Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Aeronutronic Ford PA2006-173CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. _4 August 8, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3233, rbunim city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach ISSUE Should the City Council initiate an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to consider decreasing the maximum density permitted in Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units, and prohibiting further subdivisions? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2006 -_ initiating the Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004 to decrease the maximum dwelling units (48) in Planning Area 5 to be consistent with number of lots (47), and to prohibit any further subdivisions. BACKGROUND At the July 25, 2006 City Council meeting, Councilmember Daigle requested staff to prepare an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan (PC) in response to a letter received on behalf of the Belcourt Master Association. The Belcourt Master Association has recently amended their Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) to prohibit the subdivision of any lot within the Association. The Association's letter, attached as Exhibit B, is requesting the City to amend both the General Plan and Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community Development Plan to prohibit further subdivision of lots and to limit the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Density Reduction August 8, 2006 Page 2 It specifically requests to reduce the density of dwelling units permitted within Planning Area 5 of the PC to 47; which is consistent with the existing number of lots. DISCUSSION General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan (Statistical Area L -3 — AF Area 5) is designated for Single Family Detached uses and currently allocates a maximum of 39 dwelling units for the area. It appears that 1988 Land Use Element Update erroneously established 39 units as the maximum and did not account for a prior amendment of the Ford Aeronutronic Planned Community which permitted a maximum of 48 dwelling units within Belcourt Planning Area 5. However, as a result of a resubdivision in 1986 merging 3 lots into 2 lots, a total of 47 lots currently exist. The new comprehensive General Plan Update has eliminated specific dwelling unit limitations for the Planned Community area and has established a provision prohibiting subdivisions. Therefore, an amendment of the recently adopted comprehensive General Plan update is not necessary. Should the General Plan update not be approved in November at the ballot, an amendment of the 1988 Land Use element would be necessary for consistency. Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community The Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is currently broken up into 8 different planning areas. Planning Area 5 is designated for Custom Lots and currently permits a maximum of 48 dwelling units. As mentioned, currently only 47 lots exist within the area as a result of a previous merger of lots. Therefore, in order to eliminate the potential of a future subdivision and to maintain the as -built lot configuration of the planning area, the development regulations of the Aeronutronic Ford PC should be amended to prohibit future subdivisions and change the maximum number of lots permitted under the Statistical Analysis for Planning Area 5 from 48 dwelling units to 47 dwelling units. Environmental Review Requests to initiate code amendments are considered feasibility or planning studies by staff, and are statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15262 of the Implementing Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Notice Public notice is not required to initiate a code amendment. Should the amendment be initiated by the City Council, the formal code amendment application will require noticed public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council. However, this item was included on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's web site. The Belcourt Master Association received a copy of this report. Aeronutronic Ford PC Amendment — Prepared by: �1 Russell Buni , ssistant Planner Exhibit: Submitted by: Density Reduction August 8, 2006 Page 3 L.Lia�T,UdL� Patricia L. Tempe, PI nning Director A. Draft Resolution of Intent B. Belcourt Master Association letter RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AERONUTRONIC FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY [PD 2006 -0041 TO REDUCE THE DENSITY IN PLANNING AREA 5 FROM 48 TO 47 DWELLING UNITS AND TO PROHIBIT NEW SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the zoning regulations of a Planned Community of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently regulates the density of Planning Area 5 to 48 dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community currently consists of 47 lots; and WHEREAS, to maintain the as -built lot configuration of Planning Area 5 and to eliminate future subdivisions, an amendment to the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The City Council hereby initiates Planned Community Development Amendment No. 2006 -004. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 81h DAY OF AUGUST 2006. 0 NOES; ABSENT; MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK JUN- 21- 20OB(WED) 15:43 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.002/007 LAW OFFICES Or, RICHARD A. TSNNELLY RICHARD A. TINNELLY 05 AROONAUT. SUITE 100 COACHELLA VAIIrY JCf rRCY M. MYLTON w*TSO VIEJO. CAUffOr2ISIA 02650 11-00- COUNTRY CWB DRIVE, SUITE IA PALM OCSCRT. CA 02211 BRUCE R. NERMOTT Hall 000 -0000 000100.}0050 TCRRI A, MORRID PAX IC6fl1 500•.•:01" VAX 17601 002.00-3 CMAIL tlMlBi M0 *1lWyef&DOM SAN DICOO 40 DIRMINCHAM DRIVE. SUITE 200 CA Juno 21, 2006 uw0vr. Sze] 150.0000 zODrom PAX 16501 500.1001 REPLY TO ALISO VIWO ADDPCSS Via Facsimile (949) 644 -3139 and U.S. Mail Aaron C. Harp Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Tentative Parcel Map Application Submitted by Pfeiler & Associates Property Location: 6 Barrengcr Court (Lot 23 of Tract No. 11450) Owners: Richard E. Macklin and Brenda I. Macklin Parcel Map No.: NP2006 -026 (PA2006 -088) Public Hearing Date: June 22, 2Q06 at 6:30 p.m. (Off Calendar) Dear Mr. Harp: The Law Offices of Richard A. Tinnclly represents the Belcourt Master Association ( "Association ") which is the governing body for the above - referenced address. The Association asked us to inform you that 86% ofthe Association members voted to amend the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( "CC &R's ") to prohibit any lot split such as that referenced above, and pending before the Planning Department. The Association is composed of 211 lots (members). Out of211 ballots, 183 were returned and 182 voted to prohibit the subdivision of lots within the Association. Only one (1) member voted in favor. The amendment was recorded' in the Orange County Recorder's Office on May 9, 2006 as Instrument No. 20060003 1 1 748. A copy is enclosed for your review. The specific language approved by the members is as follows: "'No Further Subdivision.' No Owner shall partition or subdivide his or her Residence and/or lot including, without limitation, any division of any Residence, lot and/or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units." This language is inserted in both the Custom Lot Restrictions at Article XXI and in the Use Restrictions at Article XT of the CC &R's. We reviewed the CC &R's and, pursuant to 'the relevant portion of Article XVL Section 16- 18(a): .. amendments to the Declaration may be enacted by the vote or written assent of (i) sixty -siic and rwo- thirds percent (66- 213 %) of the total voting power of the Master Association; ..." JUN- 21- 2006(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.003/007 June 21, 2006 Aaron C. Harp. Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach Page 2 Based upon the fact that more than the required 66 -2/3%. majority of members voted to prohibit the Further subdivision of lots within the Association, the CC &R's were property amended and, therefore, NO lots within the Belcourt Master Association may be subdivided. In order to insure that the policies ofthe City ofNewport Beach and the Belcourt Master Association are synchronized, the Association is requesting that the City incorporate the following changes into the General Plan and the Planned Community text for Region 5 to bring them into conformance with the Subdivision Code and the CC &R's. Modify both the General Plan and the Planned Community te=xt for Region 5 of Belcourt to reflect 47 lots allowed, which equals the current as -built conditions. 2. Provide within the Planned Community text for Region 5 of Belcourt a provision that prohibits subdivision ofany existing lot to mirror the amendment to the CC&R's which was approved by 86% of the members of the Association. Add a provision to the Planned Community text which provides that if two (2) lots arc combined, the eliminated lot does not become available for subdivision of any existing lots. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the undersigned. BRK:cak Enclosure cc: Jan Harriman, Belcourt Master Association Jaime Murillo, Planning Department Homer Bludau, City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Larry Tucker Planning Commission Leslie Daigle, Councilwoman Tod Ridgeway, Councilman Ed Selich, Councilman Very truly yours, Law Offices of RiC iARD A LLY BRUC • R. KE OTT Via Facsimile (949) 752 -6362 (949) 644 -3203 (949) 644 -3020 (949) 644 -3229 (949) 752 -0885 (949) 266 -8561 (949) 723 -5204 EdSelich @adclphia. net NWPDOCSBckcua Nuw AMackhn( Subdhidc )*Iwp.Ncwport.Pcgch.Piming.D .062206,wpd 0 JUN- 21- 2008(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.004/007 When Recorded, Return To: LAW OFFICES 85 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, Attention OF RICHARD A Suite 100 California Recorded in official Records, orange County Tom Daly. Clerk- Recorder 111111 IN I R III III Ii I lUl IIII I III @ll �In I IIII I IIV IIII II 15.00 TINNELLY 2006000311748 03:1Bpm 05/09106 92656 . 176 200 a» 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jeffrey M. Hylton, Esq. FIRST AMENDMENT To DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR BELCOURT MASTER ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CMFORMED COPY THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ( "First Amendment ") is being made on the date set forth hereinbelow, with reference to the following facts: A. Reference is hereby made to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( "Declaration ") for Belcourt Master Association, Orange County, California, recorded on March 24, 1982, as Instrument No. 82- 101131 of the Official Records of Orange County, California, effecting certain real property situated in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly described as Lots 2 -6, 14 -16, 22, 23, 28 -30, 36 -39, A, B and C inclusive of Tract No. 11450, as per a map filed in Book 491, on Pages 42 -46 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 22, 1981, and Lots 37 -49, A, B, C and D inclusive of Tract 11449, as per a map recorded in Book 491, on Pages 12 -16 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County on September 3, 1981, and, subsequent to the annexation thereof pursuant to the Article of the Declaration entitled "Annexation," any real property which shall become subject to this Declaration. B. The Declaration may be amended only by vote or written consent of the Members representing at least sixty -six and two - thirds percent (66 2/3 %) of the total voting power of the Association. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 of the Declaration, the Declaration is amended by adding Section 11 -21, and subsection a. to Section 21 -1, as follows: I JUN- 21- 2006(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.005/007 1. "Section 11 -21. `No Further Subdivision.' No Owner shall partition or subdivide his or her Residence and /or lot including, without limitation, any division of any Residence, lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, parcels or other units." 2. Sf=ion 21 -1. "a. No Further or subdiv: including, Residence, parcels or Subdivision - No Owner shall partition ode his or her Residence and /or lot without limitation, any division of any lot and /or parcel into smaller lots, other units." In all other respects, the Declaration shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this First Amendment to be executed this a"t" day of MLV 2006. BEI,COURT MASTER ASSOCIATION By: By: -2- Its: Secretary I JUN- 21- 2008(WED) 15:44 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 The undersigned hereby certify under penalty of perjury that they are respectively the President and Secretary of Belcourt Master Association, and that the foregoing First Amendment was duly adopted by the owners of the real property described herein, in full conformance to Article XVI, Section 16 -18 thereof, and with Section 1355 of the California Civil Code. Executed at An yit�� Ott' California, this � day of nN , 2006. Preside t Secretary F1WDOC.Nkl 1MwV%AMr d1Vt?9T'U1 w Cftd rm,..pd MCC • ,U. 44 q JUN- 21- 2006(WED) 15:45 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD TINNELLY (FAX)949 588 5993 P.007/007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On I flAq `b r ?-0o(r before me, Wally appeared =6 4— in MCktYj� personally known to me' (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Ls) whose name( -is are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that - be4,the /they executed the same in hie-jli s /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by h ==;:. =- /their signature, on the instrument Che personLa), or the entity upon behalf of which the persony4L acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE On personally appeared before me, (Seal) personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s1 on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) -4- 1Ir Richard E. Macklin Page 1 of 1 "RECEIVE AFTER AGENDA PR1,1' EJ:" i 6-0-06 From: Richard E. Macklin [RMacklin @MacklinCos.comj Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:37 AM To: 'don2webb @earthlink.net Subject: AGENDA AMENDMENT PA2006 -173 Attachments: LTRBELCOURT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RE MACKLIN PROPOSED LOT SPLIT.pdf; Letter to City re Amend GP.pdf Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: On the Agenda tonight, August 8, 2006, is a proposed Amendment No. 2006 -004 (PA2006 -173). I encourage you to vote against the proposed Resolution. My wife and I are the only homeowner that the proposed resolution will affect, and if the City Council acts in favor of such Resolution, it will deny us our due process of the law to oppose the unlawful action by Belcourt's HOA. As you may be aware, we submitted an application to divide our residential lot in Belcourt to provide a separate parcel. After, the submission to the City of Newport Beach and the Belcourt HOA, the HOA took action to prohibit the division of such lot. The action by the HOA is clearly ex post facto. The HOA is asking the City Council to circumvent the due process of law, that we are rightfully entitled to, and add another layer of complexity to the situation. Please see the attached letter from our attorney, and myself, regarding this matter and further explains the facts. Respectfully yours, Richard Macklin 6 Barrenger Court Newport Beach, CA The Macklin Companies, Inc 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -2514 949 - 752 -8977 voice 949 - 752 -9227 fax, 707 - 222 -2188 efax email: RMacklin@MacklinCos.com Confidentiality Notice: This transaction, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, or it has been forwarded to you, or you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. And you should immediately destroy and delete the original. n a co e t 4 N 8/8/2006 ^M ) M M 0 Allen Matkins www.allenmatkins.com Allen Matkins Lcek Gamble Mallory & Natsix LLP Attorneys at Law 1900 Main Street, 5" Floor I Irvine, CA 92614 -7321 'Telephone: 949.553 13131 Facsimile: 949.553.8354 Stephen R. Thames E-mail: s[hameslr�allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 9498515422 File Number: M5129- 001/(iC776535.01 April 28, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE (949 -582 -7796) & FIRST -CLASS MAIL Board of Directors Belcourt Master Association c/o Progressive Community Management 27405 Puerta Real, Suite 300 Mission Viejo, California 92691 Re: 6 Barrenger Court, Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen/Ladies This firm represents Richard and Brenda Macklin. The Macklins are the owners of the refer- enced residence (Lot 23 of Tract No. 11450), which is located in the residential community subject to that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Belcourt Master Association dated March 8, 1982 ( "CC &Rs "). As you are aware, Mr. and Mrs. Macklin recently applied to the City of Newport Beach ( "City") to divide their lot into two parcels. The purpose of this letter is to address recent actions you have purportedly taken on behalf of Belcourt Master Association ( "Association ") with respect to the Macklins' application. At the outset, the April 14, 2006 letter you caused Bruce Kermott, Esq. to send to the City on behalf of the Association is extremely troubling for at least the following reasons: First, the letter's representation that an objection to the Macklins' application is being made on behalf of the Associa- tion is in fact a misrepresentation. We are aware of no action by the Association's Board of Directors ( "Board ") or its homeowner members to suggest that Association as a whole was objecting to the Macklins' application, one of the Association's own members. Second, the letter materially misrepre- sents the authority granted to the Association by the CC &Rs. Contrary to the letter's contention that the Association would have to approve division of the parcel, not a single provision in the 76 pages of the CC &Rs grants the Association such authority. Indeed, the fact that the letter is consigned to quot- ing the CC &Rs' introductory Recitals for this apparent "authority" is proof enough that the CC &Rs do not prohibit the Macklins' application and that the Association is plainly overstepping its power. The subsequent April 21, 2006 memorandum the Board sent to the Association's members is even more disturbing. In it the Board proposes to now amend the CC &Rs without a meeting of its members. Apparently conceding that its previous claim of dominion over the Macklins' application Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Board of Directors April 28, 2006 Page 2 was baseless, the Board now seeks to amend the CC &Rs, in an attempt, ex post facto, to manufacture that power. First, as 20 -year residents in the community, the proposed amendment unduly impinges on the Macklins' property rights and expectations, including their right of free alienation of property. Such expectations should come as no surprise to the Board, as several residents have themselves grounded their objections to the application on their own alleged "expectations." Second, despite the amendment's professed universal application, as a practical matter no lot other than the Macklins' could be subdivided absent demolition of the existing structure, something which is highly unlikely. Thus, it is plain that the proposed amendment is a retaliatory measure specifically directed only at the Macklins, an abuse of the Board's functions and powers outlined by the Bylaws and CC &Rs. Given the above, it has become clear that the recent actions against the Macklins are being driven by a few vocal opponents who have drawn faulty conclusions about the "damage" their application would cause. The Board would be wise to be fair to all its members and listen to all of their concerns. That includes the Macklins. That the Board has violated Civil Code section 1355(b) by requiring votes on the amendment to be retumed only 13 days after sending out its one -sided recommendation demonstrates that it is improperly interested in hearing and presenting only one side, a clear breach of any notion of due process, and a clear breach of its fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the Macklins will consider all rights and remedies at law and in equity, and by this letter waive none. In the interim, however, we demand that the Board immediately withdraw, with notice to all Association members, its faulty April 21, 2006 notice to take action without a meeting by written ballot to amend the CC &Rs, and additionally withdraw its objections to the Macklins' application on file with the City. We look forward to your prompt response and action. If you will be represented by counsel with respect to this demand by the Macklins, please forward this letter immediately to such counsel for response. Otherwise, should you wish to discuss this matter further, please direct all communica- tions to the undersigned. SRTJam Very truly yours, Stephen R. Thames Richard and Brenda Macklin 6 Barrenger Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 949 -752 -8977 June 23, 2006 Mr. James W. Campbell CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 906-58 -8915 RE: 6 BARJ3ENGER COURT Newport Parcel Map No. 2006 -026 (PA2006 -088) POSTPONEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT MASTER PLAN REVIEW Mr. Campbell Thank you for the Notice of the Staffs recommendation to postpone the above- mentioned item on the Planning Commission's calendar until a later date. I also want to thank you for the time you took with me to discuss this matter and to inform me of the history surrounding the planning and approval process of BelcOUrt, especially Area 5. If I understand the situation correctly, I believe it is very significant that any flaw in Belcourt's Master Plan, Area 5, was caused by the developer, JM Peters, sometime between July 1980 and August 1981 -- 25 nears ago -- and not by any recent action or discovery. The mistake was created in 1981 when the developer, JM Peters, abandoned the Community Park (Lot 27 of Tract Map 11043), and elected to subdivide that Park in order to sell nine additional lots (new Tract Map 11605): the Master Plan was mistakenly not amended to reflect the nine additional lots. The Master Plan's failure to accurately state the nine additional lots was perpetuated down through the years, even though the Master Plan was amended several times (1980. 1981, 1986 and again in 1988). Tract %lap 11450 therefore remained unchanged at "40 lots" since the date it was first recorded in 1981. Originally, Tract Map 11041 (27 lots including the Community Park site) and Tract Map 1 1044 (28 lots), recorded in 1981, totaled 55 lots and defined Area 5 of the Master Plan. Tract Map 1 1450 (40 lots) and Tract Map 1 1605 (9 lots) replaced Maps 11043 and 11044 and were recorded in February 1981 and November 1981, respectively, for a total of 49 lots. Tract Map 11450 and Tract Map 11605 should have defined the boundary of Area 5 of the Master Plan. .According to the Master Plan, and for no apparent reason other than a typographical error, however, Area 5 is limited to 39 lots. Page I of') Any proposed adjustments, corrections, or moditicaiiims to the Belcourt Masier Plan should therefore be limited solely to Tract Map 1 1605. which introduced the nine lots not accounted for by the Master Plan. It should be clear that Tract 11605 has different lot sizes and configurations from any of the other defined Areas within Belcourt. And, Tract Map 11605 was the last Map to be recorded in the series of amendments. If indeed there is not\ a need to correct the Belcourt Master Plan. 25+ Years later. it should only affect Tract 'stall 11605 and NOT Tract Map 11450 If )be City is contemplating a reduction of density or eliminating a lot within Area 5, it should consider looking at the one lot on Leesbury Court \\•here no house has been buih. Any suggestion to reduce of the number of lots further would be unreasonable since Area 5 has already been given it density reduction trout 55 to 49 lots, and because the application was tiled before the typographical error in the Belcourt \lamer Plan (and PC text) was discovered. Moreover. the Cit\'s own in -house snudv, conducted just prior to our application. effectively confirmed the existence of 49 Ions under the current Masher Plan. .-Mier the City completed its independent study, it stated that no Master Plan amendment \vas necessary. and eccurately stated that our application did cooply with the Master Plan (and the PC next). The City then eaVe us the "green light" no proceed no the next step, commence enfjneering and incur the related cost of the application, we did so, in good taith. It is also important to point out thin any sueuesnion by the HOA or any of the other 11011leOw11er S, than our application is not consistent with the "original intent," of the Master Plan, ignores hisnorv. In tbct. the "original intent" af'JM Peters was to create smaller Ion sizes (7,500 to 9,000 square feet). which is the reason Belcourt CC &R s were never amended to reflect larger lots with lower density as suggested by the HOA. Last bun not least, the recent amendment to the C UR's by the HOA post dates this application and is nheretbre ex post facto. Therefore, we request Olin the City of Newport Bench Planning Department leave Area 5. Tract %lap 11450, as in \vas "originally intended." planned, and approved. And, if any accommodations, amendments or changes need to be considered or implemented, they should be limited to Traci Map 11605. The portion of Area 5 reflected in Traci Mao 1 1450 has al\vays been 40 los and Ohus should remain 40 Ions. .Alternatively, if Ole City determines that Leesbury Court, or Tract Map 11605 needs to be added to Area 5, then the total number of lots should be amended to reflect both Tract Nlap 11450 and 1 1605. as approved and recorded, with no tcw'er than Ohe actual 49 lots. Nee 2 of To reiterate: any attempt to correct typographical errors in the Master Plan by an amendment that could render our application null and void would not only come after - the -fact, it would alter existing, development rights originally intended by the developer, approved by the City, and relied upon by this applicant. Please reject any such attempt to gerry mander a reduction of lots based on this decades -old mistake. Iv submitted. CC) Patricia Temple, Planning Director Leslie Daigle. Councihvoman Jamie Murillo. City of Newport Beach Russell 13unim, City of Newport Beach Stephen R. Thames, Esq , Allen Ntatkins P ,e3of3