Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/1995 Minutes - Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FEBRUARY 28, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:162 p.m. at the South Coast AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Council Members Harmony, and Miller. Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Council Member Ansari were excused. Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT - CDD/DeStefano reported that the Council received proposals from the following for changes to the Land Use designation for their properties: WVUSD for reconsideration of the Open Space designation on the South Pointe Middle School property and the Public Facilities designation proposed for the Site D property; Bramalea's request for expansion of existing language to permit implementation of the MOU, a project incorporating 50 to 70 acres of their 400 acre holding off of D.B. Blvd. They requested a designation to allow the product to be constructed. This involves changes to the recommendation proposed by the Planning Commission of RL/OS with SP; Shell Oil owns about 350 acres in the sphere of influence and requested a designation change from AG to AG/SP which is consistent with the Boy Scouts' 3,200 acre holding within the sphere of influence area. The issue over the Boy Scout property is the appropriate level of development density for that area; RNP Development requested a designation on their 68 acre Grand Ave. site that would be consistent with the current zoning classification which permits about two units per acre of residential development. Planning Commission recommended OS for the site; SASAK Corp., in correspondence to the Planning Commission, recommended a designation of RL for their 6.7 acre site on Morning Sun Ave. This would be consistent with the recently -approved conceptual plan for their 21 -unit residential project. The Planning Commission recommended OS for that property. There are staff -related issues responding to a discussion FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 2 by Council on February 23 regarding a 20 unit per acre multi -family land use classification. He suggested that four to five areas within the existing developed areas be designated at .20 units per acre and that an additional three or four areas be considered for a 20 unit per acre designation. Those projects are the Daisy Apartments, Windwood Condominiums, Village Condominiums, Fallcreek Condominiums, the vacant property of five to ten acres in Tres Hermanos, 10 to 12 acres across the street from Maple Hill Rd. on D.B. Blvd., about two and one-half acres behind the LDS Church and about a two -acre site behind the Congregational Church on D.B. Blvd. at Morning Canyon Rd. He presented a response to the questions regarding the Open Space issues and a letter received from RNP through their agent, Jan Dabney, regarding Lots 1 and 61. M/Papen referred to Page I-7 for discussion of Deed and Map Restrictions under 1. Land Use Mix. C/Harmony felt that map restrictions should not be removed on a development; especially open space map ^i restrictions as GPAC identified them, without a vote of the people. C/Miller proposed that the last sentence on Page I-7, 1. Land Use Mix a. first paragraph be changed to read: "In some cases, deed restrictions were imposed to ensure that development would not occur without further legislative review." C/Miller suggested that under b. Open Space Definition and Preservation, Page I-7, the first sentence be changed to read: "There are different types of undeveloped lands within the City." He further proposed that under Strategy 1.1.6, Page I-12, the second sentence be changed to read: "This designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to Open Space by map restriction, deed/designation, condition, covenant and/or restriction, or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Government Code (CGC), Sec. 51070, et seq. and Section 64499, et seq." Regarding Page I-16 and I-17, he suggested that Strategy 1.5.3 be changed to Strategy 1.5.1 and make the current 1.5.1 Strategy 1.5.2. Add Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Land designated as Open Space ---� by deed dedication, condition and a restriction by open space easement GC Sec. 51070, et seq. or by map restriction explicit or previous subdivision must comply with an established review and decision making process prior to the recision, termination, abandonment and/or FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 3 removal of an open space dedication easement and/or restriction." Add a. under new Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which deed is burdened by an open space dedication, condition, covenant and/or restriction shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process substantially similar to that which is set forth in GC Sec. 51090, et seq." Add b. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an open space easement pursuant to GC Sec. 51070, et seq. shall be required to be subject to the abandonment process set forth in GC 51090, et seq." Add c. under Strategy 1.5.3 to read: "Vacant land which is burdened by an explicit open space designation delineated upon a map which was the result of a previous subdivision approval shall be required to be subjected to at least one public hearing before the City Council prior to any action to remove said restriction." Change Strategy 1.5.4 to read: "Vacant land and/or existing residential lots burdened by map restrictions which delineates limitations or prohibitions related to building construction, allowable residential units or other such non -open space restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of such restrictions." Subsection a. would read: "Vacant land burdened by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subjected to at least one public hearing before the City Council before any action can be taken to remove any such restrictions." Subsection b. would read: "Existing residential lots that are burden by non -open space map restrictions shall be required to be subject to a process established by the City Council prior to removal of any such restrictions." He recommended that what was previously Strategy 1.5.4, now be Strategy 1.5.5 to read: "Obtain open space land through feasible acquisition and management techniques such as: a) acquisition of land for parks and natural area conservation through a process of title review or density transfers among land uses of like designation and title review" and leave b., c., and d. as written. He explained that by adding this language it is clear that if a property is deed restricted, the owner must comply with Government Codes and Government process to change those restrictions. C/Harmony understood that the former provision, removed by the Planning Commission, of requiring a public vote for relief of map restrictions, would be added back in and that the requirement of relieving these types of restrictions would be one public hearing. Opinions from the City Attorney indicated that the City requires a FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 4 declaration that there be justification for relief from the restrictions by public hearing anyway. It appeared as though C/Miller's corrections did not materially change anything. C/Miller responded that he is attempting to eliminate any confusion on the part of the community who might think the City is trying to circumvent State law by including the specific language in the General Plan. Regarding the increase of density question, C/Harmony stated that he received many calls from concerned citizens and that he had a problem with lack of public notice. He would rather handle low income housing another way than increasing densities to the highest they have ever been in the City. M/Papen responded that the Vacant Land Housing Opportunity under Land Use dated February 16, stated that the property on D.B. Blvd. is currently zoned 30 units per acre. It was suggested that zoning be 16 or 20 units per acre. This would be a 30% to 50 % decrease, not an increase. Property behind the LDS Church is zoned 25 units per acre, so 16 to 20 units per acre would be a 20% to 40% reduction. It is misleading to indicate to the community that there will be an increase when it is already zoned higher. C/Miller believed that there was confusion on the part of the citizens if they called C/Harmony. The Council is not enacting any zone changes on any property in the City. Designating a land use designation in the General Plan does not allow a zone change. In order to change the zoning of any existing property, there must be a public hearing for which people would have to be noticed. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Karen Capestro, 1652 S. Longview, expressed concern regarding changes to the Open Space designation. She requested that the designation remain Open Space and not Open Space/Specific Plan. Responding to M/Papen, Ms. Capestro stated that she was primarily concerned with Lots 1 and 61 with respect to the change of designation. M/Papen asked Ms. Capestro to tell the Council what was represented to her in a phone call she received regarding the change of designation. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 5 Ms. Capestro responded that it was represented to her that there would be a change from Open Space designation with no building. She was told that the designation was going to be changed to Open Space/Specific Plan designation which would mean that a developer could build one parcel in the area. M/Papen believed that what was represented to Ms. Capestro is not entirely accurate. The current designation allows for one dwelling unit per parcel with all of the map restrictions that are currently on the property. Council received a letter from the property owner objecting to the Open Space designation because they feel that about eight of the 64 acres has an Open Space dedicated easement. They are not asking to have that removed. There is an obligation that, if the City declares the property Open Space, it could be termed a "taking" and the Council would be required to pay just compensation to the property owner for the land. The property owner is asking that current land use be consistent with the zoning and for it to remain as is. —' The recommendation was that the entire parcel be declared Open Space. It is currently zoned Residential, which is consistent with zoning of adjacent properties. C/Miller stated that previous recommendations are applicable to Lots 1 and 61 and any properties which have map restrictions, whether they are designated PD or RR conforming with existing zoning, do not remove map restrictions, deed restrictions and open space easements. Responding to Ms. Capestro, CM/Belanger stated that in order for the owner of Lots 1 and 61 to build an access road to the property, an application for development proposal would be made to the City and one of the requirements would be to indicate ingress/egress for the project. The project would go through a complete development review by both the Planning Commission and Council with full public notice for all property within 300 feet of the development. Before it could be constructed, Council would have to remove restrictions that currently exist on that property. C/Harmony asked ICA/Montgomery to clarify Mr. Dabney's request that part of the property had a map restriction on it and the rest did not. ICA/Montgomery referred C/Harmony to the memo packet presented to the Council. The map and deed restricted parcels are another form of open space and on Lots 1 and FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 6 61, no building permit may be issued without going through the process to remove map restrictions. Teressa Guber, 24303 Rimford P1., asked why the owners believe the other 60.5 acres were not designated Open Space. She asked if Lot 1 and 61 were still designated Open Space because that is what she was told when she bought her home. M/Papen responded that the property owner felt that there are about 8 acres designated Open Space with the rest of the property being map restricted, which is contrary to what ICA/ Montgomery indicated and the matter may have to be resolved in court. She stated that the person who sold Ms. Guber the property misinformed her. It was her opinion that the entire property is not designated Open Space. M/Papen stated that as a public entity, the rights of the property must be recognized and dealt with in a legal manner. Ms. Giber stated that citizens have rights, not just one or two people that own some property. M/Papen responded that this is not so under the law. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that Planned Development does not belong in D.B. and it will not be in the General Plan. He further stated that WVUSD bought their property because they had an emergency, which was probably concocted. The issue is that the School District told the public that they were not going to develop the property and within weeks or months later, Dr. Hockwalt asked for Planned Development. With respect to Site D, that battle was fought years ago. Regarding Bramalea, Shell Oil and Boy Scouts wanting Planned Development, it will not be in the General Plan. C/Miller implied that if the designation remains Open Space, it falls into the map restricted issue. It is very.detailed, it is too complex. GPAC sated it simply. Map and deed restrictions require a vote of the people for removal. Regarding the 800 acres of Tres Hermanos, every HCD unit could go there. C/Miller bought the property and he is shooting for getting the restrictions removed. He indicated that there are all kinds of interpretations and the Citizens to Protect Country Living designated him to appear before the Council, videotape the proceedings and keep them informed. He stated there will be another referendum. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 7 Eric Stone, 24401 Darrin Dr., stated that on the surface, the idea of having open space is very attractive to all and that it is a way of encouraging others to get involved that someone has a master plan to undermine the open spaces in D.B. People own the property and when they purchased it, they had certain rights to it and if the City cannot buy the property, then the City needs to be fair. If the City was able to take the properties and designate them Open Space, there are lost tax revenues needed for services. Not only does the property owner lose, the citizens lose. Regarding another possible referendum, he stated that it will cost the taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money to satisfy people who seem, on the surface, to mean well for the City but if their ideas were carried out, they would be grossly prohibitive for taxpayers. He stated that downzoning would deny citizens the highest and best use of the property. He felt that many citizens would object to this approach and that the City has a good grasp on what liabilities are involved in takings and downzonings or open space designations. Frank Williams, 9227 Haven Ave., Ste. 280, Rancho Cucamonga, Executive Officer for the Building Industry Assn. of So. Calif., Baldy View Chapter, referred to the memo addressed to the Council by ICA/Montgomery. He indicated that he spoke with the building industry's general counsel and read the counsel's response letters. (See attachments). Christine McPeak, President, WVUSD Board of Trustees, stated that the Board did not want to purchase the South Pointe property. The Board felt that it was imperative that the school be built and because it now owns the property, it is the job of the owners to maximize the use and benefit to the entire district and the community. In addition, the Board felt that the rights of the property that existed at the time of their purchase were transferred to the District. The PD designation requested would grant the District more options than currently existed under the proposed designation. The Board felt that the proposed designation would devalue the property, diminish the assets and ultimately harm the District and the community at large. The Board is committed to preserving the major portions of the canyon. M/Papen asked Ms. McPeak if, at some time in the future, the Board returned to the Council with a proposal for the property, would a minimum of 30 percent of the property FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 8 remain in its natural state. Ms. McPeak responded that 30 percent would be a minimum. M/Papen asked if the Council were to approve a Planned Development designation that it would be a condition of the plan approval that 30 percent of the land would be undisturbed. Ms. McPeak responded that it would. C/Harmony asked Ms. McPeak if the District would guarantee that all of the land would remain the property of the District and never sold to a developer. Ms. McPeak responded that it could be a condition of the 30 percent but not all of the land. M/Papen expressed concern about the Council labeling property as Open Space before there is a written agreement in a deed or development agreement. C/Harmony stated that he wanted all of the 78 acres to remain under the ownership and control of the School District. Ms. McPeak indicated she could not guarantee that for the entire 78 acres, only for the designated Open Space. C/Miller asked if Ms. McPeak would agree with the following verbiage: "That the property owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District be zoned PD and that the surplus properties owned by the School District consisting of the 75 acres known as Sandstone Canyon will be required to incorporate into a Planned Development proposal the following minimum standards: That the most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained as permanent open space; and the plan shall incorporate the planning of a site preparation to accommodate develop- ment of Larkstone Park to a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Ms. McPeak stated she could not make a commitment as one member of a Board; however she agreed that the wording was appropriate. M/Pa en stated she is hesitant to rant the request on p g q site D because the issue of Larkstone Park had not been resolved over a period of five years. For anything to be considered on site D, it would be necessary for the FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 9 School District to present an acceptable plan for resolving this issue. She asked Ms. McPeak to convey the message to the Board members that, as a community, the City needs to get recreational facilities developed in that area of D.B. There was land set aside which has been used for other purposes for the past five years. This site will not be a part of the 30 percent of the property set aside. Ms. McPeak indicated the District is amenable to working out the details. M/Papen asked Dr. Hockwalt to state the benefits to the community of allowing uses other than school facilities on the property and natural open space with respect to the property on Brea Canyon Rd. Dr. Hockwalt answered conducting a study to might be. There ai perimeters of the prope adjacent to South Point be considered for pub other means yet to indicated that complet December, 1995. that the District is currently ascertain what the possibilities e developable areas along the -ty and, more especially, the area a. Those are the areas that would is facility development or some be determined. The architect on of South Pointe is slated for Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., stated that she volunteers at both South Pointe Middle School and D.B. High School. Many parents who support the schools and raise funding were present in support of the District's request that their property be deemed Planned Development. She indicated that the group would like the school to have all of the options possible when it comes time to use their property. Wilbur Smith stated that he observed that C/Miller and ICA/Montgomery seemed to be in agreement with regard to both map and deed restrictions, what they mean and how they are implemented. He supported C/Miller's language for the General Plan. With respect to the School District, he felt that their only job was to teach children and their assets belong to the citizens and not to the Board. When the District decides that property they hold for the general public is not going to be used by the District, that property should be relinquished to some other element of government for determining its use. He believed the School Board was not in a position to make a decision about open space or land use. Regarding Bramalea, he would like to see the areas for building i i FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 10 and open space shown on a map contained in the General Plan. With respect to Lots 1 and 61, he supported no building on the property and he asked how this would be shown on the map. He approved of the Boy Scout request as long as it does not involve a large development. C/Miller stated that the School Board is elected and has a fiduciary obligation to represent the District. One of their obligations is to safeguard assets of the District and maximize the utility of those assets. He asked Mr. Smith how he would suggest they accomplish these things understanding the obligation they have to the people they represent. Mr. Smith responded that whoever provides the funding for the School Board is the individual, association or group that purchased the property. They should turn it back to the State and let the State decide what happens to the property. Dave Capestro, 1652 S. Longview Dr., referring to Lots 1 and 61, indicated that the land designation within the General Plan states that a land use of those properties is proposed Open Space and he agreed with this designation. Responding to Mr. Capestro, M/Papen stated that Lots 1 and 61 are not unique. These same issues apply to at least six properties in the City and the applications must be consistent. If the City designates Lots 1 and 61 Open Space, then the property owners have no development rights and they deserve compensation. In the General Plan, it calls for an Open Space Inventory and a prioritization of lands that should be acquired by the City and establishes three or four differ-ent opportunities and means of acquiring the land. One is by allowing development on part of the property in order to have a portion donated. Another is to have the City purchase the property. By applying a specific ruling to this one property, the City would be accused of discrimination. These are major issues and until that property has been dedicated to an agency that is going to preserve the property, or until it is purchased by the City for Open Space, the Council will have to deal with the issues. The same can be said for the School District property, the Bramalea property, etc. and the City must deal with all property owners fairly and in a consistent manner. She further stated that she would be willing to place an item on the ballot to inquire if taxpayers would be willing to pay an additional fee in order to purchase FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 11 these types of properties. There are other ways to preserve natural terrain in the community beside condemnation. C/Harmony stated that ICA/Montgomery indicated it would not be a "taking" to classify these properties as Open Space, if a property owner sold his/her mineral rights. These developers sold off their development rights on these portions of property so that they could get higher density in the tracts that the citizens live in. They don't own it anymore. There is no taking and the City does not have to buy the property. C/Miller stated that there are hundreds of privately -held properties that are restricted and if the General Plan incorporates language that these properties are going to become Open Space even though it is not legal, those properties are precluded from the use of those areas. The School District property has restrictions, but it is not Open Space. He felt it is great for the City to own open space but it is wrong to use police power to take anybody's private property regardless of whether it is a small or large piece. It must be done according to law. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing regarding the Land Use Element closed. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County zoning standard for that area is one unit for every two acres. The General Plan is designating the property Agricultural which has a similar title but a vastly different listing of permitted land uses. Agriculture in the General Plan refers to the maintenance of property generally in the State as it is today with respect to the sphere of influence, recreational uses, Tres Hermanos, plus the General Plan discussion about additional public facilities, etc. Prior Council discussion regarded the need to apply a land use density/intensity to those areas. He recommended that the land use density for that area be one unit to 90 acres. That would permit about 90 units between the sphere of influence area and a few additional units for the Tres Hermanos area. That would apply to the properties to provide some reasonable use of the acreage consistent with what other cities have been doing. It is consistent with the recently adopted Chino Hills General Plan, specifically with respect to the Butterfield Ranch property. This recommendation applies to both the Tres Hermanos and sphere of influence area. FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 12 M/Papen announced that C/Harmony had left the room and there was no longer a quorum. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Don Cotton, Cotton/Beiand Assoc., stated that one unit per 5 acres and one to 40 is what the courts have reviewed in the past and would accept as to not represent any kind of "taking" of the property. There are alternative ways of dealing with this issue. This is the simplest and easiest to understand. There is a provision that any proposed development in this category would have to come before the Council with a specific plan approval request. If the request were for the allowable number of units, the specific plan approval would be all that would be required. If it were for more, there would need to be a General Plan amendment, as well as a specific plan approval. M/Papen asked what the difference in process would be between the Tres Hermanos property within the City limits and the other properties located outside the City limits and in the sphere of influence. CDD/DeStefano responded that the process for a specific plan would be similar. Sphere of influence properties would probably wrap a specific plan together with a pre- annexation agreement. The agreement would not require a General Plan amendment; however, approval of a specific plan presumed to be different from current uses would require a General Plan change. If the property owners wanted to incorporate today, it would not require a General Plan change. If they want to incorporate today and tomorrow develop a specific plan, those uses and that plan would incorporate a General Plan change. M/Papen asked the property owners to come forward and respond to staff's recommendation of the underlying density of one unit per 40 acres. George Basye, Shell Western, stated the designation seemed harsh. Although they have no specific plans for the property, they would like to see a designation of Specific Plan in order to see a future beyond the current agricultural use while recognizing and respecting issues expressed by the community. M/Papen expressed concern that the Council give some kind FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 13 of value to the Shell property at this time. She asked Mr. Basye if Shell objects to one unit per 40 acres or if there is a designation they would prefer. Mr. Basye responded that Shell would have to compare what the competing underlying designation might or might not be to remain unincorporated and to pursue alternatives from that perspective. At this time, with a cooperative effort by the landowners to meet the needs of the community and with one unit per 40 acres on 350 acres in the sphere of influence, it is questionable whether that is a legitimate economic value to be placed on the property. Tom Kolin, Vice Pres. and Chief Financial Officer, Boy Scouts of America, stated that he was satisfied with the current designation of SP/AG which allows a two -acre minimum lot size per dwelling on the total 3,700 acres. The Boy Scouts have no plan for the property other than to keep it whole and marketable. With respect to the WVUSD property, a motion was made by C/Miller to designate the property PD and that the language be incorporated in the General Plar, that "the most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in permanent open space and that the site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Motion seconded by M/Papen. By the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner Regarding Site D, WVUSD property, C/Miller moved to designate the Land Use as PD. Motion seconded by M/Papen. C/Harmony stated his views on these special designations are on the record. If that is an area the School District is going to turn into housing, they are obligated under law to sell it to another public jurisdiction or return it back to the State. C/Miller responded that the Council is not removing the obligation from the School District to first offer that property to the City or other government agencies for sale. That, by law, is their first obligation if they FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 14 decide to dispose of the property and the Council is not, in any way, changing that obligation. The property is currently zoned residential, 7,500 sq. ft. lots to 10,000 sq. ft. lots and the Council is doing nothing to change that zoning, but merely guaranteeing the School District the same rights with the property as when they originally purchased the property. C/Harmony stated that GPAC's recommendation for the property was Public Facility. M/Papen stated that the School District purchased the property but it was not dedicated for a school site. They have held the property for more than 20 years and their plans do not include the use of it for a public facility. She believed it is in the best interest of the taxpayers that their dollar be maximized through the use of this property. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner A motion was made by C/Miller and seconded by M/Papen to designate the Walnut Valley Unified School District's Lemon Avenue property as Light Industrial which is consistent with the property on three sides. C/Harmony stated that one of the concerns at the last Council meeting was that this property act as a buffer to the adjacent fourth area which is a residential neig4borhood. He was concerned about the impacts this designation would have on the residential properties to the east. M/Papen indicated such a discussion would be appropriate at the time any proposal for use of the property is made to the Council or Planning Commission. At.this time, the Council is considering a 20 year plan for the community and how the land should be designated in 20 years. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner Responding to Don Cotton, the Council recommended a PD, FEBRUARY 18, 1955 PAGE 15 PF, RL and. Park land use designations for the Walnut Valley Unified School District South Point property. With respect to Site D, the same underlying land use designations will apply: PF, RL and Park. Clay Chapet, WVUSD, stated that the current underlying designatioon Site D is R1 7,500 and R1 10,000 and the Distkict would not like to relinquish any entitlement currently with the land. He indicated they would not like the RL designation. Council concurred that the underlying designation for Site D will be RLM, PF and Park. A motion was made by C/Miller that the Bramalea properties, Sites 7 and 13, be designated PD and that the following language be incorporated: 1170 percent of the property shall be retained as permanent open space with the PD zoning to include RL." Motion seconded by M/Papen. 4 M/Papen stated that Bramalea has four different parcels and they are not all contiguous. Therefore, the Council could leave the RL designation on all four properties and transfer the densities to one property and keep the other three properties as undisturbed land. CDD/DeStefano stated this is correct and consistent with strategies recommended by the Planning Commission in both the Resource Management and Open Space Elements. C/Harmony asked if the densities were previously transferred to the designated tracts that are open space tracts and isn't this discussion about using the open spaces as some sort of density transfers again on the unused tracts. CDD/DeStefano responded that he was not aware of how those projects were initiated but that they were designated 17-cslContial Planned Development and that there was a concent --ration of development in areas that were plateaus- C/Hari.:orj.. ii:dicated the GPAC recommended an Open Space designatl'oii on these properties and the Planning ..� Commission designated them Open Space/Specific Plan. M/Papen referred C/Harmony to the list on #7, the recommended designation is Planned Development RL and W. On the other three properties, there were two other recommendations, both Specific Plan, some Open Space and FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 16 some RL which is 3 units per acre. The current recommendation is that it be PD with 70 percent of the land being preserved in its natural state and RL. Responding to C/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano stated that GPAC wanted to keep the Bramalea property off of D.B. Blvd. as Rural Residential or a portion extending from Tin Dr. with the balance of the acreage being Open Space. With respect to the property adjacent to Pantera Park (area 7), GPAC recommended RL Planned Development at 3 units per acre plus the water. M/Papen stated that designating Site 13 off of D.B. Blvd. as Planned Development and restricting development to 30 percent of the land is preserving the major 70 percent without zoning the property Open Space and "taking" the property. Council recommended preservation of more natural terrain than GPAC and the Planning Commission recommended. She indicated the property owner supported the motion. Motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Werner M/Papen announced that the changes would be available for a 30 day public review and brought back to the Council for final adoption. Public comments will be allowed at the final hearing. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. The next General Plan meeting will be March 6, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the South Coast AQMD-Auditorium. LYNDA LIC GESS, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor