Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2005CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 2005— 3:00 p.m. Page I of 10 ROLL CALL Commissioners Barry Eaton, Robert Hawkins, Michael Henn, Earl McDaniel, Michael Toerge, and Larry Tucker - Present. Jeffrey Cole arrived at 3:50 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation & Development Services Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Woodie Tescher, Consultant, EIP Associates PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments SUBJECT: Minutes of Special Meeting of October 20, 2005 Motion was made by Chairman Toerge to approve the minutes as amended. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Henn, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker Noes: Absent: Cole Abstain: SUBJECT: General Plan Update Land Use Recommendations & Selection of Preferred Land Use Plan Woodie Tescher presented an overview of the element and introduced each goal for discussion by the Commission. The document reviewed indicated changes made by the General Plan Advisory Committee at their meeting of November 12, 2005. The Commission made the following changes to the goals and policies presented. The changes were made by consensus except where a straw vote is noted. LU 1.0 Commissioner Eaton asked about the 5 year Economic Development Strategy referred to in Policy LU1.5 and why GPAC had deleted the language. Ms. Wood indicated that this was a document being developed simultaneously with the General Plan and GPAC felt it should not be included since they have not and will not be reviewing the document. file: //F:1 Apps \WEBDATA \Internet \PhiAgendas \2005\mnl 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LU 2.0 Page 2 of 10 Commissioner Tucker asked that "Continue to" and "current" be deleted from the second sentence in LU2.3. Chairman Toerge asked that "continue to" be deleted throughout the document. Commissioner Hawkins asked that the language added by GPAC in Policy LU2.1 "the scale of the community" be deleted. The Commission agreed. Chairman Toerge opened the public hearing on Goals 1 and 2. Charles Griffin, Eastbluff resident, spoke about Policy LU2.7 Oil and Gas Facilities. He indicated this language may prohibit the development of hydrogen from natural gas. He also asked that the Newport Beach golf course be annexed into the city to gain more control over the growth of the airport. Ms. Temple indicated that the City Charter was used in developing this policy and it was found it was not clear whether it is referring to gas or natural gas. Commissioner Hawkins supported Mr. Griffin's concerns and thought the phrase "more efficient production of wells" could mean production of natural gas. Commissioner Tucker suggested changing the title to "Oil Facilities" because the text does not refer to gas. Mr. Harp suggested more review of the policy would be necessary to insure it is consistent with the Charter. Chairman Toerge closed the public comments. LU 3.0 Mr. Tescher indicated that changes in the districts discussed later in the document could affect LU 3.3 and LU 3.4 and will be amended after the district discussions for consistency. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that the text in LU 3.3 regarding Fashion Island states "while precluding increases in office development," however later in the document there is some increase in office. Ms. Wood indicated the idea was to preclude the conversion of retail to office space as currently allowed. Mr. Tescher suggested changing the language to read "while precluding conversion of retail to office development." Commissioner Hawkins asked that the word "precluding" be changed to 'limiting." Ms. Wood indicated that the document did not change the amount of office; the increase is to retail entitlement. Commissioner Tucker agreed to wait until the discussion of the area before changing the language in this section. Commissioner Hawkins pointed out in LU 3.3 Corona del Mar parking is included although it should be addressed in the circulation element. Mr. Tescher suggested adding language about parking and a reference to the Circulation Element in the introduction of this element. Commissioner Eaton suggested adding language indicating the required consistency between the Land Use and Circulation elements. Chairman Toerge opened the public comments. Charles Griffin, Eastbluff resident, spoke regarding annexing West Santa Ana Heights and moving City Hall to that area. He felt that would be a better use of the area than residential based on the airport. He stated the Public Utility Code discourages any residential property within the 60 db CNEL contour. Norm Witt, The Irvine Company, asked that the language in LU 3.3 be clarified to make it clear file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005 1mn11- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 3 of 10 that this policy refers to new entitlement, not existing uses. Ms. Wood indicated that was the intention. Chris Lawrence, Balboa Peninsula resident, pointed out that Newport Beach needs to focus on transportation for the future. He also thought that it was more logical to have City Hall located in the Fashion Island area of the city. Chairman Toerge pointed out that the Commission would be reviewing the Circulation Element on December 6th which would address traffic issues. Commissioner Tucker added that the City Council would make future decisions about City Hall and annexations. Chiarman Toerge closed the public hearing. LU 4.0 Mr. Tescher advised the Commission that this section was a work in progress and would be brought back for review in the future and will also include a map (Figure A) and statistical information (Appendix A). Commissioner Henn asked for clarification regarding Residential Village because in this section it only refers to Banning Ranch and in the discussion of the Airport Area there is reference to a residential village also. Commissioner Tucker asked if the general plan is voted on and approved would that be the new starting point for Charter Section 423? The staff could not provide the answer and will do further research. Commissioner Tucker pointed out typos on page 10, Medical Commercial Office and Regional Commercial Office, the first sentence under uses need to be changed from "The CO -B" to "CO- M" and from "The CO -C" to "CO -R." Under Mixed Use A, Commissioner Tucker suggested it should read "...restricted to retail and or other pedestrian - active uses.." He asked for clarification on the definition of "rear" in the uses section of Mixed Use A & B. Commissioner Tucker thought it would be helpful to provide an example for the Density/Intensity described in MU -A1. Commissioner Tucker suggested adding a baseline to Mixed Use B2 to indicate the starting point before all the "additional' amounts. Ms. Temple indicated the baseline would be included in Appendix A when complete. Commissioner Tucker asked if there was a height limit in Mixed Use C1. Ms. Wood indicated the height limit would be in the zoning code and also referenced in the Mariner's Mile subarea. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that only yacht clubs were listed under Parks and Recreation, the section did not include country clubs, tennis clubs, etc. He thought the language should be changed for consistency. Commissioner Henn did not recall the 50% requirement for CM uses listed in Mixed Use C1. Mr. Tescher advised the Commission that GPAC did not recommend housing on the waterfront side of Mariner's Mile, so this section would be deleted. Ms. Wood explained that GPAC had discussed the changes made by the Planning Commission and City Council and voted to reaffirm their original recommendations. Commission Eaton was concerned that the last sentence of LU 4.1 was too broad. file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas\2005\mnI 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Tucker had the same concerns and recommended striking the sentence. Chairman Toerge opened the public hearing on Goal 4. Charles Griffin, Eastbluff resident, thought that parking should be mentioned in Mixed Use Al. He also emphasized again the area mentioned in Mixed Use B2 I within the 65 db CNEL contour and the airspace is utilized by general aviation aircraft leaving the airport. He stated that adding housing is contrary to the Public Utilities Code and Act and is not compatible in this area. Chairman Toerge closed the public hearing on Goal 4. LU 5.0 Mr. Tescher introduced Walter Rask from ROMA who worked specifically on the airport area. Residential Neighborhoods Commissioner Eaton asked how the design oriented policies would be implemented. Mr. Tescher indicated an analysis would be required for consistency with the general plan as part of the review process. Ms Temple indicated staff could be trained to conduct such a review. Ms. Wood pointed out that this document contained a lot more guidance on design than any other planning document the City has currently. She asked that the Commission consider whether this was the right direction for the City and consider ways to implement the policies. Commissioner Tucker indicated he would like more design guidance for non - residential units. He doesn't think the style of architecture should be selected, however the quality of design and materials and the application of those materials would provide quality projects is important. Commissioner Tucker pointed out the phrase in LU 5.1.1 "contributes to neighborhood character and is not repetitive," stating that there are high quality projects that are repetitive. He thought that "is not repetitive" should be taken out. Commissioners Henn and Cole agreed. Commissioner Hawkins thought the language could be changed to "needless repetition." Commissioner Tucker preferred deleting it. Commissioner McDaniel agreed. Chairman Toerge indicated it was a consensus to delete it. Chairman Toerge suggested adding a policy addressing parking for larger homes which would require more parking after exceeding a certain size or number of bedrooms. He also asked to add a policy that would address areas in the City with alleys to require enclosures for trash cans. Commissioner Henn supported his comments. The rest of the Commission also supported these additions. Commissioner Eaton asked that the language previously deleted by GPAC in LU 5.1.8 in the 3'd bullet under Ground Floor Treatment "but not so much that pedestrians face blank walls or look into utility or parking spaces" be added back in. Chairman Toerge indicated a consensus of the Commission agreed. Commissioner Hawkins asked that the language in LU 5.1.5, first bullet on page 15 "to avoid the appearance of "box like" buildings" be added back in. Commissioner McDaniel disagreed pointing out that on Balboa Island a significant portion of the houses already constructed have some cube /box structure due to the lot sizes /set backs but have some articulation in the front where people see them. Commissioner Tucker suggested changing the language to "articulation and modulation of visible building masses..." Commissioners Cole and Henn file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \P1nAgendas \2005\mnI 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 5 of 10 agreed to delete the language as recommended by GPAC. Commissioner Eaton liked adding "visible" to the policy. Chairman Toerge agreed with the recommendation by GPAC. Commissioner Cole stated that in general he thought the City should stay away from being too specific on design requirements. He feels it is a significant departure from the current land use element and may upset a lot of homeowners. Commissioner Cole asked about the 4th bullet on page 15 "Entries and windows..." and stated there are many houses in his community without windows along the street. Ms. Wood suggested it may be more appropriate if it related to the style of the neighborhood instead of a blanket policy. Commissioner Cole agreed. Commissioner McDaniel related his experience with design review in the City of Glendale. He stated he would prefer being as open as possible in our policies. Commissioner Tucker commented on the word "scale" in the second bullet on page 15. He stated the goal is to make sure whatever is built is built with quality. He suggested retooling the language to indicate compatibility with development trends in the neighborhood. Commissioner Henn agreed and stated if we pay careful attention to setbacks, sightlines and height limitations the issues that bother people will be taken care of. Chairman Toerge stated to be effective on these policies it would be almost impossible to implement without some type of design review board. He added the language seemed to be more subdivision oriented which is not this City. Mr. Tescher indicated that LU 5.1.5 was originally developed for application in Banning Ranch and suggested moving it to that section of the element. Commissioner Tucker thought Banning Ranch would be a planned community with its own design guidelines. He was not opposed to the language other than to make the change to indicate trends of the neighborhood. Commissioner Eaton suggested design review for projects other than single family. Chairman Toerge indicated this section should be moved to Banning Ranch. Commissioner Hawkins disagreed and instead supported the GPAC recommendation leaving in the section. Commissioner Tucker suggested strike the reference to design review and add language in terms of articulation /modulation of building masses, architectural treatment, elevations from public places and add 2 or 3 things we want and leave it at that. Commissioner Henn added that the first 3 bullets on page 15 could go under existing housing. Commissioner Hawkins suggested juggling the title to include the renovation section, character and quality of single family dwellings and delete the 4th & 5th bullet points in LU 5.1.5. Commissioner Tucker stated the language in the 5th bullet point concerned him "..respecting the privacy needs of residents of the development and surrounding properties" because of past conflicts. Commissioner Hawkins suggested striking the language in the 5th bullet point after neighboring buildings. Chairman Toerge summarized the changes in LU 5.1.5; delete bullet points 4 & 5, move bullet points 1, 2 & 3 to LU 5.1.7, and add language in bullet point 2 about compatibility with development trends. Ms. Wood added that the language in LU 5.1.7 will be replaced with the bullet points. Multi -fa m q _neighborhoods Commissioner Cole suggested deleting last part of the first bullet point on page 16 "avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume." Commissioner Henn suggested changing "Require" to "Encourage" in the bullet point about file: //F:\Apps1WEBDATA1 Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn11- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH stoops and porches. Page 6 of 10 Ms. Wood pointed out that staff had overlooked duplexes in the policy; however felt that the policies for single family dwellings could also apply to duplexes. Chairman Toerge opened public comments for goal 5.1, hearing no comments he closed hearing. Commercial Districts Mr. Tescher indicated LU 5.2.2 would be deleted from this Element and moved to the Circulation Element. Commissioner Hawkins asked about the LEED certification in the last bullet point of LU 5.2.1. Mr. Tescher recommended striking that reference. Commissioner Tucker asked about LU 5.2.3 and how we could deal with buffering residential areas in Corona del Mar where residential and commercial districts are right next to each other. Ms. Wood indicated it could be done through performance based regulations such as conditions of approval on hours of operations, where employees park, etc. Mr. Tescher suggested deleting the word "adequately." Commissioner McDaniel thought "require" was too strong. Commissioner Hawkins suggested "require to the extent possible..." Mixed use Districts Commissioner Eaton asked about the added wording to LU 5.3.2 "and other non - residential uses." Mr. Tescher indicated that for pedestrian districts ground floor uses were limited to retail uses, however in other areas the policy would allow office on the ground floor. Commissioner McDaniel thought as long as it was not residential and fit with the area the use doesn't matter. Commissioner Hawkins disagreed and thought a qualifier may be necessary. Mr. Tescher suggested adding "and other compatible non - residential uses." Commissioner Tucker asked about LU 5.3.5, 2nd bullet point, "...finished floor elevation..." Walter Rask, Roma Design Group, responded stating the idea was to have the sidewalk and floor flush with one another. Commissioner Tucker asked for clarifying language. Commissioner Hawkins suggested adding another bullet point under LU 5.3.5 referring to the need for adequate and convenient parking in the pedestrian oriented areas which would be covered in the Circulation Element. Chairman Toerge opened the public hearing on LU 5.2 & 5.3. Charles Griffin, Eastbluff resident, asked for a policy to have the City acquire residential lots in Corona del Mar behind the business and convert them to parking lots. Chairman Toerge closed the public hearing. Office & Business Parks Commissioner Tucker asked about the first two bullet points under LU 5.4.1. Mr. Tescher suggested deleting "with buildings facing one another and forming common building walls" in the first bullet; and "and signage" in the second bullet. Commissioner Cole asked to delete a portion of first bullet of LU 5.4.2, "to avoid the sense of a single building volume." He also questioned the second bullet point. Ms. Wood suggested adding "to public spaces" at the end of the sentence. file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnl 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 7 of 10 Chairman Toerge opened the public hearing on LU 5.4, after hearing no comments he closed the public hearing. LU 6.0 Public & Institutional Uses & Districts Commissioner Tucker questioned the language in LU 6.1.2. Ms. Temple explained that the current general plan is too detailed and requires a General Plan Amendment if a residential project included a public dedicated park or utility station. She suggested having staff do some additional work and come back to the Commission with revised language. Ms. Wood agreed that more work is needed on this section and added that the zoning code update should make it clearer what is permitted and what would require a use permit. Commissioner Tucker thought the language should be changed in LU 6.1.5 because Hoag Hospital serves more than just Newport Beach residents. Ms. Wood suggested changing the language to "area residents." Chairman Toerge opened the public hearing on LU 6.1, after hearing no comments he closed the hearing. Residential Neighborhoods Chairman Toerge asked about the rationale behind deleting LU 6.2.19 and felt it was a good policy that should be left in the document. Gregg Ramirez explained that the group did not want to limit the use to mobile home parks, they wanted to be open to another multi family use. Commissioner Hawkins indicated he would support the deletion as long as there was a policy recognizing the need for affordable housing. Commissioner Eaton thought the goal was reasonable and agreed with reinstating it. Commissioner Tucker stated he was hesitant to tell someone what they can do with their property; he added that generally mobile home parks are an interim use and there may be a better use. Chairman Toerge polled the Commission; the vote was 4 to 3 to leave it in. Commissioner Tucker pointed out a typo in the second paragraph on page 25, "built -out" should be "build- out." He also suggested making a change in the last line of the third paragraph changing "most houses" to "to many houses." Commissioner Cole suggested deleting LU 6.2.10 Gated Communities because the language was too prohibitive and it is already covered in the LCP language. Commissioner Eaton was satisfied with the GPAC recommendation changing "Prohibit" to "Discourage." Commissioner Tucker thought there were already enough hurdles when creating a gated community without a General Plan policy. Chairman Toerge thought it was appropriate to leave it in. Commissioners Hawkins and Henn supported the GPAC recommendation. Commissioner McDaniel agreed with deleting it. Chairman Toerge polled the Commission, the vote was 4 to 3 in favor of leaving it in with the GPAC change. Commissioner Tucker thought LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities covered more than it should. Commissioner Eaton stated he had worked with other communities where apartment complexes abandoned pools /facilities and tried to convert them to extra apartment buildings. Commissioner Tucker indicated that had happened here also; however the distinction would be cases where the facility is separate from the ownership of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms Temple suggested changing the wording to "...integrated file: //F: \Apps \WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas\2005 \mnl 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 8 of 10 into and owned by private residential development..." Commissioner Henn suggested adding another policy "Where appropriate, in residential neighborhoods near visitor serving uses such as the Balboa Peninsula, encourage low intensity hospitality uses such as bed & breakfast inns designed and maintained consistent with surrounding single family residents." Commissioner Hawkins agreed however asked that the policy apply citywide. Chairman Toerge didn't think residential districts were appropriate due to parking issues, hours of operation, etc. Ms. Wood indicated current zoning allows B &B's, in residential districts. Ms. Temple added permits would be required and currently there aren't any because of the parking criteria. Commissioner Cole indicated he approved of adding the policy. Commissioner Tucker did not want to add it. After hearing the discussion, Commissioner Hawkins was not in favor of adding the policy. Commissioner Eaton pointed out that the language was in the Peninsula discussion. Chairman Toerge adjourned the meeting announcing that the Airport Area would be discussed at the conclusion of the regular meeting agenda at 6:30 p.m. Districts Airport Area Walter Rask, Roma Design Group, and Mr. Tescher provided an overview of the land use recommendations for the Airport Area. The Commission discussed the two 65 CNEL Noise Contour lines shown on the area map; one was established in 1985 and the other established in the Settlement Agreement. Ms. Wood indicated the Airport Land Use Commission recognizes the 1985 line because the Settlement Agreement will not go on forever. Commissioner Eaton suggested determining which of the CNEL lines to use. The Commission agreed to use the 1985 line for this element. Commissioner Eaton also asked the Commission to determine the number of housing units for the area, 3,300 or 4,300. He thought the 3,300 was best based on the decision to use the 1985 CNEL line. Commissioners Hawkins and Cole agreed. Commissioner McDaniel thought the larger number would provide more opportunity for the area. Commissioner Tucker agreed pointing out this area could help with the RHNA requirements. Chairman Toerge supported the 3,300 and reported the straw vote resulted in a 4 to 3 vote in favor of the 3,300 units. Chairman Toerge excused himself from the meeting and Vice Chair Cole took over as Chair of the meeting. Commissioner Tucker asked if the incentives in 6.15.5 would be defined. Ms. Wood indicated she thought they would be outlined in the economic strategy. Commissioner Henn asked if the incentives would be included in the implementation plan. Ms. Wood responded that if the incentive dealt with FARs they may end up in zoning. Commissioner Tucker asked about 6.15.7, he thought that design guidelines might help in the Campus Tract. Commissioner Cole suggested using language from an earlier policy with suggested guidelines. Ms. Wood pointed out that the earlier policies would apply to this area. Commissioner Tucker suggested changing the language in LU 6.15.14 from "Master Plan" to "Concept Plan." Commissioner Tucker asked about the neighborhood park requirement, minimum of 1 acre or 8% of gross land area. He also asked about the occupancy assumption and how that figures file: //F:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005\mn11- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 9 of 10 into the calculation. Mr. Tescher indicated the occupancy was 1.8 for the EIR. Mr. Rask pointed out using the occupancy would put the numbers in the same ballpark. Commissioner Eaton asked if the 5 acres per 1,000 requirement would apply to all residential or only those where a map is required. Ms. Wood indicated only those requiring a map. Ms. Temple added that most developers process maps for this style of residential. Commissioner Eaton asked that language be added to LU 6.15.13 indicating development of housing units outside the 65 CNEL line. Chairman Cole agreed. Mr. Tescher indicated the language was included in 6.15.4. Commissioner Eaton suggested it be reiterated in 6.15.13. Commissioner Hawkins asked that "Campus Tract" be capitalized in the second paragraph on page 47. He also asked that the carve out for the Quail Street residential project in LU 6.15.15 apply throughout the airport area rather than that particular project only. Chairman Cole agreed. Commissioner Henn was concerned that if the concept applied to the whole area there was a risk of getting small /unplanned development in the area. Commissioner Hawkins suggested more work was needed on the language to possibly include substantial in lieu fee payment. Commissioner Henn suggested adding further conditions to guard against the risk of giving up parks entirely. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to see significant residential projects in this area and agreed with Commission Henn about leaving the carve out just for Quail Street. Commissioner McDaniel also supported Commissioner Henn. Chairman Cole pointed out if the carve out was applied to the entire area we may end up with more piecemeal residential. Mr. Tescher indicated there may be a misunderstanding regarding 6.15.14, the idea was that every residential village shall have a plan, it was not the mechanism to get an exception from the parks requirement. The question for the Commission is if you would like it to be a regulatory, policy or concept document. Commissioner Henn's concern was that the provision will allow a larger number of small disconnected developments. Ms. Wood pointed out that 6.15.10 has the waiver of the 10 acre requirement if the concept plan is done. She added that 6.15.14 is the requirement for each development to have a plan and suggested that it should be a regulatory document. Commissioner Henn reiterated his concern about 6.15.10 which could allow a developer to avoid the 10 acre minimum. Chairman Cole stated there was not enough support to change the policy to apply to the entire airport area. Commissioner Eaton agreed that the policy should not be broadened. Ms. Wood suggested limiting the exception to the Quail Street neighborhood and the remnants along MacArthur. Commissioner Hawkins agreed. Commissioner Tucker thought assembling 10 acres is going to be a challenge, he doesn't have a problem if a project comes in with 6 acres because they will be putting in the infrastructure and amenities for future developments. Chairman Cole suggested there should also be a minimum of 5 acres if the waiver is requested. Commissioner Henn agreed that 5 acres should be the minimum and must include the parks and amenities in order to qualify for the exception. The Commission agreed. Ms. Wood asked if the waiver of the park requirement would still apply to the Quail Street project. Chairman Cole indicated it would only be for Quail Street. Commissioner Tucker asked about 6.15.16 which states "preferably with on- street parking." He indicated some of the parks are on roads where parking is.restricted. Commissioner Tucker asked if 6.15.18 was referring to public or private streets. Ms. Wood responded public streets. Mr. Tescher added it referred to internal streets. Ms. Wood added it might make sense on Quail Street if that neighborhood is fully developed to have on street parking. file: //F:\ Apps\ WEBDATA \Intemet\P1nAgendas \2005\mnt 1- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 10 of 10 Chairman Cole asked about 6.15.23 where we're requiring highrise structures to be surrounded by low and midrise structures, he thought it might be difficult on smaller sites. Ms. Wood indicated that would apply in the residential village, not each project. Commissioner Hawkins was concerned about the language in LU 6.15.22, he felt that scaling back parking is not what we want to do. Ms. Wood pointed out the thought behind it was that this area would be a functional mixed use area where people would live, work and shop there and walk instead of driving. Chairman Cole opened the public hearing on the airport area. Charles Griffin indicated he was appalled that residential would be considered in this area. He indicated the CNEL lines are based on a best guess as to the number and type of aircraft for the next 20 years. He added that new aircraft is being built lighter and stronger using larger engines that will create the same amount of noise. He urged the commission not to condone residential development in the area. He added that there is a need for jobs and the area should be used for manufacturing. Robert Brower, representing Brookfield Homes, reviewed some of the points in a letter sent to the Commission. He pointed out that a General Plan should be general and this plan was getting very specific for this area. The letter suggested instead of looking at a minimum number of acres, a minimum size density (50 dwelling units per project) should be considered. He also suggested letting the market determine where things will fall as opposed to specifying them in the General Plan. John Saunders, property owner in the area and a member of GPAC, described how he got involved in Newport Beach. He thought the area would only be redeveloped when the economy makes it profitable to do so. He asked the Commission to think hard before excluding the Campus Tract from the area where residential is allowed. He added there are restrictions from the State regarding airport areas and did not want to add more in the General Plan which is in effect for the next 25 years. He urged the Commission to be flexible in terms the lines being used because technology will be changing. He urged the Commission to talk to people in Anaheim to determine their experience with the Platinum Triangle area, stating he is involved with a small 3 acre project there that will be very nice. Ms. Wood thought that the last two speakers were not clear about the map and suggested more clarifying language should be added to the element. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. file: //F:1 Apps1 WEBDATA1 Intemet\PlnAgendas 120051mn11- 17- 05.htm 6/26/2008