Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-06-22-06Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 is 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2006 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 15 file: //F :\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 1 07/26/2006 INDEX ROLL CALL ommissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - ommissioner Tucker was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director aron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA e Planning Commission Agenda was posted on June 16, 2006, CONSENT CALENDAR OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 1, 2006. Not available at this ITEM NO. 1 Minutes ime. Continued to Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue this item to July 6, 2006 07/06/2006 Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: Tucker Abstain: None xxx HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. OBJECT: Macklin residence (PA2006 -088) PA2006 -088 6 Barrenger Court Removed from Sub - divide an existing lot into two parcels of land for single - family development on calendar ach. s. Temple noted staff is recommending that this item be removed from calends cause staff has discovered that this item requires a General Plan Amendment. ublic comment was opened. iiin in rsmment was closed. file: //F :\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 1 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 4 Page 2 of 15 Motion was made bv Chairperson Toerge to remove this item from the calendar. yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Tucker bstain: None OBJECT: Steadfast Investment Properties (P 5-203) ITEM NO. 3 4343 Von Karman Avenue PA2005 -293 Request for General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -007 and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. 2005 -005 to increase the maximum allowabl ntitlement for the property by approximately 1,740 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project involves infilling a multi -floor lobby area (spanning the 11t and 2nd oors) within an existing three -story building; the expansion will occur completely within he interior of the existing building and will result in no changes to height or the exterior appearance of the building. The property is within the Koll Center Planned Community PC) District. Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting: • Minor interior expansion within an existing three story building. • Increase of interior floor area would be 1,740 gross square feet and 1,625 net square feet. • Amendments to both the General Plan and Planned Community text are required as the site is currently built out. • Discrepancies have been discovered related to this site and staff recommend corrections to the statistical limitations related to this site in association with this application. • The staff report explains the discrepancies in detail. • Staff suggests recommending approval of the various corrections to the General Plan and Planned Community text floor area limitations. Ralph Deppisch, representing Steadfast, noted they have read the report and ar satisfied with the resolution. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. otion was made by Chairperson Toerge to recommend approval of General Plan mendment No. 2005 -007 and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment o. 2005 -005 to the City Council. yes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Hawkins, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None bsent: Tucker bstain: None UBJECT: General Plan Update ITEM NO.4 Land Use Element and Map file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 3 of 15 for Day School Continued to July 6, 2006 Temple noted this would be a minor adjustment to the existing land use tations incorporated into the new General Plan. • They have requested a consideration of an increase in the permitted floor area ratio from 0.3 to 0.35. • This would provide sufficient development allocation to cover future plans for expansion of the school. • The school is governed by a use permit that limits the total number of registered students (408). • Their proposal is for future facilities to support the current curriculum such as libraries, studios and laboratories. • Staff has no problem with this request. olic comment was opened. blic comment was closed. airperson Toerge, noting that there is a limit on the number of students, ced if the increased square footage would increase the number of ployees? ,. Temple noted she would contact the applicant for further information. e Planning Commission noted their unanimous support for staffs :ommendation. rport Area Wood noted: • Airport Area policies regarding a single comprehensive plan in the area shown in the Conceptual framework diagram might be too challenging for the various property owners to work out together. • Staff considered this further and it occurred to us that the other property owners generally own just their own buildings and the footprints of those buildings and would not likely be converting to residential use. So, we would probably just be talking about the two major property owners working together. • At this point, the two major property owners are not in agreement as they each have suggested their own language as it relates to the number and size of residential villages, and development plans. • Clarifications have been made that all density requirements for all phases of development are on average for the development phase. • Policy 6.15.13 is recommended to be a range of 45 -50 units per acre for residential density to provide a flexibility. iairperson Toerge asked about 16.15.17 and the park dimensions. He was swered that the 150 foot minimum dimension could be either depth or width. iblic comment was opened. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/200( Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 4 of 15 Carol McDermott, representing World Premier Investments (WPI), noted: • WPI has been involved with mixed use development for a number of years and have received numerous awards. • They had purchased the building on the corner of Campus and Jamboree and developed a mixed use plan, which over a year ago, was submitted to the City. • The applicant has attempted, due to the General Plan update, to work with the property owner to the west that is listed as an opportunity area which gave them 4.1 acres, but still short the 5 acre that is the conceptual minimum of the current discussions. • The court house site is being considered by the applicant to meet the minimum 5 acre site. • The court house can not meet their own parking needs and have been using the spaces on the WPI property. • There is an opportunity to solve an existing problem, for both WPI and the courthouse and WPI wants to discuss the way in which residential could be considered in the context of the larger site and the potential court house whereby a shared parking facility to accommodate both parties could be arranged. • She requests consideration of these concepts. Rosenthal, representing WPI, noted the following: • At the previous Commission meeting they had requested that the WPI property be exempted from the 5 acre minimum for initial residential development. • There has been discussion with the court house partnering with WPI to allow WPI to meet the 5 acre minimum residential requirement while allowing the court house to meet their parking and expansion needs. • She then presented a revised exhibit with revised language. • She noted that WPI is no longer requesting an exemption from the 5 acre minimum; however, they have proposed language that the City designate the court house property as an opportunity site without changing the zoning to allow the design of the joint project. • We would defer to staff on the court house designation but have submittec this language in case it is necessary. • They are asking for an amendment to the language contained in 16.15.15 addressing regulatory plans that would encourage the court house to participate in this joint planning endeavor. • The two sites are not naturally linked to any part of the residential village but do form a linkage between them upon the development of the area. • She referred to and explained an exhibit of a conceptual plan of how the joint uses could work. • She noted that this planning would allow the City some control over how the court house site could link up to the remainder of the airport area. t Commission inquiry, Ms. Rosenthal read her suggested language change. ommissioner McDaniel asked what the problem would be if they don't have he contiguous 5 acres? Ms. Wood answered that the court house site is designated PF, which is Public file: //F: \UsersTLMShared \Gvarin\PC min eta] \2006 \062220061tm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 5 of 15 cility, in the draft plan and in the existing plan. If it was designated as an portunity site it would also need to have the land use designation changed m PF to Mixed Use. Another concern is the court house would not be noved, that use and intensity would remain so any residential units that would on all or part of that property would be coming out of the 550 infill units, rich previously the City Council had limited to the area we are calling out in Comprehensive Plan Area. The concept shown on the exhibit is not )blematic. If there could be a joint parking solution for both the court house d World Premiere and as a result of that World Premier can increase their :)perty to be 5 acres so it would meet the minimum for a first phase, then a ding could be made that they met the 5 acre requirement. She noted her ncern if we had policies within the residential development regulations that a referring to a site that is designated public facilities for residential how much that use does it mean, how much is additive, is the court house going away, it the entire court house site that gets used for residential and shouldn't we �t be honest and re- designate it? recommendation is to leave the policies as they are and let WPI come in if General Plan is approved with a proposal that shows us a 5 acre site. It ears to me that working with the court house they would be able to do that. Rosenthal noted WPI does not object to that. If they are able to add the t house site, we still have the issue that they would be adjacent to two hborhoods. We don't have the ability to plan those neighborhoods with the lerty owners, but have a very good opportunity to plan with the court house WPI sites as it serves as a connection to both those residential nmissioner McDaniel noted he is receptive to the project; however, there is problem of being able to access the land. He noted his concern of changir auage for the possibility of the land access other than to put some in place hat it could happen. s. Rosenthal stated they understand the Commission's concern and if there is requirement that WPI be part of one residential village and then wait for that an to occur then that would prove to make this project very difficult to ;complish. Since the flexibility would not be built into the General Plan we ould be looking at an amendment in order to proceed with the planning for ese two properties. The concept of allowing some flexibility, in the unusual tuation, a project that is linking two neighborhoods and needs to relate to both 'them but is not really part of either neighborhood in terms of finance or nrnership would be helpful to have in the General Plan. then followed on: • Opportunity sites. • Court house designation. • The need for a General Plan Amendment. • Requirement of a Specific Plan. • Possible village connections. • Regulatory plan timing and language. • Public facility language change. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/2212006 Page 6 of 15 fferry Venezia, Vice President of World Premier Investments, noted: • The WPI site is 4.1 acres and to get to 5 acres they only need to incorporate the court house parking structure area and community areas as part of their village. • They feel they do not need to change the zoning of the PF district. • They are trying to solve the parking and expansion problems of the court house as well as fit their needs. • No residential is being proposed for the court house property. • He is asking that this site be its own regulatory plan area. • There would be a shared use permit. • The original application included a General Plan Amendment. continued. . Wood recommended adding a standard to Policy 6.15.11 for the minimum of the residential village and make it 10 acres. 5 Acres is the minimum si: the first phase of a village so it stands to reason that a village is larger than es and in order for joint planning this is to make sure there is some )rdination among these different residential properties. Commission inquiry, discussion continued on an anomaly for the court house s and other potential proposed project developments in this area. s. Wood noted that the WPI application is not a complete one and has not yen pursued as they have chosen to wait for the General Plan process to go rough and not having the Planning Commission and City Council discuss this >plication part way through the process. ROMA Design Group was hired to >sist the Planning Commission and City Council to deal with these residential >plications in the airport area that were being submitted and we have two of em, this and Brookfield. Now we have ROMA's recommendations, which are r planning larger villages, so WPI and Brookfield both have been caught in the ity's evolution of our thinking on residential in the airport area or perhaps .velooment of it as we didn't know what we were doing when they first Rosenthal added WPI is satisfied that if they are able to come in with the ed parking of the court house and thereby meet their 5 acre requirement, i that is a good solution for both the sites and the City as well. However, the iirement that both sites also plan the other residential neighborhoods is the valent of saying that neither development would be able to go forward as a project. We think that this residential development can be planned to Mme part of the larger residential development in the areas so that it relates coordinates to it. It is an obstacle to plan one of those other residential ges in its entirety that would make this very unlikely to go forward. continued. r Cole noted his concern that this could result in a residential by itself. Rosenthal discussed residential opportunities for the applicant. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 7 of 15 (Commissioner Hawkins asked about a General Plan Amendment for a court [house site under the current PF designation. Wood answered that the concept she had seen did not have the pen ce and as shown on this exhibit, whose open space is it? She no ed it dd be a shared parking facility and if enough of that parking was t satisfy residential project parking requirements to get to the 5 acres, the there Id be a first phase development with 5 acres. It would not haven eded a feral Plan Amendment because it would have a shared parking f cility to w compliance with the policy. nmissioner Henn asked about the Brookfield site and if it is being granted cial treatment. Wood answered no. It is just the planning that they need to coo dinate. re is nothing that says that the development must occur at the s me time apt within the 5 acre phase. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of reducing the 5 acre mi imum dard. If we require a General Plan Amendment in connection ith the •ed parking so that it is a part of this residential project, that mig t be one a; however, if it still stays PF and somehow it is being used by t e iential development as part of their acreage, then I do believe y u have a change. Wood agreed Rosenthal noted the language in the General Plan encompass s 5 acres of and we are not aware there was a prohibition on shared parki g in the PF gnation. It seemed that under the circumstances it was not un easonable tc ;h the conclusion that this was a use that would meet both the F and the uage of the General Plan update. imissioner Hawkins noted his concern of creating a village tha claims 5 �s, yet it is shy. That is a potential challenge for this developm nt and or thk gnation. He then discussed linkages and designations. rperson Toerge noted he is not willing to vote on this project s proposed, is a General Plan meeting and we are digressing. We! not be iging this; however, if this plan has merit it should be organiz d, identified brought back to us for review at a later time. It has merit but of a place in e discussions any further than we have taken it to this point. a asked to e to the next speaker. Philip Bettencourt, noted that Conexant is well situated for thi site and is >ared to move forward with the development standards as th are being ted in the General Plan. Conexant is willing to be bound by any meet and fer requirements on development plans. Some recommend language h n provided to staff. Hawkins asked what the current site is used for? IMr. Bettencourt answered that there is office and electronics mT nufacturing on' file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 8 of 15 site now. There will be some need for buffering between the land us s ! I )mmissioner Eaton asked if they wanted separate plans? .. Bettencourt noted it is meet and confer in good faith without beino bound by ier property owners. This would mandate the sharing of proposed ,cuments. The Conexant property is at a village size already. The mandated nt planning to achieve the village goal, park objections, water quali ,utility rvice plans, etc. is supported by Conexant. Conexant does not w nt to be pu a position to have an adjacent property owner's approval required o put forth application. There is not precedence in the Code. ssioner Eaton noted both Koll and Conexant are proposed to have units without requiring replacement. To him it is an extraor inary to both property owners under this proposed plan and none f the other land owners are going to get. That benefit suggests a higher level of ation to work together. mmissioner Hawkins note there is a numerical limitation as well. If there is a unified plan rather than some meet and confer then the City is left with a to the permit. Someone on staff and then Planning Commissi n and the Council will have to figure out who gets what. One of the goal of requiring comprehensive plan is that the adjacent landowners would wor this out in development of that comprehensive plan. There needs to be s mething ,ilatory and probably stronger than what has been proposed. John Erskin, representing Conexant, noted: • Conexant wants to cooperate with Koll. • Conexant's concern is they are proceeding with consolidatin their operations on approximately 18 acres and will be prepared t move forward on 17 of those acres. • We are not sure if the Koll properties will be able to move fo and as quickly and are not suggesting there is a race to the finish lin for 550 additive units. • Rather than throwing all the land owners together to work thi gs out, we think that staff and ultimately the Council will have to decide here land uses go in the two areas. • There are specific plans that are subdivided into different ar as for a large land owners sites. • We are prepared to work this out. • A specific plan is statutory and is described in the General Ian in the Implementation Section 13 -9. Wood noted staff is choosing other terms so that as we impl ment and ,v more we can decide exactly what it should be. One possib'lity might be ause there is planned community on most if not all of these p operties, to ace portions of those existing planned community texts and t at would ome the regulatory plan for the residential. mmissioner Cole asked if this site is considered one of the 4 illages? If ted as a village, would it require a regulatory plan as well? file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htn I 07/26/200E Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 9 of 15 Ms. Wood answered we have not clearly defined village boundaries so there ould be options for expansion of these villages. It would require a regulatory o Ian and the way language has been drafted is that the comprehensive plan s requirements to in addition to the regulatory. Discussion followed. Commissioner Cole noted his concern of the plans going ahead with all property owners at the same time is not realistic. fission continued on the comprehensive plan, division of 550 infill units, properties planned jointly and entitlement without replacement, etc. arson Toerge noted we started with an office, industrial and commercial where we want to introduce some residential and we asked ROMA how best to plan for this. It is to our advantage to encourage the � owners to create the village. No other entity has the opportunity to that except the City. :)mmissioner Henn asked if Conexant wanted to proceed without Koll then ey could lose all the additive units and places them in the same position as e other land owners in the airport area. That is a very strong incentive for :)nexant to work with Koll in order to maximize their benefit on their property. it becomes so important to them to move ahead because the can and want to ove ahead soon with residential that is replacement and they construct a plan ithout having additive units they can do that, but they give up a lot. They may Ae those additive units to Koll, likewise going the other way. continued. r. Erskin noted that there are private CC and R's that require, within the Koll -Inter, approval before a proposal can proceed. He noted they have issues th one comprehensive plan that requires signatures on applications and that the primary legal constraint. He noted the realities of the restraints on welopment in the Koll Center properties. Carol McDermott, representing Koll Center, noted: • The landowners need to achieve the objectives that are important to the City. • Tremendous benefits will be attributed to these properties in terms of additive units, which is taken care of through Development Agreements. • The issue is how Koll Center and Conexant do their planning that is not unduly restrictive to either party. • No other place in the City do you require one property to jointly cooperate with the other before they can proceed. On the other hand, these are two unique properties. • The entire area bounded by Jamboree, MacArthur and Campus was all part of the Koll Center Planned Community in the early 70's. It was designed to allow for a mixed use community. • Conexant was more of an industrial user that got to be more of an office user with the high rise office buildings they now occupy. • Koll Company had developed a number of buildings that have been sold, but the continuity that Koll Center has is the ownership of all of the parking in Koll Center. file : / /F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/200( Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 10 of 15 • While one individual opportunity site may not equal 5 acres, Office Site A is 30 acres, Office Site B is 40 acres, the entire Koll Center was originally over 200 acres. • There are lots of reasons that tie these things together that can allow for a planning effort under the Koll ownership just as Conexant's ownership presents opportunities. • They have existing uses and existing restrictions just as Koll does. We are all going to want to work together to find solutions. • Koll has proposed some language related to LU 6.15.16 and 6.15.11. She then presented the information to the Planning Commission. • She then discussed the language under LU 6.15. 10 and 6.15.11. • Number and placement of villages were discussed. • Create conceptual plans instead of master comprehensive plans followed by a regulatory plan. • Koll is prepared to go forward in a timely fashion. • With the proposed language, both 6.15.15. and 6.15.16 could be eliminated. • In conclusion, she asked to work with the regulations in the current draft documents to address the concerns of developers. then followed on: • Difference between conceptual master plan and a comprehensive plan. • The number of villages could be deleted and replaced with the minimum size of each village as 10 acres. airperson Toerge noted they need to be planned together and to recognize t they are not required for concurrent processing. In order to honor and pest the overall plan with which we want to implement there, there needs to some type of joint conceptual planning. He is not prepared to come up with language tonight and suggested that staff craft it. �nmissioner Henn agreed with Chairperson Toerge's suggestion and asked and received more clarity on the conceptual master plan. Wood noted that both the conceptual or comprehensive plan and the ilatory plan are going to be discretionary reviews and actions by the fining Commission and City Council. It would be up to the judgment of those bodies if there are any discrepancies. nmissioner McDaniel agreed that the Koll language seems to work better. noted that staff can talk to both Koll and Conexant. issioner Cole asked about the development agreement noting that is the City can require community benefit. He then brought up the idea of a ed additive unit by acreage as something for staff to consider. sion followed. missioner Hawkins noted the multiplicity of villages is a problem. The city I ROMA for a specific reason and to the extent that we splinter the entire 4 area into a multiplicity of villages that are 10 acres is a problem. The was to have some sort of comprehensive plan and I know it has been A down. He is in favor of reducing rather than enlarging the number of file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 11 of 15 ges. Since we have asked both the property owners to allocate the additive s and they both confessed an inability to do so, I think Commissioner Cole's gestion of allocating those additive units on some equal basis is correct. WE d to figure out what the basis is and the City is going to have to do that as owners are unable to. To the extent we are going to do anything to the 7ber of villages, I think we need to reduce them. issioner Eaton noted his agreement with Chairperson Toerge's ants on the Koll language. Obviously if the two owners could agree, that be the best possibility, otherwise it will need to be done by staff. mmissioner Hawkins noted there needs to be a commitment by the parties the plan. Some specific language referring to a commitment needs to be in 6.15.16. airperson Toerge asked if staff has enough information to come up with ne appropriate language. Wood noted that 5 of the Commissioners present are favoring the one iceptual plan and a separate regulatory approach with a minimum of 10 -es for each village without a maximum number. followed on a number of villages, and what comprises a village. imissioner Hawkins noted his opposition to an increased number of villages suggested it be a maximum of 4. Toerge agreed that with the limit of 4. Henn noted he sees 5 villages. iissioner McDaniel noted the two representatives will have to work with Otherwise, we will and they may not like it. We are all trying to make hing happen that works for everyone including the City. airperson Toerge noted that the ROMA sketch has always had 4 villages and even talked about moving it down to 3 when we changed the development iin the CNEL line. 4 to me seems consistent. is comment was closed. irperson Toerge then asked for a straw vote on the WPI property with no iges to the policies that have been recommended. imissioner Eaton noted his concern of interpretations and suggested an naly on the court house. imissioner Henn noted the WPI property as shown in association with the t house could also be connected to the Conexant site as well. Wood answered yes, it could also go all the way to Birch with a little of the t house parking property. file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06222006,htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 12 of 15 {Ms. McDermott, referencing an exhibit, pointed out an area where 4 different (buildings are owned by neither Koll nor Conexant. Wood suggested that rather than use the anomaly table for the court he do a policy as the anomaly table deals with quantities of land use rather ;s of land use. )mmissioner Hawkins noted the earlier proposal was to leave this property as because of all the moving parts. He agrees with that and he is opposed to ping an anomaly table and agreed to leave it as is. followed. Planning Commission decided they would like to see suggested policy >sioner Cole asked about the additive units allocation. He noted that ;e to the additive units was removed under the Development Agreement In the original language there was reference. Staff noted it was an n to be corrected. Wood added that this will be separated into two separate policies again. Dmmissioner Hawkins suggested moving the prohibition language from LU 15.24 that had been stricken to LU 6.15.2. Following a brief discussion, it and Tables Ramirez, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the tables noting that :te set of the latest draft version of the land use maps had been ited. The maps use the same structure but the content has changed on recommendations from both the Planning Commission and City II. He then noted: Residential - land uses have been broken down by densities using single, two family and multi unit categories. Referencing LU9 he explained the index. Staff is proposing adding a policy that would require an authorization of a general plan amendment for future subdivisions because of Charter Section 423 and the requirement to track all additional dwelling units that we authorize. There are some properties that are limited by identifying a speck numbe of units per acre. Cole asked if there was a statistical area index? Ramirez noted that in this version a statistical area map was not included. could and will add an exhibit showing just the statistical areas. Hawkins asked about RM -D. IMr. Ramirez explained it was detached units on a common lot, so it basically is file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 13 of 15 for detached condominiums such as Bay Island, much of Sail House and some lino Newport Ridge and Newport Coast. Continuing, he noted: • Commercial - The FAR's are shown whenever possible on the map. If they didn't fit in well with an FAR we would add them as square footage to the anomaly table. • All the other land use categories are shown in similar fashion except for mixed use. • Mixed use has a straight designation which you can refer to the table for specifics because it is too much information to show on the map. • We tried to show as much information as we could on the map and keep as much out of the anomaly table as we can. • The anomaly table will be presented to the Planning Commission at the next available meeting. Hawkins asked about the CO -R designation on page 17 in terms the density. Ir. Ramirez answered that the regional commercial areas are limited to lewport Center and encompass large blocks of multiple properties and have a pecific square footage that is shared over that entire block. Sometimes the roperties are postage stamp type properties or footprints, so if you assign an 'AR over the whole area it would be confusing to track as to who has what, and that goes where. Cole suggested adding a Birch Street label to the airport area agreed and asked if there were any other suggestions to email staff as this nent is being prepared for an edition to be adopted. nmissioner Eaton noted these categories are better. He noted that in the dential categories, there may be additional process that will be an outcome; that is probably appropriate. , nmissioner Cole noted that GPUC had suggested putting out to the public differences between the policies so that the public could see if they were to impacted or not. Wood noted this would be a project for after the City Council adoption of comment was opened. Schroeder noted: • His concern of R -2 property owners entitlement not being reduced. Is that correct? • He asked about the RT designation. • What about the requirement for a general plan amendment? IMs. Wood answered that is being discussed at the Council meeting on the F7th. She explained the current designation that is being discussed at the file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \06222006.htm 07126/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 14 of 15 ouncil meeting. Mr. Ramirez noted that in the two unit designation, two units are permitted by ht and a general plan amendment is not required. Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that some portions of the area shown LU7 that are under 132 shown as RS -D, which is the single family detached, me of those, as is contained in the current EIR project description, would be a zoned from R -2 to R -1. Some of these areas are already single family units. e whole discussion related to potential re- zoning of two family properties to igle family properties is on the Council agenda for the 27th. Schroeder stated how the Planning Commission voted on this re -zone was ed on what the property owners wanted. He noted that is not what the iers want. He then read some of the minutes from the Council meeting arding a meeting with the association, etc. He continued noting his objection tis down- zoning. He concluded by saying he did not want to lose the tlement on his property. Wood noted that what staff is recommending for Council consideration at next meeting is only the oceanfront lots be re- designated as single unit and Schroeder was informed of that this afternoon. Anne Richards, property owner, noted she has not received any notification the changes. She noted the down - zoning would lessen her property value. comment was closed. Toerge asked if there was any opposition to the No Subdivision Eaton how it would apply? Ramirez answered it would apply to all residential designations. Planning Commission agreed with the wording for the No Subdivision recommended by staff. was made by Chairperson Toerge to continue discussion on the Plan and the general meeting adjourned to the meeting on July 6th. Wood noted that responses to comments will be available on July 6th and A for the Commission to have two hearings on the final EIR. She jested that a meeting be held on Julv 13th. Discussion followed. None Tucker None - - -- - --- I BUSINESS Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economidl Development Committee - Commissioner Henn reported that there were two file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \06222006.htm 07/26/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 06/22/2006 Page 15 of 15 resentations, one on the Balboa Theater and one on the Newport Beach Film Festival. Both of the presentations were very informative and gave a brie synopsis. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported that there was n meeting. ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted a meeting is planned for June 26th to discuss strategy as to the depth and detail with which the Implementation Plan will be drafted. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a futi agenda for action and staff report- Ms. Temple noted that the first meet in July is the re- organization meeting. The Commission could choose to that re- organization at the next meeting, or wait until after the n Commissioners are present. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed have the re- organizational meeting at the first meeting in July and ask t the current Chairman run the portion of the meeting on the General P discussion. Project status - Ms Temple noted that Our Lady Queen of Angels project be heard during the month of August. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner McDaniel noted he will be here for the meeting of August 3rd; and, Commissioner Henn asked to excused from the meeting on July 6th. BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //F:\Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006\06222006.htm 07/26/200(