FOR SAD COUNTY AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED 2c .1 C 7—,Y1 KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE Rrt� PRESIDEM, AND LO So-u'iN __, KNOWN TO ME TO BE iNE SArn[+u <., OF FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INEVRANCE COMPA NY THE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE WIITHIN INEENTA + AND KNOWN T O NE M BE THE PERSONS WHO EXECUTED THE NTFH INSTRUMENT SIRUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HAREM NAMED AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT SUCH CORPORATION EXECUTED THE SAME A SCILS REPORT DATED DECEMBER. 2, 1975, WAS PREPARED BY ALBERT R. KLEIST, R.C.E. 16351. LL WILLIAM J. FROST, 00 HERESYCERTIFY THAT! A" LICENSED I ANDSURVEYCR 1 NO 31") OF THE STATE OF CALI FORMA, THAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF B19 IN FEBRUARY IWH'ICHE17 CLRBOOTLE REPRESENTS WERE 20TH MART BT' E DA UNDER MV OIRSECT- ION; THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE CFMECHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS IN9CATl , OR WILL BE SET IN SUCH POSITIONS WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPHBVYMENTS; AND THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. WILLIAM .IN C T, L.S.31pE I, BENJAMIN B. NOLAN . CRYENGINERIBFTHECITYO /FNEWPORT BEACH. ORANGE COUNTY, GLIFORYIA, W HEREBY CERTIFY THAT [ HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP ANOHAVE FOUND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SANE AS THE TENTATIVE MAP AS FI LEO WITH, MENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION! THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAPACT AND CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HAVE GE-EM COMPLIED WITH, AND I AM SATISFIED SAID MAP 19 TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED THIS (fL OAY OF ✓ F✓_CLFLF .19>6. BENJAMIN B..YDLAN,CITY ENGINE R R.LP.:2G06 AT' p .11111H T PCIPM, ANCE .I A, 1, W.E, ST JOHN. COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COUNTY, 00 HERESY CERTIFY TO THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIEDWITX REGARDING. DEPOSIT S TO SECURE PAYMENT OF TAXES ORSPENAL ASSES NTS COLLECTED AS TAXES GHTNE LANDCMERED RY THIS NA��""F�.� ;/ pATEp. ,'ANN OF L ,19 T6. W.. $T JCXY BYE 1 COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COUNTY p pJTY x 1 n ,n xta'N OOM!S 3-0 RGE , CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 8 E CH PURSUANT TO SECTION Eb4MYJP I) U OATEN TH :5 /=+DAY OF JUNE 971. .1 C.UPASNA ... ll A, xx I, ROBERT L. CITRON, COUNTY TAX COLLECOR- TREASURER OF ORANGE ME NO LIENS AGAINST THE THAT LAND SEAM WITHIN THE COLORED BORDER OFFICE ON TT 11 MAP OR My PART THEREOF FOR UNPAID SAT E, CJ'JNTY OR CITY TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COOpLLECT =O AS TAXES, EXLE PT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLS:TEV AS DATED THIIS�"PDAY OF -T^�p ,1976, PAYABLE, (� / ,1 ROBERT I. CITRON By' // A.pmlln „� COUNTY TAX 1O11ECTOR- TREASL9EE DEPUTY TAX COLLECTOR EXAMINED AND APPROVED T41S -,''&Y OF 1916. C.R. NELSON BY �� n COONTY SURVEYOR pgPUTy EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THM 4— DAY OF m]6�a SH BY Ex-P O V OOA9 EX- OFFICIO SELRETAR'l SIGNATURE OMISSIONS NOTE FURSUANT TO THE PROVSIONS OF SECTION 6fi4361b (U OF THE S'JBOIVISION MAP ACT, THE FP LOV,9NG SHWATJRES HAVE BEEN OMITTED. THE IRVINE 995A PAGE 5 ?7O BY DEED IN BOOK CALIF'OR N IA,OWNER OF RIGP.T OF IVM FOR EXIST'.NG ROADS Gy0EE05 RECORDED IN 6X.1211, PG 3p OF D.A.ANO IN 3N.240?,PG.4690F0.R. SEE SHEET 6 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, MONUMENT NOTES, BOUNCRY CONTROL MAP AND EASEMENT NOTE. J I' N G9 '11 C.7 �M a: M rn s'or i* a i 3 � lY Gr 9 3 �•� �� '9l6/ Add4dP)/ •M19' S7 1SON! 7' /NN1771M 'N/NYO1 179,.7 !'a JZYZS' m KT,`a .tee �rJNUdO d0 111&,70.9 %/SNJ9 ld/OJ.tf.7N !0, Al /7 7N1 N/ 3TrsmJrir r -d slur) IZ07 az ED0,00 J'JN3dJN 9G5; G i NM ( s v' isvvr �✓�/ rrouW m° Bh9trZ 0926 O N ID V a I �3Hs —o °�=` � „_ t� ,n ^l� my /ro,.,.xmav av •rd<or rmroen ;s �'rRw:euGro rrrlG m/ % / /).:M lit S/ b[W W! o t3NT J)r d1N0 yeJ9d/r9e .u—/ m x a � n'6ia a u av ;,s;;�;:, d;:ura 31y tv J, 1 NPow aT�•, by ,� +yc S4 qt �h c' R� /U4 yE wo � s *��Ai'l°�I'� °1" YV0�1 p^,y I N i I i i 1 Y I ddw rem /YWMV3 ,d '03FON 1NJWANOW 'racirmrerre/rom >tm/? ax ✓NW vwur dvv / ./mar 33f 7 ri>rr�rn Zvi v awr 3,s .vm tiz Y'a k ^x gas :ac af`1 A 1 i n rf / Rio J" 7aNlu luwdA 7- a ,.�M nr4q €'u9a6ll tlNllf _n 8�+9hZ I Y.% jy aiy?is7i' e Is ez. I^ 3 6i i •4fd�4t+ A ry i oaro,eru ^ �` i N �vn 4N .s'q c. n Xz Y �s �N' M y 1A \^ z f�. M r— as $n JJ v` iL �t 11 ax � L� B/ V\ V e b k Are eo��d Acs b / g v N . rnaD x9D ,w -0 b k 1:^141 — .1. AOVtt ,M16 S" 7, 19AVI 7' lily 1771M �\ y7NYa,'17y9 !O -7ly1S' vas x yly0 3AN/lJ B/ V\ V e b k Are eo��d Acs b / g v N . b k 1:^141 ,M16 S" 7, 19AVI 7' lily 1771M �\ y7NYa,'17y9 !O -7ly1S' `g9NyN0 A7 11MVP %79939 -'W. 3N W .(U,7 9#1 Nl 3A /S/J7.7N/ i' -N 0107 ? U07 N ED022 . 39y3y0y 0926 _ «dAd (9d1 ,Nm N�dw, D ID d il 1 o itl91dNU S133HS —So ET J33HS n I i -9 LO s u 69I e 0A ,eta ^,n M�,•" oy %ii�1V �7M ✓3M w -Q pNi�g' ay "EpR ��S 4`! n gw -- < i �m' lry gR rr j1�r I8. ���HS>v M>,.n..>.> '3.,� ^. �S ��•'�� ��� q 0..1 h r'v Gi fy� ! �d 6�' `� II ip°�TU,> b>✓'V _9 �tlf x ..° (r�i 9�1 )e4 A ,r eeii• C — i.A`3ltP rowKn t // d „, �� c i48 Als�,�'b 1r lNJy./� B7, ?Ma VJ T !NU /771of > Y � gt&� at unf g9NUUa /0 A1'f17w %/>N39 lYOd/+1.7N JO '(1/� 9//! Al o[ e 2” R&o 00 u : naupr;y 8,9�z 0926 oN 1:)V111 s S� l;o 31C WO �IM €1 i 1 s� 3 1 (• l I t ,fN ' 'NJ(.M FWawNJ OeY f3lvM � M /� 1 V3JAfM4O %flVA", ? � !M /JON yJNf ll' •, {� I orv°a� 3vv mxnsm HV9n3M 3n l'w �y� "y'S jdl'id zoes�aP �m x.aa ='JV .xiPila G.Y ys' re� -0 Nn1�G,: �crc gym. °e�'o -<j© lecnr N1N0 r lANn9 \ // •• m All/ F /D°t h HI's a \ .✓ /S� '�° -r =� ` � n i byh p W mow, n ° °s �q yz`�, �— _xis} rYS,p n 1Z A5, . I pt p � re_^T.u`8 p4C .F,tt -,arc✓ lN9d�i `� I t YM 'sv'mw�wrnnayssv� LS mnr U /N2'O�'/7!/� d0 d1N16' 7pn%q d0 .l1N/J09 `mgg d0 ,(L7 '711Z N/ d . sut ecs 3yS0)oN/ i'- d 91x1 J ew o[ °.nmww Mir? 0926 o N EDO22 : 3'JN3S'�N 1:) `d 211 alnnana SHEET --L— OF 4 SHEETS DUPLICATE ODMVO. ,,, ,,, 90P)/ Z4648 TRACT N g 9260 70 ACHfH6EY 22083 ZaAf 4' ZECll f IMOIX11f IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE , STATE OF CALIFORNIA. [JUN 1,7�'O` DR, AY91INPI"K &,AlrlfgZ NIV , mulm / fifaw 2s. 3/m, .AI 011 4B A, 'OR 5970/522 \w Jam' A', -^l VO�,�, A Ox / Y6 v k V/ lk IT ".166 4 L V/ CIO Fp S A §01 -F R, 17.1 7 M YAORr COQUETTE .. /. ° / m/ 0 �D 'As� V/ 0 ss'',1, 1,6— zo It A," 12 AV, O"I"gp IF 114A, Y' ,A V"Fz`O,`T) NdNbMfNr Mrlg; FOR, o`O" ��E`Alll 1=1 112 11 ­—Mlhlll AA;z VIA, OMV, 'M,", ,A, . 1161✓1 ll�.11ll . .... . . ...... .M. BASIS OF BEAR /NOS THE ME MIGUEL DRIVE (FORMERLY MACARTAUR 7. "',OZ ORM,,F, A EF. , ..... q ,0 .. . .... qv S L's 3D,.G�EFUGEDIN8COKZiIl, 0 �Al 'NO F�DSSII` R,Uu 22 OFMISCMl ANEOUSMAPS RECORDS OF ORANGE '0 11 I'll I" I'll, COUNTY, GUFORUNIA,VVAC TAKENAS " E GAS 1� OF BEARINGS 'OR THIS P. COP Ga EXHIBIT 18 m 19.0 NQ 290 _ ; ?Lo:D,IE - -_ (FINAL UNFf OF TEM. TRACT N0. 9097) SWAT NAT OF 9 � TRACT N-° 9047 29125 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA as /AEA BEING A PORTION OF KOM OR a 97 OF{RNNE'S SUEOIVIS!ON,AS RLYExt 9NOWN ON A MAP RECORDED BOOK I. FAGS 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS fMPUA RETIRED MPPS, AND LOT C AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF f0.R EM1E TRACT N0. 9260, RECORDED W BOOK 3n, PAGES 32 THROUGH 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. BOTH RECORDS OF ORAM1GE COURTD CALERNATIA w.M .' FEBRUARY, 1976 9nroz 16.129 ACRES 52 LOTS 8 LOTS A -H. INCLUSIVE WILLIAM J. FROST "L.S 3109" RAUB- BEM-FROST 6 ASSOCIATES NE1'EREBi11.1 THESLANE COVEREDLBY T.ISEtiDP A00 HEflEBTRC0C1015CHTT0E THE THE PCCLOREDTBORDER LINE AND WE HEREBY OFFER FOR ARRICATIOW TO THE CITY OF NEWI BEACH AN EASEMENT IN AMC OVER LOTS A9,C•O.EF,GBH UTNATYIF APOSES EMERGENCY N'0 PUBLIC SECMITY IPM1 EAK, I PUNY EA EMEM3V PUBLIC SNWM I TN -c DOMESTIC WATER 015TPI5VTNIN SYBTEM1I AND AIR URTEV' LACES AND THE BELIEF, COLLECTION SYSTEM AM APPURTENANCES LOU.TED WITHIN SAID LETTERED LOTS AND EASEMENTS. BROADMOOR HOMES INC, a corporation. /J _ POLAND F. OSGM67 G REID GUSTAFSON E XEURIVE V,CE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT BpL0�Y0 iiiiii 1'rtDevewrzo t x1 FI mnE x.: < < -sl -.1 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, �-1 BOB, P'NECORPO 1824 E MR. EE V'I RAM KFTRE'll AS P . BOOK Nbl_,PAGE 1820 OF O. R. All ,+ 9oeK 2t, "Al P [ 3 aF o. R. \'ICE 2[S,eW +.S515Tgrv. X<RCmaY STATE OF CAIJFORNIAjIS. COUNTY CRPNGE ON THIS '� U V All / ,INTE, BEFORE A: TPn L AHR A - No ffi,'tY PUEUC ti PNp FOR SAID CO'_ TY AND STP c, PERSONALLY PPPEPfiD RDLPNO F OICONS ANSM, TO FIE TO BE THE E %ELLTNE VICE FREMOENUAND S. REIO O'JSTAPSON KNOYIN TO F'S TO BE TIE LACE PRe510E IT OF SEMLIKI HOMES. IN^.,, A CONFORATON. THE COOPERATION THAT E %EC.,?EO THE WI"MW WSTRLAIENT AM HNCV.T TO ME TO BE THE PERSONS YN.O E %ECJTEI THE V /.THIN INSTRUMETT 01' BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HEREII NAMED AND ACENO'NLEDGEO TO Ni THAT SUCH UNFICRATICN EXECUTED THE SAME. WITNESS AN HAND AND MITTEL SFALI R 4• /^, �V � MY COMMISSION EXPIRESS'9 "1'1 NOTTERY 10.1,1. IN A. FOR ____..�, EPIC COUNTY AND STATE. Of CORPORATION EXEWTED THE SANE. WIT ESS MY HAND AND OFFIC AL SEAL l I.'P6._ .✓ /EL— MY @VMISSION E%PIRES Y' NOTARY PCBLY M I'D FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE. PH IS 1 1 rl \ la h M r /NDI NA SIGNATURE OML .......... ...... . PURSUPTIT T"-`51190NS UP 5ECnaN6H9DfnR OF THE SOOHNI -N NAPATI IRE LIAPPRO I.Ai� : NI IS B:EN - .I-.ID: rc. an or D.I., o1PP9FVOi, i. [ES wax, III., OHIO, I, KNOR R.CONRX .x.1.111", A SOILS REPORT DATED AIIIINBER 2, ITS ADS PREPARED BY ALBEAT R, %LVST,P CI.163SI. WILLIAFI J. FROST. 00 XEREEY CERTIFY THAT !AM LICENSED LAND9URVEYIXi 1 RE. 3109)OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THIS HAP, CONSISTING OF POUR "PER IT TCLRRERLY TRIBE AN. COMPLETE SURVEY MADE IN FEBRUARY 1976. REPRESENTS WERE BOTH MAGE BY ME ON UNDFR MY OAIIC - ION; THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE CFTLE CHARACTER AND OC.UPY THE POSIT SAS INDICATED, OR WILL BE SET IN SUCH POSI TRANS WITHIN LAIN ETY BAD AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF MPROVESC NIS. AND THAT SAID PLENUMS $UFFlCIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED T w:L'JAM I, BENJAMIN ANOLAN CITY ENGINEER 7 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, MANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. M HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I MOVE EXAMINED THIS MAP ENGRAVE FOUND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TENTATVE .NAP AE FI LEG WITH. AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNI HG COMMISSION; THAT LL A POCKS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAPACT AND CITY SUBG V`SION REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND IAM SATISFIED SAID NAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. GATED THIS,alk DAY OF )QLH- 15 J ! �< _ D ENGINE. BENJAMIN 6. NOLAN.CITY ENGINEER 0.C. E. UNTIE 2 as DA .1 XWA.IE E�A7 sz I, W. E. ST JON N, COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COUNTY, 00 HE REST COAKLY TO THE COU NT Y SCOM OCR OF SAD COUNTY THAI THE PROVI SIG NS OF THE EUBOHN SION MAP AC{ HAVE BE EN CO M PL I ED WITH REGARDING DEPOSITS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED A S TAXES ON THE LAND COVERED 3Y INS MAP .t DATED THIS 20AA ,El- W.E ST JOHN BY COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COUNTY OE P �B LOTITIS GEORGEE .CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, TRIED THIS(EKOAY OFAW-' 1976. DATED THIS -dUAT OF '1976. RQw l' C'RO! 1 9Y COUniT TA COLLECTOR- OEPUtt TAX i✓LU,ECTOR REA,RURER `, .. EXAMINED AND APPROVED 714I5ZL0AY OF /y✓ � ,IS"(6. C,R. NELSON B' COUNTY SURVEYOP OEWTY EXAMINED AND APPROVES 8Y THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH THE IPH SON OF Al „976, BY RIGP,_R iOGF: E %- OFFICIO 6ECRETAR'[ MONUMENT NOTES: I. 3ET F.S.I. TIE TCA.l "L.S,DIVS" AT Al, PINTS EFDV<V THUS t. 5-T LEAD ANOTA SE E0 111101 53104" AGALLF01NTS5NOWNTI.'USt 3 SF.i ElAxOgRO CI'Y OFNOWPCAT ,EACH .MONUMENT EE'BaASS CAIN WELL: ATAL'. A SET 6P xE V / /GU53 WA54ER STAMPED "C. E.3109'INTIIE fI.u1ENE0 3VFFACE ATALL ,,ATERLING POINTS OF GSNTNOL,VNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, S UNLESS CTNFFw'AS NOTED ADDIS' RULE EO LO. COINER, VIIRN CLEF OR SIDEWALK OALA ASS'LD WITH A IAGGUI1O'GAIRSSl.XELOT 11 HIIS A:IJ BY J1I I FC3 A,LL 1, HER$4G LOT CORNERS. E. U-- N N,ATAASGG.L,S.]IDV'TO OF EET P' A-NMI, TOM AT ALL IGHTI LICH, TNOE -O - T. CRAY SEAIAGGED'L A ADVTU M EET PER T.1 1111 AT ALL PDINTS SPORN Ir USC & LEAD MIX TA[NI.EV "LS31GI -TO NSET PER TFACT ID: AT Al TERM SNDWN INUE -O- SEE SHEET IT FOR BALI. OF BEARINGS. O Gi l rr`a \ 4 oscaRC ;E ny4�!L"°L � s 52 -x,•� 0.781 AC. ,J 'A to V 16 � jai/ ML e� %it��pm - <,:- if c� ,n:rorawa 5 �' ..ice Zwlire'a 17 i F e % „¢,. A, i 1 5 L 880 - 48 D'J "Nis < s r.ALE: L^ = a0' o' BNEL'ES TRACT N 9047 -° 29125 .1 IN" DE IINTTA. ?x,) INTRE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAOM, RCRER6E• /6./29 52 [OTD E COTS R- A///SG/SlYe COUNTY OFORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, u.o ' JUL 22141E *,�Lb^ WILLIAM J.FROST, S RAUB•BEIN•FROST$ ASSOCIATES rm�g FEBRUARY, 1976 tn., ;. f9)O�f22 (j rr`a \ 4 oscaRC ;E ny4�!L"°L � s 52 -x,•� 0.781 AC. ,J 'A to V 16 � jai/ ML e� %it��pm - <,:- if c� ,n:rorawa 5 �' ..ice Zwlire'a 17 i F e % „¢,. A, i 1 5 L U1' W 48 S T CORYE ORTR \ 'rrr r m .n •xi°P •�e� �®--s ipm /an' \� BASIS OF BEARINGS 7HE 3EARIKGS GN019N HEREON ARE BA%D UFON THE NE'. JNE OF LOT70 AS ENOWN DN IRALT N0.92W RECDROEO IN RHE2136PG3.32 -3T' M:n•0.ELORJS OFD.M1PNGECWNTyG'.IPoF.NIF BEING N3TOl'tp-w_ xo� <mei mauv ea vos rtrµ[une rcn rnnv SEE SNEEi 1 FOR !L/ NOXUN.ENT NOTE$ AND INDEX 4qP. /N."I U1' W 380 -`d OLKIOAiE s"`�� °`�SH�s i - SC ao' TRACT N2 9 047 _5 '. AIE: = 2912 '. (EiueLUxircrxx.r,. ") INTHE CITY OF NEWPORT °EA0, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. &ngd, /6. a9 JUL 221�9t A1°" "v; RIOTS ( (CTS A-//. TNC(US/YE WILLIAM J. FROST, "LS.3109" mscpw:vu; dxt RAUB - BEIN • FROST E ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY, 1976 SII�� ¢ CtlRYE OATS •�Q -vna Leo e'.'P S�l I " G- a n' ro.w zax p. -v i'i w ee.. O+ —raer ra.co n6� .. � -ee er a "• „- ®- z'u'er ve�u' 0.693 AC. �ea air suc' zsry _ Y 9)'ef' 2�M KIY Sa)O�S 28 nr .rW� w PL �Sp i m IN 6via l , .a�Sll '” @c�a o- °,^ao- . jA 26 i. `g; ,! IN �' ;„ ,.• <_ � °� •� ' pr<nb 23 °. qh 20 a a4' (+t' M1a 'is c rfix � .S ass ej' :a:Je to 'T`"e 21.- ?o el�prAo \ 9� M ✓°� UU t '`fl f 43 'O RII In 3 e' r glllsl —� 49 •s'` "' a ,.e YVe�a le'r z F^ „,n \� �3�`x�pr erii \ pc' �a ia`'' • '�../'mi :' o °�� c„ \ V `o "H �' ..tea' 6'a �: T=i a vi rrcno Rail ' %ze 9 h INCEXMETIPoRMONUMENT FOBASIS OF •��' / t" ,aa �Oi 11 HEARINGS 5HEEr2 FOR 3\515 OF y t� x . ••t S ��5 °/ +'aa�'.° \��� 9EP0.1N6E. W .a a s m SPUME S AM' 1- 0' ` BREE<5 TRACT N °- 9047 291'15 SCALE 3" =40' _ (fiNPl:'NIrOETEM.ia.90w) INTHE CITY OF N= 'NPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. RCRfR6f • /6. / ?9 52 COTS (COZY AH. /R6LUS/✓4l WILLIAM J.FROST, "L5.3109" RAUB • BEIN • FROST B ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY, 1976 iR4o 36 \\ oB O M+ fi \\ �:m✓ O w>r -0 Ok 9\ 9e A. mom \ Fp 3- =ice >a s l r23 pW 7J P� �$ a?d _�� /tar f' �O.1a3.41 0, irt" �Xy,O.M ael 1< a45t�6flprr`e6) r,t xern rre al e ^IaJW� Ale /�a oc,W - 36 \\ oB O M+ fi \\ �:m✓ O w>r -0 Ok 9\ 9e A. mom \ Fp 3- =ice >a s l ,f ,pae1i'v I4Lbi " p SO, 3't3- ' • +,a/i GI a 3't3- ' JNOEX MAP. SEEE SHEET 2 FOR NBASIS F So \ � BEARINGS. \ l �$ a?d _�� /tar f' irt" �Xy,O.M 1< a45t�6flprr`e6) r,t xern rre al ,f ,pae1i'v I4Lbi " p SO, 3't3- ' • +,a/i GI a 3't3- ' JNOEX MAP. SEEE SHEET 2 FOR NBASIS F So \ � BEARINGS. \ l EXHIBIT 19 12 -1 1 . (n DBRCU E SHETTO OF= CHEEPS TRACT N °- . 9 2 61 (PORTION TESL TRACT N0. 909]', 291L4 t i;.I IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. JUMz7-_s..aa.N BEING A PORTION OF BLOCKS ]2 B 9Y OF IHVINS'S SUBDIVISION, AS SN9 N.EpICV, pll .ea A, SHOWN ON A MAP RECOHCeE.:N SCSI %PAGE 88 OF MISCE LANEDUG 1 RECORD WIFE. AND LOT B' AS SHOWN ON A MAP Of IweNl ewmu <s..v �w:„e ✓' . TRACT tt0. 92Uy iECLP.tF.p Iry POOx 3>e PAGES 32 THROU6Y. 3'i OF kCELLLVEOU° MAPS, BCTH PECCRDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 51100 FEBRUARY, 1976, 13.583 ACRES 52 LOTS AMD LOTS A -F iNCULt WILLIAM J. FROST L.S 3109 RAUB REIN' FROST B ASSOCIATES I WE THE UNOEPSIGXEO.BEIXfi ALL PARTIES XevING ANY RECORD TITLE WILLIAM J. FROST. DOXEREBY CERTIFY T,•NT IAM LICENSED LANDSUR✓EVOR M�ERESi 1N THE LINO COVERED BY THIS MAP, OD HEREBY L SENTTO I No, 3109 )01 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA(TNAT THIS MAP, CONSISTING OF FOUR IN PPEPAReiNIN AHO flECORDATON OF SAID Yep,_$ SHOWN WRwX (Y5) SXEETS ANO THE TRUE AND COMPLETE SURVEY MACE IN : MNUARY 19>6. E GOLCRED BORDEN LINE AND WE HEREBY DIFFER FOR OEDICATI ON RICH IT CISPPECTLY REPRESENTS, WERE BOTH MADE SY ME UP UNDER MY pIRECI' - TOTHECITYOFNEWPORTB. ACH AN EAMAE NT IN AND DIVER LOTS AS C, D,E 4 t ION; THAT THE MgNMENTS ARE OFT1E CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POEM M AS SHOWN FOR EMERGENCY AN D PURL IC S E6J P ITY IN GRESS AND EGRESS INDICATED, OF WILL BE SET IN SUCH Po31 TIDING WITHIN N IN ETY SWE AFTER ONS AN PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSESI THE PUBLIC UTILITY THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS: AID THAT SAID WNUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT EASEMENTS AS SHOWN TNE DOMESTIC WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TOENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED, J� I APPURIUMA N CIS AMD TNE SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND APPUME.4ANCE5 ' / LOCATED WITH IN SAID LETTERED LOTS AND EASEMENTS, ., '- BROADMOOR HOMES INC, wILLI °" Po9T. L5� 3105 O CO/IOO/OI /On. I. BENJAMIN B. NOLAN CITY ENGINEER OF NE CDYOF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, pJ HEREBY CERTIFY TXATI RAVE EXAMINED 115 MAP n AND HAVE FOUND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME A$ THE TENTATIVE MAP A$ FILED WITH, AMENDED PNO APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; THAT ' TY SUB GLENN H- ENGIW E 5 ielj0GaUbT -S -D -<rc HAVE MEN COMPLEDEWITH, AND I AMASATSFIED SAID MAD P 1VISIONIREGHAULylONS i EXECUTIVE NICE PRESIDENT ICE PRESIDENT CORRECT. RATED THIN. DAY OF D111 76. RI'PAST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TRUSTEE UNDER OEEDEOF TRUST RECOPOED IN BOOK iI6]2, PAGE I62A OF OR An'D Soo, IIT22, II •. 3 0 0 4 STATE OF CALFORNIAl 5.5. COUNTY OF ORANGE J ON TXIS� =DAY OF�<nYu ,1976, BEFORE NO Z&A,n Trmm. A NOTARY FOBLIS N AND FOR SAID CODNN AND STATE. REFSONALLY gPPEARED GLENN y. ORENGLE INOWN T(l ME TO BE THE E%ECVTVE vICE NESS DEFT AND 5 AGO GDSIDFSDN KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE VICE PR €SyDCYT OF BpOADMOOR MMES. INC. A CORPJRAT ON. TXE CORPORATOR THAT E%EWTEO TXE WITHN INSTRU RENT AND %ryOYIN TO ME M BE THE PERSONS WIND ECU O ETED TXE WITHIN INSTRUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HIREN NAMED A`:D ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME TXAT SUCH :CORPORATOR E%ECIFTEO THE SAME. WITNESS MY AND AND OFFKrgI $E<V Le,lry Mu -•+�� MY �WHI5510ti IXPI CORES A -9 -'/9 OTARV PVB4C N AND GUK WITNESS MY HAND ANG OFFICIAL SEAL: � MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Y A NDTARY PUBLIC N AMC FOP SAID COUNTY AND STATE B. ...... A.: BJ \o �lt�ffl L`�pA/ Sf l'tS I j I n) . AILS RETORT DATED OECem ER 2, 575 WAS PREPARED ALBERT:M. KLEFS$-FL,E. 16351. .. _ _ ":: ••j BENJAMIN B. NOLAN, CITY ENG13EER 0.CE. 12806�'�.- IIANA COOxC, OT CAMGE x4� 55 I,W.E ST JOHN. COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COVNTY,OO HENEBYCONN,I YO TRIP OUNTY RECOR ;. CDER OF SAID COUNTY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SVB01'JISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH REGARDING OEPJSGSTO SECURE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES GRINS LAMS COVERED BY THIS MAp��,,,���n BRED III5�04Y 0 1976. W E L JOHN BY I COUNTY CLERK OF ORANGE COUNTY �OEP Mts i IC ~ AN DORIS GEORGE ,CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, W HEREBY CERTT,-Y LiAT THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED FDA APPROVAL TO•THE,CITY COUNCIL OF vA1D CleYa T .°r REGULAR NEE Tent THEREOF uEi D ON THE Y3NO, E CITY OF NEWPORT SENIOR AN EASEMENT IN AND ON LDT5 L 6.0 D.E B F -1 PUBLIC SECURITY INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PUBI:IC VYILR PUNPGSES; ! ^, _ V EMEPGENQ AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS�THE DOMESTIC WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND _ APPDRTENARMAN AIDTHE SEWERfALLECTION SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES AS DEDICATED; AND elD.AL50 APPPOVE SAID MAP 1154JACT TO SECTION fi50)Bjp),(IMOi" . 'I .I THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. `%' FO, GAT ED THIS �AY OF ✓'v ,19)6. BY . I CITY CL - xM� ' OUFiY OF OBmmNl 54 V [.ROBERT L,CITRON, COUNTY. TA %COLLECTOR- TREASUREfl 0� T E . COUNTY, 00 HEREBY CERTFYTHAT ACCCRDIN INOTHE PECCIBBS, MY DiF ICE'TNERE ., ! I ASE NO LIENS AGAINST THE LAND SHOWN WITHIN THE COLORED $rygEN ON' TNIAR e ." MAP OR ANY PART THEREOF FOR UNFAIR STATE,CWNTY OP CITY TAXES OP SL:1^'., ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TA %ES', EXCEPT Tq %ES OR SPECIAL A45E5S1 :,FIB• I COLLECTED AST %ES NOT YET DUE ANO PAYABLC. MATED TKISij�AY OF TI..Q„ ,1976. " •/ ts ROBERT L C iPON 6Y' TON, T0. %COtLECiOP - TREASURER DEPUTY TA%C0L ECTOP .MM., RECORDS OF,O,RSNGE' LPUryTy GAUII N146EING.N 99A3� 31" W!fJA,,Aiy EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OFM1 ✓ 19>B. \':_"Q�' '! C.R. NELSON By rte_ - _ COUNTY SURVEYOR �GEPUTY i I EXAMINED ANC APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH E' C: TY OF :i NEWPoPT 5EAC4 THUS A- DAY OF �M�A .p 976 Of RICHARD IA. O ' E% 1106 SECRE 4R( 11''11: "v- ' SIGNATURE OMISSIONS NOT[ 1 + PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66936(0) OF THE SUED IVISION MAP ACT:.• %i' W,. THE FOLLOWING SIG.NAT'JRES HAVE SEEN OMITTED' THE,IRVNE COMP ATT :NOLDE, .Cj. AIRSPACE EASEMENT BY OEEG REMOVED IN 900K 9 >56, i+AGE 52] OF O.R,; ANp TEE' „ '; MEpaOPO'LUA onnnaRF01 nvv'nt OF SOUTHERN CALIF GA.OWNER OF RIGHT OF COAT 31 >OF OR PNDI BK.2902 ;_;I: MONUMENT NOTES: ! ^, _ V I. SET 2 IRON P PE TAGGED L 3 31059 ALL NTS SHOWN THUS �J- AT POINTS SHOWN TXUS 2. SET COON PIPE TAGGED LS 3109 T. .5 T C POI THUS .. 3 SET LEAD B TACK -OF D S 3 09 AT ANC PORN 5 ShOWN WCH 9. $ET ClT OF NEWPORT BEhLM, ML '! ENT (2 PUNCHED BflAss CAP N NENL1 . I ALL POINT AT AL_ PIKE 5 BRAWN THUS NTE,EFINi4XED SURFACE ATALL 5. SETH -SPoKE W /BRA SS OINK$TAMPFLEEN V OTNERwI$ARERED 5. CEMERG OFEDABO'_,VNL OTH UREFFITE 6, -I LOT CORNERS,WHICX .' ^ ' a4NCK UNLESS. OTHERWISE NED ., ! I V RCVS, STREET WILL BE MARKER WITH A LEAD 9 TG TA THE GEE: i.3.LIKES THID AN CURB O LNG THE: FOR, :,FIB• I BY PRODUCING THE It LINES ALL OTHER OC IOOTLIKES'AND ' .. BV PROOUCI,W TYE P((DIPL LINES FOR, NLL OTHER SAID LOT CORNERS. BASIS OF BEARINGS • THE BEARINGS{ SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LWEOF iLOT 69 AS SHOWN, ON TMLT 9260 RECORDED AN -200K 31Br PAGES 32' gAROUGH 3T' .MM., RECORDS OF,O,RSNGE' LPUryTy GAUII N146EING.N 99A3� 31" W!fJA,,Aiy 0 M vy�Py� 1' = ns =[,w pv -0-© mi"P r� —y,'�' .v ,•iaoa�.''iuiv'o �anvia'w/v :afvie p:a NY t �' SE4[ OB Fs [ pei 'V e %NaneYNl ✓ 1tC) N/P Cxa N/ m)µ)PY) [( /f .ODVG[ .dD.fP 6 Q,� ,(p'bf .PV E({ µ•[e -0� eDMYNaN�fYV lvµ' />Nf X Y w Po SS�41NN//�N31,t,.zN,f J (rnwr .,vi V 4 i• dt'4 � Y. "vy.a ar/ �'� d wAi / x � <IL 2 (P lx u/v.e:✓ y�Y ?ppo�of V A. I I II y� �b ,loT �s \`� g' ➢0 4.0 ®' '' � , e °v' =y "la9y rhr�;%5::ror �. "' Il ` ° ••..'�� ^vii' ev i'� 4141 � >.oe.w.v:Y �/ ' ! } , _ g3ti \° Vy >' eyA "4 ie� "auo 11 _ e °h \Ie ^is ` "i, d' 'Jf� � %0 // J. Pa, U.UN� ,h 8 �L,yid [yl�µ` r,0✓ef.P[Y\ 'Y1 �t0l apj° g t��d• '�; >' M1A?� IPPo P,o 8 0 too , 0'.y?v^ a1 ?6y'I ndl 1 so tt "wii�a / °d\ ° =F. � �90� ��`4 %.° ": � ` ,:�e°` `• ' IO 7�% do„ � �'va ' '� o[_ r, A / Q tl5 J l9/ Imp Vk" e+° Y , .NL....L3S".v: / 6)3D �, .Le r. e£t/✓ �.'� •:i fE�a.'� pour S�1N /,70Sd'// ,J 180Y1 N99 9g6/d/ ,60/ ,, 1M.V/' 'GYy /77/!N �P4'M910 A1N/7a,9 %=79 ld/0 ✓,W9N 1a Al /e7 9// N/ J33030s/.slvJ ,1 Plo/zs ' f8S f/ : 1gNdd,9N Da.r 9L61 Z Z lM ([wl wr lavN i4rf ngtdov/ t 1926 Z5 ;N 1� V 21 6mms > eo a ixs h Nl Yliw/M /vnl(/ JNl2 IUYaJJ )c !/CJCOdYAd dli)vn ar>Bh/ a /vna 6vma/ uro /anBU)wJ my p/qr gtb�r /J /J✓Yl dad Y)V/ ONV� /M Jxd MW./ c/ ' .-0 �X vom % '�' oroY P/V t xro Ox u /uBx/SV)Ny t .aea .nar 9 -0 —QS dYw new edr ruw /NJ n /.' 'fg✓/w9GN! /loc K /iNl)Sl)S/ .i .bi Y•BB.Cb N dtl( < r v / ) N1N0 3AY00 par's <fm' �t1 "7il ``' fiifi:I �r f_6'S5�1 Vd .Yl N9N 3 ,'t�(��ry YYY Nw C.' ai SxA�99vr / 1 v =e nreix 6'Glrl /� G Bd ec pv ^VY 6izyKii Gd aE \@ a �ps I II \ y 10 '4 c.i u"° Trnn i[ /a.iu' —' � I �• S Iw i y ,ApJ \.atsy N � :ii U�' ,CY %l 30'.Yp Ai. I � o..$0 °.3 O .? � cc vl"`q °'br:e✓ i tr °p /!t Q I: I� ;c 8 irs x''a �.ep.ii oa:'a�lll uj°ii�l1 X31 „I :.r °v °iii VA Pi T e' IV q/F e40�,� }0 ,fig `a•- / ya'}Psk Y 7=_a4 '�.�� �/ e io 4 oy ^ 'c! z, \ }e J )�`\�V 4 +ce •' Ii 41 yi �u ;Z, r,\y bl g'`•. ..;- � '"y ,,z3 s'w'a'.'.�, �\ s'a' d'9kulve% :�ols.ov \ •«gip +o'I ?Y y � l))ur ' J'jS,..v • iklt 2 'ON I v ^/1 oo us S�1N /0098(/' i 1109-1 - N129 - PON.I/ , 60/£ 63.7, -UMV 7 W411771�W , m sxl mii lmm(m 4SNj 6/1N90117y,9 90 119163 9n /rnlD,u/ 3DN990 d0 .Ur41700 %709ll9 16/OJ. 9�1 0 AZ1.9 .1111 0 d/ 90� P%/ P107 j 9107 21 b81 f/ E AO(17N9// me: 9161 i9l0f epBb BAVVUt � 3 NBfdod/ mfi =67' 1926 o N 1 :) `d 211 SJ HS p 30- —MHS ' 3.3,:itdf0 O 'JD M M W M ' vI IAJ.WW.) -y pf'pfp 7.<95A 44 /ee.YY r!�/'•/;L r: �: ]': / yi � % ., tI1N.J��� ;•/6;u1� tppi _ .eLfL .ro'va vb�a -�© ,;V J7 ✓. i p�onp °i`i? °•E `e ?cg?'y_ .MVF •bvt ro� �PVn M�-0 %lii - - = -- .q Ql9AE� � � Y d E .ls,L 9a Od .p0.w.6 - > 3 ' n wv ry ate./ ua v�i�.'v/v,r.� ✓ >r `\ �-'To✓rJ i�L. a.:eP ,va rw.v axv .vrar,xmnxmr �/ 'IuNO�g� -) °Y ".",,A (dva)rlN \� l �'pC4 ��•�`4pJ u lJ :r�: \�c "bd c\ rAt�A ' ?tee A'` i!'' �.a. �, atW i\/ a, ��2. •, :� \x 3,vBmaNr In, S1Ol % SLOI 21 bf '9G6/ %drUnN9.i/ fBi £/ : 39d3dl76/ - ZRaW.' 1V199 91Wdr ,60 /f S''7 ld'W TWk1771W E/ /Ndr V17U,7 !0 91U1S �9NN0 Jig A1NN07 %999 lY0✓M 7N �0 =( �<a s e o w• nvv l N=u/ %"nm rnnac. winr a ' r n ai13 a _ a ;o`I ^ A oN 1:)V211 b S i 6 Z- ?n7nasa C 1^ EXHIBIT 20 13) 1 32-. List of Affected Homeowners SeaView Building Setbacks for Facing Lots Street Number Yacht Camilla 1905 1907 Yacht Colima 1901 1903 Yacht Daphne 2101 2103 Yacht Enchantress 1903 1905 Yacht Julia 2127 2130 Yacht Maria 1903 1905 Yacht Mischief 2003 2005 Yacht Radiant 2125 2127 Yacht Resolute 2014 2016 Yacht Truant 1901 1903 Yacht Yankee 2123 2125 Total Affected Homeowners 22 ' Estimate based on plot plan Build n Setback from Common Prooetrty Line 9101, 8.101, 7' 0" 6101, 38' 0" 25' 0" 5'4" 6'4" 8.0... 16' 0" TV 7'6'* 12'0" ' 10' 0" 8.0,. 9, 0„ 1116". 12'0"' 9.0,. 6101. 10' 0" 9.0.1 Flame of Homeownerls Paula Rayburn Mehdi Haidarali Rick Femcase: Anita Vermund Helen Ann Langmade; Carole Mortimer Claudette Shaw Barbara Siebert Don & Erna Minkoff Mark & Tonle Meyer Dewey & Dorothy Savage Hanna & Mark Rubin Struever Eleanor Kurrasch Tony & Nancy Giblin James & Patricia White Greg & Jana McConaughy John & Kelly Bone" Steve & Karen Hinton Harvey Eisenberg Pat & Sally Tyne Thomas & Mary Cesario William Rousey Brian & Mary Donovan Ted Helmer 133.