Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1995 Minutes - Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 16,1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, ' 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Also present Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager, Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney, James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT: CDD/DeStefano reported that the Lane Use Element contains broad policy statements designed to deal with distribution, general location and extent of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, education, public buildings and all other categories of public and private land uses. It provides the overall framework for future use of the City's land located within the 15 sq. mile incorporated City and the 5 1/2 sq. mile sphere of influence. This insures that the community ach'eves and maintains a use of land consistent with overall goals and objectives. Although all Elements are presumed equal, the Land Use Element is often perceived as most representative of the General Plan and is most often used by Planning staff once the General Plan is adopted. The Element Map is representative of policies within the text and identifies p-oposed land uses for City planning areas. In addition, tables and text indicate intensity and density of development for planning areas. Over vie past 35 years, development in the City has been residential land' uses. Generally, densities are higher for residential in the flat areas of the City. As grades increase, lot sizes increase and density decreases. Currently, D.B. has approximately 17;800 dwelling units with about 54,500 people. Non--esidential land uses comprise about 20% of the total land area. Approximately 28% of the City is presently vacant. Issues within the Land Use Element include, the, need to establish an appropriate land use mix for the community while responding to concerns of the disposition of remaining lard:,, a desi-e to retain open spaces, the need to increase the City's revenue base and desire to define and promote a positive City image. The Element presented by thPlanning Commission proposes an additional 1,073 dwelling units be constructed over''the next 1� to 20 years. Overall, the Element is proposing land, use densities and intensities which FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 2 reflective of existing conditions and development characteristics. There are four residential land use classifications which allow floor area ratios up to 1.0. In addition to the approximate 5.7 million sq. ft. of commercial industrial land currently situated in the City, the Element incorporates a planned 1.3 million additional sq. ft of space over the next 15 to 20 years. The Element includes a proposal for creation of a Slope Density Ordinance for properties exceeding 25% slope. The Element encourages density transfers as one means to preserve and acquire open space resources. There is a deme to fiuther detail land use planning of the three major areas designated as Specific Plan since the designations applied to the properties in the General Plan do not extend to a Master Plan for those properties. These three properties are: Bramalea (400 acres) currently classified Residential/Open Space; Tres Hermanos (800 acres) classified Agriculture/Specific Plan, and Boy Scout property (3200 acres) located within the sphere of influence area and classified Agriculture. In addition to the three areas where Specific Plans are recommended, there are a few areas where a Planned Development is being proposed. Planned Developments tend to be in areas completely surrounded by existing development. The scale of the development review process is somewhat less than that of a specific plan. These areas are: the "Stone" property (10 acres) located at the SR 60 and Golden Springs Dr.; Calvary Chapel site and hospital property at Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. With respect to the Element, both GPAC and the Planning Commission spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the details contained within the document. GPAC spent three of the six months reviewing the Element and recommended an Element that FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 3 by GPAC, the Planning Commission felt that the property located at D.B. Blvd. near Brea Canyon Rd., known as Site D, was better suited for a community facility. The outstanding issue facing the community is whether the City reports to the State of California with a compliance -based document or with a constraints -based document outlining whether or not the City can fulfill its responsibilities under the regional share of housing allocation. M/Papen thanked staff for the Vacant Lam Housing Opportunities Area Map which includes about 53 different locations in the City where there is potential for development. Responding to MPT/Werner, M/Papen indicated there would be a Public Hearing on the Land Use Element and the Council would return on February 23, 1995 for a final decision on the issues involved. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., presented another copy of his 32 -page document regarding the Land Use Element. He felt there were restrictions on the Bramalea property and that it should be designated Open Space. In addition, the School District purchased property knowing that it was restricted and they indicated they would preserve the property as open space -now the District is asking for a Planned Development designation. He felt the General Plan should designate the school property as Open Space. He further believed that upper Sycamore Canyon should be preserved as an environmental habitat and Tonner Canyon should be designated as Agricultural. The Slope Density Factor should start at 150/9. M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Page 21 of his document which states "prior to approving new development or the intensification of existing development within the City of Diamond Bar, a FULL complete EIR must be submitted on all development larger than one single family dwelling unit, multi -complex or commercial buildings of over 10,000 sq. ft." and asked if he still supported this statement. Mr. Maxwell stated that he did. On Page 17, M/Papen indicated that one of the strategies in obtaining open space as recommended by the Planning Commission is that, if an individual owns two properties, the City allows the transfer of development rights to one property so that the other property can be preserved as open space. She referred Mr. Maxwell to the last sentence on Page 17 of his document which states: "Transfer of development rights will not be permitted under any condition" and asked if he still held with this tenet. TW. Maxwell stated that he did. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 4 M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Page 13 of his document, second paragraph under I-II Strategies 1. 1.9 which reads: "No development will be permitted in Tonner Canyon, including a roadway or other forms of transportation." She stated that in the sphere of influence there is presently a road in Tonner Canyon which is not open to the public. She asked if Mr. Maxwell still supported the statement. Mr. Maxwell indicated that the property should be designated Agricultural. A major corridor should not be in the canyon. M/Papen referred Mr. Maxwell to Pages 7 and 9 of the document which states: "A MORATORIUM will be placed on all future development of single family dwellings and comnwcial development in the City of Diamond Bar for five (5) years or until the traffic is reduced to a level "C", whichever takes the longer time." She asked if this is a position which Mr. Maxwell's group is still supporting. Mr. Maxwell responded that it is. C/Miller asked Mr. Maxwell whether he is concerned that a commercial building meet the required parking and landscape area ratios or is it a specific number that needs to be included in the General Plan. Mr. Maxwell stated he is concerned that the ratio is misleading. C/Miller responded that the City requires more parking spaces than the County required. Mr. Maxwell stated he felt the ratio should be even more restrictive. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that citizens are very concerned about the use of the few remaining precious open areas left in the City. Children now and in the firture deserve the right to view, hike and enjoy these last remaining wilderness areas. GC Sec. 53602 (d) outlines the conservation elements the Council must consider. Cities and Counties have been required to have conservation elements in their General Plans since December 31, 1993. He asked the Council to review GC Secs. 65302 (E) and 56560 (a) before Council changes the citizen's General Plan. Jack Healy, 23041 Aspen Knoll Dr., stated he and other concerned citizens donated many hours to GPAC. He felt that there had been an emasculation of all of their efforts by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Bramalea bought their property based upon deed and map restrictions and now they indicate that to have an Open Space or Rural designation is a "taking" in violation of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, this is not FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 5 a taking. He asked that when the Council considers the Lard Use Element, will it consider the effect upon the citizens and asked the Council to deny the request by the School District to change the designation of part of Sandstone Canyon from Open Space to Future Development. Wilbur Smith, 21640 Fak wind Ln., felt that the Introduction should be written as GPAC suggested. He stated that on Page I-8, the Council should make a definitive statement as to the most effective revenue generating method. Regarding Page I-10, Strategy 1.1.1, GPAC wanted to restrict development. He felt one domestic unit per area is too large for the area. On Page I-11, there is conflict between a and f and there should be a formula in f to indicate the density as a functional slope. Referring to Page I-22 3.2. 10 through 3.2.12, he stated that GPAC was attempting to indicate the quality of homes built in D.B. and felt these statements should be in the General Plan. He requested, referring to Page I-22, Strategy 3.2.5, that washrooms, air and water be provided for the motoring public at automobile service facilities and felt this should be included in the statement. Regarding the Land Use Map, he felt that the easterly portion of the sphere of influence should be defined as outside the SEA 15. C/Miller asked if Mr. Smith liked the three revenue generating options. Mr. Smith stated that he preferred the first statement. C/Miller asked if the citizens want D.B. to be an elitist community because if the Council approved some of Mr. Smith's recommendations, very few could afford to live in the City. He pointed out that zoning in D.B. is low density compared to most other cities and asked how the City can insure that the average citizen can afford to live here. Mr. Smith responded that the lay of the land does not lend itself to a high density community. C/Miller stated that if such measures are implemented, they would severely restrict opportunity, equality and fairness. Mr. Smith responded that he is primarily concerned with the citizens who are already in the City and with the Rural Residential area in SEA 15 which he felt should remain Open Space. Terry Birrell supported comments made by previous speakers and felt that there was inconsistency in changes made by the Council and asked that the Council listen to the wishes of the people. She stated that non-resident real estate speculators acquired major tracts of land with the objective of redesignating, rezoning and building on them. Upper Sycamore and Sandstone Canyons have no building map restrictions and were designated in FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 6 the previous General Plans as Planned Development, yet the present Plan designates them Open Space/Specific Plan. This means that at a future date a specific plan can be introduced and the canyons can be developed. The Land Use Map does not distinguish Open Space from Open Space/Specific Plan. She felt this was a way of deceiving the public who see open space and believe the canyons cannot be developed. If the Open Space/Specific Plan designation is allowed to become part of the General Plan, what is to prevent the School District from using Sandstone Canyon for three school developments. She strongly opposed the Open Space/ Specific Plan designation and supported Open Space as the only designation. Dorian Johnson, Vice -President of Planning, Bramalea, 100 Bayview Circle, Newport Beach, stated that Bramalea has approximately 400 acres in D.B. and has been involved in the community for over a decade. He indicated Bramalea would like to see the remaining property fulfill its development potential. This does not mean 400 acres of 1500 units paved over. A limited portion of the property is dedicated for restriction of residential property and he believed an Open Space designation would be a taking. Bramalea requested a designation akin to Residential Planned Development. Through provisions of the General Plan for Residential Planned Development to take place on the Bramalea property, as part of the development portion of the entitlement process, Bramalea will be required to dedicate a minimum of 75% of the land to open space. The request for development involves only 25% of the land with 110 to 130 homes. Bramalea believed this is a balance of its development rights with the best interest of the City and benefit to the citizens of the community. MPT/Werner asked if Mr. Johnson would be agreeable to any designation of Specific Plan incorporating language that 75% of the property would remain as Open Space dedicated to the City. In addition, he asked if the portion set aside for development is restricted land. Mr. Johnson responded that Bramalea would accept language in the General Plan requiring a designation and dedication to the City in fee of a minimum of 75% open space as a function of entitlements in the future. With regard to where the development would occur, based on the information available today minus an Environmental Impact Report, the development would occur in the area unencumbered by restrictions. Responding to C/Mller, Mr. Johnson stated that Bramalea's intent is to build in a cluster fashion in a small area while dedicating an uninterrupted 75% of ^-- land to the City. Responding to C/Harmony and C/Miller, Mr. Johnson stated there is no designation of Open Space on the subject property. If Bramalea agrees to an Open Space designation, it has given without getting anything in return. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 7 Bramalea is and always has been the only owner of the property. The property has never been deed restricted or subject to CC&R's. The designation of Planned Development does not remove map restrictions and does not affect maps. It does give Bramalea opportunity to present a plan for development that would use a small portion of the land and offer the City a deed to the greater portion. Based upon the findings of an Environmental Impact Report, Bramalea would be willing to move the development to an area that is less environmentally -sensitive and be of greater benefit to the community which is why Council should retain flexibility with respect to the location of the development. Mark Rogers, Land Planning Consultant representing WVUSD, stated that the District has a number of properties in the City and which are in transition and have an impact on the City's fixture. Site D, 28 acres on Brea Canyon Rd. and the 78 acres adjacent to South Pointe Middle School are addressed by the Coal Plan. Site D is currently zoned Residential and was the subject of an entitlement effort in recent years. The Planning Commission recommended a Public Facilities Land Use over the entire property. There is no intent on the part of the District to utilize the property as a site for school facilities. The 78 acre South Pointe property was recently purchased by the District which was necessitated by the prospect of losing $8 million in matching funds from the State for construction of South Pointe Middle School. The property is currently zoned R 1. The Planning Commission recommended an Open Space designation over the entire property. The District feels it was excluded from the decision making portion of the General Plan process and is committed to the future of D.B. The District cannot obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use designation for both properties with a Mixed Use designator. If the District cannot obtain the Planned Development with Mixed Use designation, it would rather have the existing Residential zone left in place. This strategy would allow the District to work with the City and community on plans for development of the site and specific uses to be determined at a later time. Dr. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked Council to provide the District.with greater flexibility in its land use decisions than is allowed by the proposed Geral Plan. The District felt that the designation of Open Space for the South Pointe property would greatly reduce its value and is a denial of all reasonable use. The District requested that the City consider a Planned DevelopmentNfixed-Use designation for both properties. By so designating these properties, the District is afforded the opportunity to cooperatively _ provide adequate access to South Pointe Middle School, provide the mechanism for retention of the canyon area as open space for at least 30% of the 78 acres to provide potential tax revenues benefits to the City, to provide the mechanism for the district to manage its own assets with the goal of long-term revenue generation, and to provide opportunities for the City to meet its open space and recreation goals. The District has no intention of FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 8 building homes in the canyon or relocating the bus yard to the 78 acres at South Pointe. It is the intent of the District to live in a harmonious relationship in the community and to improve the quality of life for everyone in the City. i Responding to MPT/Werner, Dr. Hockwalt stated the School property was purchased 30 years ago. It was not offered as a dedication to the School District. In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that he does not know the history of the property zoning. The neighborhood adjacent to the site is zoned R-1 7500 and R -I 10,000. C/Harmony asked Dr. Hockwalt to expand on his statements of long-term revenue and adequate access to South Pointe. Dr. Hockwalt stated that from the beginning, the District requested a secondary road access from Brea Canyon Rd. into the South Pointe Middle School property. Asset management is a goal of the School -District. Manual Nunez, 9731 Royal Palm Blvd., Garden Grove, Planning and Architecture Consultant, A.I.C.P. Associates, representing the owners of Tract 46485 situated off Rocky Trail Dr. and Blaze Trail in the Country Estates stated the Planning Commission designated this area Rural Residential with 1 to 2.75 acres per lot. He indicated the owners are concerned that restrictive blankets will affect all properties regardless of locations and situations. He asked that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for the area and not apply any more stringent standards which may confuse the issue and deny them the same privileges as surrounding property owners. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Nunez stated the slope of the subject property is in the range of 25 to 30% and it is not a Vesting Tentative Map. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated the property represented by Mr. Nunez is identified as property No. 23 on Page 2 identified as the Tice property. The correct Tract No. is 46485. Changes have occurred over the four years this map has been processing because it is not a Vesting Map and because the City is restricted from accepting a Vesting Map for application. Each* time the General Plan changes or any other development standards change, this project must also change. Additional changes will be needed as — a result of the General Plan's current outline. What may impact the project are the Resource Management and Land Use Elements dealing with preservation of biological resources, concerns with respect to canyon bottom development, ridgeline development, etc. They are currently processing their map under the ement Ordinance. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 9 Nick Anis stated that while he agreed that the City should not use development as a source of revenue, perhaps D.B. should consider unfunded mandates and the cost of action versus inaction. Recently, the Council voted on building the South Pointe Middle School. The result of that vote cost the School District (citizens) $1,500,000 to purchase the land. This action did not prove the land, it caused additional land to be bulldozed. He believed there were alternatives that would have preserved more land. He stated this is an example of not looking at the net cost and the consequences of a vote and position on development. On the other hand, such an action may result in a development that might benefit the community, for example, a hospital. He stated that would be a community benefit and could not understand why anyone would argue against it. In addition, he indicated he cannot understand how forcing homes to be on a three acre lot instead of a one and one-half acre lot would benefit the community. At that rate, only multi -millionaires could afford to purchase in the City. He urged the Council to use discretion in treating all of the property owners and taxpayers including the School District the same. The School District has building rights on the land they were forced to buy. The question is whether the City is going to give them the flexibility to do what is best for them and for the community. He stated that he was — publicly opposed to development and has publicly endorsed only one proposed development, the building of South Pointe Middle School. Joseph Shu, 1820 Derringer Ln., stated that there are no building map restrictions on open space areas. He asked that these areas be designated Open Space, not Open Space(Specific Plan. Open Space/Specific Plan leaves the door open for a specified plan to be introduced and development of open space to take place. He suggested that the General Plan not be written so that building restrictions can be eliminated at the discretion of the Council. Jan Dabney, Development Consultant, representing two private ownerships in the South Pointe Master Plan area and himself as a previous member of GPAC, indicated he was on the last GPAC Committee prior to City incorporation. He was on the first GPAC subsequent to incorporation and he was on the last GPAC committee. Many of the things that stated here and over the past several months with respect to the General Plan do not necessarily represent the entire view of GPAC. However, the Committee did represent a consensus. The consultant to all three committees adamantly pointed out, as did MPT/Werner and C/Ansari, that each member was an advisory member and that the material was to be taken as advisory information. Consultants stated that it was outside the boundaries of the _ GPAC to entertain the legal ramifications and aspects associated with land use issues. In his opinion, when GPAC members stated they are adamant that the General Plan should be as represented by them, this is not the opinion of all of the members. He indicated that Mr. Patel is opposed to an Open Space zoning on his property and has underlying building rights on his property which he wishes to maintain. At Mr. Patel's last Council appearance, he was FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 10 conditionally approved under the following conditions: 1) That he meet the new General Plan because it is not a Vesting Map and 2) that he be able to obtain specific consideration on conditions on his map through the School District. These conditions were reasonable to -Mr. Patel since this had originally been a Master Plan. Mr. Patel. requested that the community continue to allow him to move in that direction and not zone his property Open Space which would cause him to suffer a substantial loss. He indicated that he also represents the owners of Lots I and 61 who have protested the proposed Open Space designation. Some of the opinions put forth in establishing an Open Space classification on this property were blatantly erroneous. He agreed with considerations expressed by Mr. Johnson of Bramalea. However, the ironic circumstance with Lots 1 and 61 is the fact that the property was owned by Bramalea at one time. Lot 1 is not part of any homeowner association and has never been. There is a recorded open space easement which affects 7.62 acres of the property. The owners ask that the Council leave open the option for future discussion. The owners do not feel that an Open Space zoning allows for such discussion. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Dabney stated that in the eyes of the law, the zoning has not been changed in D.B. 2U is a zoning designation which refers to a maximum density of two units per acre. The owners are seeking relief on the Land Use Designation which would not remove construction restrictions. In May, there was a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council to consider a Parcel Map that was a'eversion to acreage and the owners asked that the building restriction be removed which would grant them the right to construct one home only. Staff indicated that the owners were seeking removal of the Open Space Easement, which was not the case. There was also discussion regarding mass density development that the public thought was being granted as part of that Parcel map, which was not the case. The owners are seeking to have the property not be zoned Open Space so that the rights provided by State law and the Map Act are made available in order to petition the City for consideration. The ultimate determination for use of the property is predicated on a satisfactory determination from the Council. There is nothing that can be included in a General Plan to guarantee even one home. Responding to M/Papen, ICA/Montgomery stated that he was not prepared to respond to Mr. Dabney's letter regarding Lots 1 and 61 since the letter was received by him at 4:30 p.m. on this date. M/Papen indicated that she would grant ICA/Montgomery an additional two days to respond and asked him to respond to "the frontage of Summit Ridge Drive (approximately 175 feet) is not restricted and provides access to the property in question." In response to M/Papen, Mr. Dabney stated that the owners would be pleased FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 11 if the designation was Rural Residential. MPT/Werner, referring to Mr. Dabney's letter which states: "At the underlying zoning density of two units per acre, 122 acres allows 244 units. While it is obvious that clustering took place sometime in the past under the County, only 165 units were built. Clearly, some density still remains." Mr. Dabney responded that the owners have employed his firm to do extensive analysis on the maximum development potential of the property which does not approach 79 units. It is much closes to 60'/o of that number. With the current format in the General Plan, the one unit per acre under Rural Residential is not feasible from a physical standpoint. Responding to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that Strategies 1.5.1 and 1. 5.2 on Page I-16 deals with removal of map restrictions. Responding to MPT/Werner, Mr. Dabney stated that he supported the approach that there is substantial community benefit derived in exchange for removal of a map restriction if the ultimate density of the property exceeds one home. The Subdivision Map Act was established to protect both landowners and adjacent owners. Currently in the State, the Subdivision Map Act allows landowners the right, with restricted property, to petition at their discretion, the legislative body that controls planning, zoning and development rights. To take that right and say you can put it to the voters appears to be invalid. Responding to MPT/Werner, ICA/Montgomery stated that regarding Open Space restrictions, the Procedure was set by the Legislation. Property owners appear before City Council upon 30 days notice and petition to have the restrictions removed. Since this is subject to referendum, it would go to a vote of the people. If the developer is not happy with the direction of Council, he may take it to a vote of the people and ask that the General Plan be amended. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN (CONTD.) - Ken Anderson explained that he would like a more definitive plan from Bramalea. He felt that development of the School District property is not of benefit to the entire community. He felt that the General Plan should produce an agreeable environment for citizens. He asked the Council to incorporate the CalTech seismicity map in the General Plan. FEBRUARY 16, 1995 'PAGE 12 MPT/Werner stated that the City has embraced establishment of and participation in the joint powers authority of the wildlife corridor and open space acquisition. Wilbur Smith stated that there -had been a significant reduction in the value of homes and that the data in the General Plan should be reflective of these changes. He felt that slope'density calculations should be included on Page II -16. Since the quality of housing is not included in the Land Use Element, it should be stricken from Page 11-19. He asked that Council consider stronger language for Strategies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 on Page II -28. M/Papen asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of any "redlining" in the City. Mr. Smith responded that there is redlining in his tract because there were very few non-Anglos there when he moved in 10 years ago and six years ago, when values began to decline, homes were sold'to predominately non -Anglo. M/Papen stated she did not agree with him and did not believe that having more minorities in an area means the neighborhood is deteriorating. Max Maxwell, 321.1 Bent Twig Ln., asked Council to include designated areas on the maps to show the proposed sites for low income housing. M/Papen asked Mr. Maxwell to indicate on the map which parcels he believed should be zoned 18 units per acre. Mr. Maxwell indicated the Tres Hermans property. Responding to MPT/Werner, Don Cotton, CottonBeland & Assoc., stated that approximately 60% of cities have Elements in compliance with State requirements. MPT/Werner indicated it has been a slow and tedious process for the State to get cities in line with the housing policy. D.B. is attempting to do two battles simultaneously --one to satisfy State requirements for housing and another to complete the General Plan. He felt .that what Mr. Maxwell is currently advocating, he will argue against at a future date since he has argued in favor of both sides of the question in the past. He stated that staff provided a comprehensive list of potential properties. Using this list, Council is charged with determining, on a priority basis, which restrictions or constraints can be resolved in the next five years in order to accommodate low and moderate �— income housing --which Mr. Maxwell is so strongly advocating. He believed that low to moderate income housing should be dispersed equally throughout the City rather than all in one location as Mr. Maxwell recommended. There being no finiher testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 13 on the Land Use Element and continued the Public Hearing on the Housing Element to February 23, 1995. C/Ansari asked why the higher density formula is not mentioned on Table II4, Page II -15 and on Page U-16, the first paragraph indicates that it is intended that housing developed within Tres Hermans could be built at densities higher than 16 units per acre providing affordability for the City's identified share of lower income housing needs. CDD/DeStefano responded that it is mentioned as part of the palate of uses co tented for the Tres Hermans Specific Plan, the details of which would occur at a later date. The Council has not reached any conclusions regarding locations densities of developments. Higher densities should not be attached to properties that have no development opportunity. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that there are many locations that could be considered for higher density developments. M/Papen directed staff to provide Council with recommendations and options for five acre parcels of high density and 10 to 11 acres of medium-high density in order that the Council might develop a new categorywith those mixes for the Land Use Element. MPT/Werner requested ICA/Montgomery to provide a written legal response to the issue of Open Space restrictions previously discussed with Mr. Dabney. MPT/Werner moved, C/Miller seconded to close the public hearing on the Land Use Element and continue the public hearing on the Housing Element. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCEL MEMBERS - None 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no ffirther business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be held February 23, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium. i FEBRUARY 16, 1995 PAGE 14 ATTEST: Mayor