The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 01.03.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, l984 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chnm. Izant at 7:31 P.M. ---... Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Soulakis. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Comrns. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None ALSO PRESENT: PameD:1. Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Shapiro noted that the Planning Conrrnission meeting of December 19, 1983, adjourned at 8:26 P.M., not 7:26 P.M., as noted in the minutes. Comm. Newton expressed concern over the minutes, particularly the "Request for Adoption of a Resolution ... " She stated that the first item considered was the Application for Approval of a five-unit condominium and conditional use permit at 166 Hermosa Avenue, She felt that the discussion on these two matters was hopelessly intermingled. She felt that the minutes should be corrected in this respect. Chmn. Izant requested Ms. Sapetto to prepare a revised set of minutes to be made available at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, Chmn. Izant noted that no resolution would be made to adopt the minutes until the minutes have been revised . . u'PROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to adopt P,C. 83-32 and P.C, 83""."33, Comm. Shapiro questioned whether it was appropriate to have Chmn. Izant's name on the resolution for signature, even though Chmn. Izant was not at the meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Chairman's name has always appeared in the past, even if he were not present. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker None Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant PROPOSED SATELLITE ANTENNA AT 52 PIER AVENUE Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recommends that the resolution approving this project be adopted, She stated that this project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on December 22, 1983. The project was granted a Negative Declaration contingent upon compliance with the ordinance regulating Satellite Receiving Antenna which was introduced at the City Council Meeting of December 13, 1983. This project is before the Commission under the authority of Code 7.1-11 which authorizes Planning Commission review of unorthodox pro jects. This code section is being exercised because the Satellite Antenna Ordinance will Aot go into effect until February 10, 1984. She further stated that this project consists of a nine-foot diameter antenna on a five foot, eleven-inch tripod/pole on the roof in Pier 52 Bar, located at 52 Pier Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 PROPOSED SATELLITE ANTENNA AT 52 PIER AVENUE (Cont.) ' Page 2 \is. Sapetto stated that the applicant will conform to Satellite Antenna Ordinance and hence will screen and secure the antenna in a manner acceptable to the City. She further stated that an inspection shall be conducted after six months to ensure that Applicant is conforming to code. Comm. Smith asked whether a site plan had been submitted to the Building Department. Ms. Sapetto replied that it had been submitted. Coran. Smith asked whether the site plan had been approved by the Building Department. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith asked when the project would be checked by the Building Department to make certain that the project is in conformance. Ms. Sapetto answered that the project will be inspected during construction. She stated that this is a process of the Building Permit. She stated that six months after completion of the project, the Building Department will then return to perform another inspection to make certain that it is the same and that nothing has changed. Chmn. Izant reviewed the matter oefore the Commission for the benefit of the audience. He stated that the purpose of a public hearing is to help the Commission make a decision in their recommendation to the City Council. ,~ublic Hearing opened at 7:41 P.M. Dave Brodsky, 401 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, spoke on behalf of Pier 52. He presented a diagram of the fencing that is 'b bc,,built around the antenna. It contained the elev.a tions and the method of attaching it to the roof. He stated that it was a basic plan of the roof, He said that this information was also covered in the engineering plans that were submitted to the Building Department. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. Comm. Smith asked whether the Building Department routinely makes checks to determine if buildings that come under these unorthodox plans are in conformance in all other respects to the Building Code. Particularly, he asked whether that had been done in this case. Ms. Sapetto replied that ,it had been checked by the ·Building Depar·tment. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve the draft resolution with one exception; that being that a follow-up inspection shall ·.be made after six months to ensure safety and conformance of antenna and that the results be reported back to the Planning Commission. Chmn. Izant asked the applicant, Mr. Brodsky, the height of the fence that is to surround the dish. Mr~ Brodsky replied that the height is to be nine feet from the level of the roof to the top of the antenna at its highest point. Comm. Soulakis asked whether the nine-foot fence conforms. Ms. Sapecto replied that it does not in this case because it is part of the Satellite Antenna Ordinance. She stated that the ordinance requires the screening of the apparatus; PLANNING COMMISSLON MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 PROPOSED SATELLITE ANTENNA AT 52 PIER AVENUE (Cont.) ,o it is not under the same regulations that govern other types of fences. Comm. Shapiro asked how the nine-foot height was determined, Page 3 Ms. Sapetto stated that it was determined by covering or screening from view the actual satellite antenna. Comm. Smith stated that the fence must be high enough to screen the antenna from street level view on all sides. Comm. Soulakis raised the question of building fences for screening purposes that are in excess of five or six feet. He asked whether a conflict existed, and if so, would it require a variance to go above the six-foot limit. Ms. Sapecto replied that no conflict exists with the code because the code is specifically for regulating the satellite antenna. She stated that there are certain standards in the code which must be met. This is mentioned in Section 3.5. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Caroms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Soulakis None SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS /ll6022 AND 1116023. -~s. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recommends: 1.) The Planning Jmmission review the project application -and conduct the public hearing. 2.) Approval of the Resolution and Ordinance which approves zone changes, General Plan amendments, development agreement (upon the reconnnendation that provisions 9 and 10 be examined by the City Attorney), Parcel Maps #16022 and 1116023, the Local Coastal Plan Amendment at the meeting of January 17, 1984. 3.) Review the Draft EIR and comment if necessary for adoption of the final EIR at the meeting of January 17, 1984, Ms. Sapetto stated that she would not go into detail on the background and history of the application to the City or into describing what the project entails. She stated that this was not necessary because a presentation would be provided to the Commission and to the general public outlining this information. Ms. Sapetto discussed how the project will affect the rules and regulations and the General Plan and zoning laws. She stated that with respect to the General Plan, the ultimate outcome of what the School District is proposing is to preserve by virtue of sale and donation some open space at each school site. It is being propased that the City acquire at Prospect Heights the playground, which comprises ~proximately one-half acre. It is being propes.ed that South School park site be dedicated to the City. This comprises 1 .3 acres. It is being proposed that the play field of North School, 2. 2 acres, be bought by the City. It is being proposed the Seaview Parkeute be bought by the City for ,29 acres. This would be a net acquisition of the City of 4.38 acres. She stated that this would be an incirease in the open space currently owned by the City. ).s. Sapetto stated that if the Open Space Element were analyzed, the proposal would, in fact, reduce the amount of area that is now designated open space in the land use maps. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 4 SCHOOL DISTRICT: ZONE CHANGES 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2 LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ..... DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS 1116022 AND 1/16023 (Cont.) ... Ms. Sapetto stated open space designated on the map includes those areas -contained '.in all of the public educational buildings, playgrounds, Civic Center buildings, Community Center Building, and any other public resources, Also designated as open space is the railroad right-of-way. Ms. Sapetto stated that if the General Plan and zoning requirements were to be changed, that would constitute a reduction in the open space .that is currently designated. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Open Space Ele.ttent needed consideration. She noted that there is mention of the preservation of open space that the City acquires or owns. She felt that it must be recognized that the City does not own that property and cannot have that property remain designated open space unless there is a viable economic use for that 1and or unless the City acquire the property outright. She stated that weight must be given to these two consid(~rations. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Open Space Element states: "All possible steps will be taken to maintain property owned ny the Hermosa Beach Eleme ntary School District for open space/recreation use without detriment to the education system," She noted that arguments are currently being made by the School District that the future reference to maintain this property would hamper the educational system because of the lack of funding that is currently available. Ms. Sapetto stated that the current zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. She said that the zoning allows for development on the school sites. She noted that most ~£ the school buildings now have some type of residental zoning on them. By virtue of ~hat zoning, the School District can, in fact, develop that property without going through a discretionary approval process, i.e., Planning Connnission approval or City Council approval. She stated that single family homes or apartments can be built which are ministerial actions. The School D:lstrict can, at this point, develop 185 units. They are proposing to change the zon:tng to allow l67 units, which is a reduction of 18 units. Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a question with respect to this dev,3lopmentc of whether or not, because of the inconsistent zoning~ the City should allow this development. She stated that the Land Use Element is currently being revised and there are inconsis tencies in various places throughout the City with respect to the zoning code. She noted that all of the private property up to this time has been allowed to develop according to the zoning without any action taken by the City. She felt that this fact would place the City in jeopardy because of the way this practice has been allowe d in the past. Ms. Sapetto noted that parcel maps had been submitted to the Connnission. These maps contain the r e quest for zoning changes. Ms. Sapetto felt that third, fourth and fifth maps should be submitted so that a clear definition of the boundaries may be determined. She also felt that this would gu a.rantee, when the configuration : is. changed, development would come as a discretionary action and not as a ministerial act. Ms, Sapetto recommended that the Commission request all five parcel maps. ¥s, Sapetto stated that the purpose of a development agreement is to protect both the _'ity and the School District so that the stipu l ations agreed to pursuant to this project application are met. She stated that the development agreement basically guarantees the City the ability to acquire more open spacEi lands and guarantees t h e School District o f zone changes irrespective of future boards and counc ils. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 5 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ~EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that some questions were found in the Development Agreement which she felt the Commission should ask. She stated that there are some provisions which needed clarification as to whether or not they were consistent with the Government Code Section that allows the Development Agreement. Staff would like the Commission to request to the City Attorney and City Council if that fact should be amended. Ms.oSap~tto stated that the EIR is that document which presents the environmental information which should be used as part of the decision making process. She stated that if there are any negative environmental impacts indicated in this document, then it is the responsibility of the Commission, as the body which approves the decision, to exercise alternatives that mitigate any negative environmental impacts. Ms '. Sapetto stressed that this is an informational document that identifies environmental impacts. She stated that it is not within the purview of the document to discuss economic impacts. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Local Coastal Plan Amendment is being requested because the Local Coastal Plan reflects what the General Plan says. She felt that if any of the General Plan were to be amended within the coastal zone, then a request must also be made to the Coastal Commission asking that they concur with the amendment of the General Plan. Chmn. Izant welcomed members of the Commission to ask questions of a technical nature. "\omm. Bro1-m noted for the record that he did not receive his packet of information until _he morning of this Planning Connniss:iion meeting. He felt that it might be difficult for him to discuss the environmeµtal r.eport . at'this time. Ms. Sapetto noted that the public connnent period will continue until almost the end of January. She stated to Comm. Brown that he was free up until that time to make a comment apart from the forum of the Planning Commission. Chmn. Izant noted that the comments and suggestions of the Board of Zon~ng Adjustments had been included in the packet for the P.C. meeting of January 3, 1984. He stated that the BZA had made observations and recommendations. He noted for the record that the Planning Commission is free to accept those observations and comments,as it sees fit. Comm. Strohecker asked whether the comments of the BZA had been addressed, Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She did state that the formal responsem .would be available at the Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1984. Comm. Smith asked whether Staff was prepared to that could take p:Lace on the unzoned property as building r versus apartment building, for example. i n a position to discuss the impact of approving there was a difference in a piece of property ir of this building. discuss the different kinds of building it currently is, i.e., condominium He also asked whether St aff would be parcel tract maps. He asked whether a parcel map is not approved in terms ~s. Sapetto replied that with respect to condominium approval and apartment approval ,,n unzoned land, unzoned land is R-1. She staeed that the unzoned land is already subdivided. r \ MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 6 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN Af1ENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS II 16022 AND IH6023 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that, in order for the land to be developed, the <'!.eve loper would have to come to the City with the parcel map that subdivides the property. But they can put one unit on every parcel. That is why it is a ministerial parcel. In order to develop that land, one must go through a subdivision process or the condo minium ordinance. Comm. Smith asked if that is what would happen under the proposed zoning. He asked if it would change from ministerial to, in effect, a public review. Ms. Sapetto replied that that :Ls what would happen if the parcel maps were submitted. Chmn. Izan~ outlined the main topics for consideration at the Planning Commission meeting: School district zone changes on the five school properti,;,s; General Plan amendments on the five school properties; review of the a de quacy of the Env iron mental Irapact Report . Chmn. Izant asked that the public testimony be brief and concise since there were a number of citizens who wished to testify. Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. Catby Anderson, 1003 B:roadway , Santa Monica,; spoke on behalf of ·the . Hermosa Beach School District . She noted that, in order to make a complete and thorough presentation, three speakers would present statements: Herself, Marilyn Harris Corey, and Steven Broiles. She stated that Ms. Corey would speak first to give a history of the project and a history of why the School District is P.OW appearing before the Planning Commission . Ms . Anderson also stated that Mr. Broi.les is the attorney for the School District. She stated that he would speak on the topic of what does happen when the School District has a vacant and unused piece of property, and how the District goes about disposing of that .property. Marilyn Harris Corey, Superintendent of Schools and Executive Secretary of the Elected Board of Trustees, 1800 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, spoke: "My role ::..s to provide back gr ound information as to how we got here tonight. I am going to review the Board's goals, enrollment history, school closure, community involvement, the Board discussions over the last few years, and architectural plans for Valley School. "First, the goal of the School District. Obviously, the goal is to provide the best educational system possible for the students of Hermosa Beach by util :i.zing all of our resources effectively and efficiently . Consolidation of all of our students is one answer to the efficient use of our resources. It provides more program oppo rtunitie s, more flexibility, and a better use of our facilities. "In order to do this, the site must be improved and expanded. These improvements will be funded by the use of the funds f rom the sale of South School, which was closed for our educational purposes in 1980. ) (A slide was shown of the back side of the school from Valley.) "The School Board's goal was not conceived instantaneously. It evolved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 7 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) over several years . The enrollment peaked at 2,141 students in the 1962-63 school years and has continued to decline since that time to our present enrollment taken in December of 1983 to 731 students. In 1973, when the enrollment began to decline, the District retained a consultant, Dr. John Stollings, to project future enrollment and to make recommendations on use of facilities. (Ms. Corey displayed a copy of the report.) His projections done at that time are still amazingly accurate. He recommended that the District close Prospect Heights and Pier Avenue School in June of 1973. Pier was closed in 1975 and Prospect Heights in 1977. He even suggested that in 1975 the School District would only need two schools, and as you know it's now 1984 and we have ·'t hree. "In this period of time the District studied reorganization or unification. Three elections to unify Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, South Bay Union High School District, and Manhattan Beach were held in 1965, 1966, and 1972. In the last few years, even more discussions have been held but primarily on the issue of reorganization or con solidation with Manhattan Beach. A:.,. advisory committee was formed to study the issue of reorganization, and they published their findings. (Ms. Corey displayed a copy of the report.) "About that time there seemed to be a strong direction of the Board of Trustees, 'No, don't give up the Hermosa Beach School District. Keep it. Keep our identity. Keep the Hermosa Beach District intact.' The question them became, in light of our declining enrollment, if the Hermosa District is to stay intact, what shall it be? enrollment projection "More/ studies were conducted in 1980, 1981, and 1983. (Ms. Corey displayed copies of the studies.) Again, these enrollment projections are amazingly accurate. For example, the projection done several years ago for 1980-81 was 930 students. During that school year, the actual enrollment was 910. The projections for this school year were 758 students. The actual --taken again in December of 1983 - is 731. The enrollrnEmt projections were again amazingly accurate. and 1:he "The District /consultant studied the birth rat e .data as · one basis, and one on which to project enrollment. (Ms. Corey showed a ·c'hart containing birth rate statistics.) The left side (of the chart) gives the birth year, the second column gives the date of which those students should reasonably be expected to enter kindergarten, the third column shows the birth rate per 1,000, the fourth column shows the number of actual live births, and the last column is the number of students who actually enroll in ki.ndergarten of the year in the second column. For example, in 1974 there were 1€>.0 live births and only 72 in number. Please note throughout the data well under one half of the children born actually enroll in school. This is not surprising because we do know we have a mobile population due to the high level of rental property. (Ms. Corey showed a slide that reviewed the actual closure of three of the schools.) "Pier Avenue was closed in 1975, Prospect Heights in 1977, and South School in 1980. During the fall of 1979 Dr. Marvin Nottingham from u.s.c. worked with a task force of 2Lf community residents to study the utilization of our school facilities. They also reviewed enrollment data and evaluated the condition of the various school sites. Their report recommended closing North and South schools in 1980. The Board chose to close South School effective June 1980. PLANNING COMMLSSLON MINUTES -JANUARY?, 1984 Page 8 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) ·'During the 1979-80 school year the Board and the City discussed the City purchasing of the two Prospect Heights playgroundscontiguous to Prospect Avenue. The School District at that time wasn't interested in selling those two playgrounds until it had an opportunity to master plan all of its school properties, "Therefore, in late spring of 1981, the Board, in keeping with State law, formed a citizens' advisory committee to advise the Board on the disposition of surplus property, the property not needed for educational purposes. This was a broad base committee composed of 11 members and 2 alternates. They met regularly, and I mean regularly, nearly every Tuesday night for six months. They made six reports to the Board of Trustees; they held two public hearings in October of 1980 and 1981; and they published their final report, (Ms. Corey displayed a copy of the rep9rt!) "The work of this advisory committee led to the development of a master plan which was approved in February 1981. (Ms. Corey displayed a copy of this report.) This plan was reviewed and reaffirmed in January 1982 and February of 1983. Please note that during this period of time three new members were elected to be ·seated on the Board of Trustees. So the plan was reviewed Teally by two different boards, "The master plan as approved and reaffirmed called for all students to be educated at Hermosa Valley School, which we used to call Middle School, The Board discussed this at many meetings and decided that a one school site modified to meet the needs of our K-8 population would have these advantages. An articulated K-8 curriculum opportunity for program enhancement, cost effectiveness .would mean aesthetic value ":o the community and would take the taxpayers' money raised for educational purposes and return it to education. In other words, the Board faced the issue that declining enrollment was here. 'Let's make the most of it. Let's keep our one school. Let's make it the best.' "The Board then consulted an architect and a committee of nine connnunity residents and staff to develop an architectural plan. Their first of 17 meetings was held in November of 1982, and their most recent one, late this afternoon. The committee :is trying to correct many of the problems currently found at the Valley site and to bring in natural air and natural light. It will be a functional building and will be of aesthetic value to the connnunity. "I'd like to show you very briefly some of these slides. They are tentative plans. (Slides fH, and //2. depicted Play Fieil.d at Valley School) "The Play Field at Valley School will be substantiallv modified to make more recreational facilities. There are berms now which will be removed. The plants will be rearranged. It will be of a soccer and baseball size. (Slide #3 depicted the view looking from the hill in back of the school.) (Slide If 4 depicted the school from the back hill.) (Slide #5 depicted a plot plan of the school.) "This shows the existing buildings. Please note the large area at the back which is hillside, non-usable ,,. space. I will be referring to that later. (Slide 116 depicted a:h ,:older :plan:;) "This plan is an old plan, but I am putting it here for a purpose. There have baen rumors in the connnunity that we are building condos on the hillside . There has been discussion that we are building a swinuning pool. Yes, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 9 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6 022 AND 16 0 23 (Cont,) there was discussion of the committee on putting condominiums on the hillside, but please note that the zoning calls for all open space on Valley School now. There was discussion of putting in a swimming pool, that the School District would provide the land and perhaps the City, through a grant, could build a swimming pool. It·. would'. be appropriate, then, for physical education during the day and for community use on week ends, evenings, and in the summer months. That is no longer in the plan as you will note later. "The third , item I would like to call your attention to is the yellow space up toward the rear of the playground. We have moved back the hill trying to make that hillside less and more functional. Obviously, the hillside has been a pain to the School District from a maintenance aspect. Now it will be more functional playground space in the back, It will have a large retaining wall which can also be used for recreational facilities. Please note to the right the use of playground space which is much more conducive to physical activity than the current playground. (Slide #7 depicted a more recent plan showing the current buildings.) "As I said earlier, one of our objectives was to correct some of the problems currently found at Valley School, the internal sound containment of the main building. That has been corrected by adding internal walls that have glass in them so that you still have the visual sight, but no noise problems. (Slide #8 depicted the existing site showing the new buildings.) 'Again, the purpose of the slides was to give you an idea of what the Architectural Planning Committee is doing now. "The next time-lines will be Board approval of the final plans which will be probably in January or February. The plans then have to go to the State to make sure we are in keeping with all the State rules and regulations for construction, Hopefully, we will then sell South School; go to bid for construction; have groundbreaking; and, hopefully, the grand opening for our K-8 school in September 1985. "While the Architectural Planning Committee has been working, the subcommittee, which is composed of two members of the City Counc1l and two members of the School Board, have continued to meet. This is not a new group. They have met for many years on common issues before the School District and the City. They have talked about crossing guards, the free bus, the safest route to school, and more recently the zoning of school property and the disposition of school property, leading to the agenda tonight. "In the last few years there has been much publicity on the topic of disposition of school property. There have been literally hundreds of newspaper articles arid letters to the editor. (Ms. Corey showed a slide depicting only a small fraction of the articles which are maintained in their file,) "The Citizens' Advisory Committee held two public hearings. The Council and the Board of Trustees have heard regular progress reports from their subcommittee members. The Board of Education at public meetings has discussed disposition of School District property at 44 different meetings, Those meetings all have agendas, and we usually rnnd home those with the students about the agenda of the School Board meeting. "Members of the Board or I have spoken at various public meetings during the spring of 1983 --Kiwanis, Woman's Club, Masons, senior citizens, Hermosa View, North School PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 10 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, .-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #16023 (Cont.) and Valley School, open houses last spring, and coordinating council. "The District Advisory Forum sponsored a public informat i on night in June of 1983, well-publicized and well-attended. The City and the School District co-sponsored a public forum at the Kiwanis Building in 1983, again well-publicized and well-attended. "As you can see, the conceived overnight. public discussion. goal of educating our students at Hermosa Valley School was not It has been under careful study for many years and after mucp "The solution we have before you meets the needs of our students and the needs of the connnunity. "I have reviewed for you enrollment, the history of school closure, and the history of community involvement that led the Board to its decision. "Now I would like to introduce Steven Broiles from the law firm of Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gerschon. He has been working with me, members of Staff, and the Board of Trustees in the last few months on this topic." Steven Broiles, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, sprake on behalf of the Hermosa Beach School District. "I just wanted to give you a little bit of a picture tonight of some of the institutional ~onstraints and problems that are facing the School District, especially the Hermosa ~ity schools in this day and age of shrinking enrollment and conclude by touching on a few items in the Staff Report that I think may :be in error. "Basically, the Hermosa Beach City School District finds itself in the same position a lot 0£ schools are finding themselves in and that is that they are land rich and pupil poor. They find themselves caught between the crunch of declin~ng enrollment and excess schools. The School District, however, is not in the business of holding real estate, and besides costing them a lot of money to maintain a vacant site, the State has a program where they extract non-use payments from the funds that the State pays over to the School District. "I notice in the Staff Report the assumption is made that the School District is funded primarily by the property tax rolls, and I beli·eve that is incorrect. That statement appears --I guess it is untitled --it would be on the fourth page. Historically, the State pays about 70 percent of the school operating funds and"30 percent comes from the property tax rolls. So the bulk of the State money locally comes from the State and is allocated gnn~ally. The State extracts what they call non-use payments for school property which is surplus. "When the School District buys land --if it's an elementary use --they have five years to put it to that use. If it is a middle school or high school, they have seven years. After a property owned by a School District ceases to be used for class room purposes and goes for five years, the State starts taking money from the schools by just tapping into that 70 percent that they use to finance the district, and it is called the non-use payment. The only way the district can avoid that is to convince ,.:he State Allocation Board that within three years they are going to devote that unused surplus property to school purposes or something comparaple. That something comparable is usually an administrative center like you have at Hermosa View. That will forestall the eRtraction of non-use payment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 11 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) ·'The other way to forestall that use is to put the property on the ma rke t every year. I will touch on that in a few minutes about how the School District doe s that. If you can convince the State Allocation Board that the property, after bein g ex posed on the market did not receive any bids for fair market value, then they will a g a in not withhold that non-use payment for another year. "The non-use payment is at the rate of 0ne 1/lOOth of the original adjusted pu~chase price. Basically, the way it works out, it is something akin to what the County Assessor or an independent appraiser would say is the fair market value of the land. "We have heard appraisals as of South School from anywhere of three to four million. Potentially we are talking about thirty to forty thousand dollars per year. But there is another provision that puts a minimum on what the school districts can receive, and that is a minimum of $120 per pupil per ADA.of the prior year. "What you have operating for the Hermosa Beach City Schools is: One, the increased cost of maintaining unused s ch o ol si tes , t he i ncre as e d e xposure to liability of having sites that are just open and v ac an t an d bas i c ally unsup e r v ised. Plus you have the State breathing down your neck that unl e s s t hey b eg in t o put those to a productive use or dispose of those sites, t hey a re g o ing t o t ake a way money, money that the School District uses to pay sa laries of thei r te a ch i ng per sonnel with, money that buys books, and money that ma i nt a i ns t he exi sting u sab le s chool sites. "We are at hand with respect to Prospect School. That was closed in 1977. Next 'ear will be the year for South School. The State will be wanting to know what is Joing to happen to those properties. One way the School District can avoid losing current operating funds to the State is by offering the property for sale. Actually, the process by which schools are sold begiµs and takes a couple of years to complete. It begins initially with a 711 committee, That is an advisory committee of citizens' groups that advises school boards because these people are not really experts, and the State does not consider them as such on alternative uses and the disposal of land. They make a recommendation to the School Board on what they thought should be done with the unused school sites. They make a recommendation. Subsequent to that recommendation, the School District --if it has a surI?J,us site --has to offer that for lease to adjacent school sites. You also have(arfomaly that some corrnnunities have some expanding enrollment. That is rare, but they do exist. But it has to be offered to them. "All of the communities surrounding Hermosa Beach are Beach. They are suffering a decline in enrollment. Corey made that offer to adjacent schools. in the same situation as Hermosa There we re no takers when Mrs. "T he sales process itself begins by the adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Sell . The sale is conducted anywhere from 80 to 120 days later, and it is all by s ub mission of written bids. The School District must accept the least bid, At the time of the bid opening, there is an opportunity for oral bids to be presented. Those must be reduced to writing within 24 hours and required deposit posted. "Between the time of the adoption of the Resolution of Intention and the time the bids are opened, the property must be exposed to sale to all public agenci es . Some agencies ¾.ave priority over other agencies; that is, if they are going t o p u rchase it for park ;urposes or low-income housing, and if it is accepted for that p u rp os e b y those agencies charged with performing that function, it can then be sold to t he Re ge nts of the University of California or members of the State College Districts, any public agencies, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 12 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,) housing authorities for the County, even certain private non-profit agencies have a chance to bid. That is what the lapse of time between the adoption of the · Resolution of Intention to Sell and the date, usually 120 days later or longer when the bids are operied. "If a public agency comes forward and offers to purchase the property at the fair market •. value, the district can then accept that bid, reject all others, and sell the property to that agency. "But the process by which a school district sells property, how it sells the property, there is a little discretion left to the board in terms of the term. But basically everything is controlled by law. It is pretty much axiomatic that one of the agencies that has the least authority to exercise its discretion is the school board. Traditionally when you are dealing with a school district, you have got to find the statute that specifically authorizes the doing of what they propose to do or the answer is they have no authority. They have considerably less authority than a City Council or a County Board of Supervisors. "That basical;l..yis a sunnnary of what has transpired and the process that the Hermosa Beach City School District is involved with right now. They are sort of between a rock and a hard place and to the extent that they can find some productive use for this property and get out from under the threa t posed by the non-use payments that the State is going to exact. It will h el p make the City schools easier to run, and it will benefit the children of the commu n i t y of Hermosa Beach. ~ i want to make one comment about the reference to the Development Agreement contained in the Staff Report. They raise a question with the consistency of one other provision, Provision 9A, with the State Government Code provisions. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. I reviewed it, and it has also been reviewed by the County Counsels' Office because the County Counsels' Office is one of the advisors to the Hermosa Beach City School District. None of us reached this conclusion. I don't think the Staff is correct in making the assessment that this is inconsistent with State law. As a legal matter it is probably proper as with most other decisions about whether or not the parties want to have it in the agreement, I think that is up to the parties. That is the only reference I have about that, but I would like to suggest that you do confirm that with the City Attorney. He has reviewed the document." Cathy Anderson, 1003 Broadway, Santa Monica, continued the presentation on behalf of the Hermosa Beach School District, Ms. Anderson stated that she wanted to discuss each school site individually and review the :proposal in terms of open space and density. (Ms, Anderson made preparation to show slides and vugraphs to accompany her presentation.) Ms. Anderson showed templates of overall City maps which are contained in the EIR and which depicted existing and proposed zoning. Ms, Anderson stated that the Hermora View site has a combination of zonings. The playground portion is unzoned open space, and the westerly portion containing ;he school buildings and the majority of the pavement is unzoned, She pointed out _lhe area of 20 feet which was recommended by the Police and Fire Departments which will serve as an access to the back open space portion. She further stated that this site is currently one parcel, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 13 SCHOOL DIS TRI CT ZONE CHANGE S;. GENERAL "PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN :AMENDMENT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAP S #16022 AND #1 6 023 (Cont.) Ms. Anderson explained why only two parcel maps were submitted. She stated that in the situation where the site has legal description of one lot of a particular parcel map, in order to give a correct legal description to what is being zoned, a parcel map must be prepared to redefine that. Ms. Anderson continued with her discussion of Hermosa View. She stated that the current open space area would remain open space, and the current unzoned portion would go to R-1. She stated that the site is currently 4.7 acres. 2.28 acres are in the unzoned portion, and this consists of the school buildings and some of the paved areas. The back portion of the site is 2,42 acres .and consists of the playground and the driveway area. Under the proposal, the existing open space would remain open space, and the unzoned portion would go to a reconfirmation of the R-1 use. She stated that with the current R-1 use, 29 units could be built on the R-1 portion. Under the proposal, there would be a confi r mation of the 29 units. Being that the site is one parcel, in order to get the 29 units, one would have to come before the Planning Commission with a discretionary action. Ms. Anderson further stated that on this particular site, if a parcel map were denied, if no change were permitted being that it was one lot, only one single family house would be permitted. Ms. Anderson stated that on Prospec.t at the corner of 19th Street is the blank corner lot which is the Sea View Parkette. That lot is planned to be sold to the City for public park purposes and for the purpose of open space. That site is also currently unzoned and has the potential, based on its size, to hold three units. She said that this being one lot, it would go to a single-family house designation were the building permit to be pulled tomorrow. Ms. Anderson said that this area is surrounded by R-1 and R-2 zones. The surrounding General Plan designation is all low-density. The change from unzoned to R-1 would be consistent with the surrounding areas and would be a lower density than is in some of the adjacent areas. The low-density designation would be compatible with the low density with the rest of the area. Ms. Anderson stated that the benefit to the City would be the purchase of the Sea View Parkette. She then stated that the playground area would be assured of remaining open space and would be permitted for public use. In addition there would be an assurance that the future low-density development on this site would have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for the appropriate reviews. (Ms. Anderson showed more slides of the Hermosa View . School site.) Ms. Anderson discussed Prospect Heights School site. She stated that the school buildings are currently designated as unzoned and the playground area is designated as open space. She stated that the playground area would go to an R-1 designation. She stated that all of the adjacent properties adjacent to the unzoned portion are designated as R-2. She said that the only R-1 zoning is on the other side of Prospect. She noted that in discussions with the subcommittee, the School District decided to change the proposal for this site and go to an R-1 zoning and low density from the unzoned instead of the R-2. She said that the open space area is the portion that would be sold to the City for public park purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 14 SCHOOL DI.STRI CT ZONE CHANGE S, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #1602 3 (Cont.) Ms. Anderson stated that there are already a number of subdivided lots on this site. Tlie -lots are 25 1 x 100'. The existing zoning could permit 16 single- family residences based on one house per lot. Under the proposal, when the parcel map goes into effect, that would become one piece and the General Plan designation of 13 dwelling units per acre would become effective. Based on that, only 12 units could be constructed, and these would have to be either single family homes of the City's required 4,000 sq. ft. lots or a condominium-type development of only 12 units. That would be consistent with the General Plan and the zoning. Right now, under the unzoned portion with the existing lot division as it is, one could go in and pull permits for 16 single-family homes without any discretionary approval. Again, those homes would be on substandard lots. Ms. Anderson further stated that the surrounding area is primarily R-2 with some R-1 across Prospect Avenue. This would be a down zone from what is currently in the surrounding area. Ms. Anderson noted that the s·chool , District's plan for the Prospect Heights site is to sell the playground area to the City and to continue with the lease arrangement with the International Bilingual School. (Ms. Anderson showed vu-graphs of the Prospect Heights School site.) Ms. Anderson continued her presentation with the discussion of South School. \ She noted that the school is currently 5.38 '.·acres. The school was closed in 1980. Currently one classroom is being leased to St, Clare's Preschool. Of the 5.38 acres, only .95 is unzoned, and 4.43 is zoned as open space, The open space is essentially some of the upper paving and playground areas, part of the school buildings, and then it goes off in the back portion of the play ground and grassy area all the way to Valley. Ms. Anderson said that under ~ the :.proposal it is this portion that is slated to be sold, In the attempt to sell it, it i s important to have the density that will be compatible with the area and will give the School District the most benefit. So only one site would have to be sold. The improvements on Valley could be accomplished with the proceeds of this sale. Ms. Anderson noted that the proposal is to rezone the entire site to an R-3 designation. In the development agreement there is a limitation on the number of units that could be constructed on this site. That limitation is to 99 units, which represents 18.5 dwelling units per acre. She noted that 18.5 dwelling units per acre is considerably under what is permitted in an .R.:..:3 zone. Generally, an R-3 zone would pe high-density and would permit 45 dwelling units per acre, which would be a total of 183 units. If it were to go to an R-3 designation, it would still be compatible with the surrounding area and the surrounding General Plan. By taking it to the middle range of the medium-density, the project will make much less of an impact on the surrounding area and much more compatible with the intent of what the City of Hermosa Beach would like to see. Ms. Anderson noted that the development agreement provides for a dedication, not sale, of 1.3 acres. This would be on the Valley Drive side. This would be dedicated to the City for the development of a public park. This dedication would be done by the developer at the time that he came in for his development plans. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page l5 SCI:lOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,) Ms . Anderson stated that a ·parcel map was not submitted for this site because , as it currently exists, the underlying legal description can be used to define the new zone. It can also be used to transfer the property . To record a parcel map would only be to redefine what has already been defined . The development agreement bolds the developer to a 99 unit proposal, Based on 99 units, he would have to come in to tbe City for discreti onary approval anyway . Ms. Anderson stated that it was not felt there was a need to record parcel maps on any of the sites that did not require them because of the underlying legal definition . Whenever the underlying legal definition could clearly define where the zone changes would be, a parcel map was not submitted . She felt that a parcel map on this site wouldn 't give the City any more strength than they already have through the zone change coupled with tbe development agreement . She noted that the exact location of the 1 .3 acre dedication site would be determined by the City and the developer. She noted that the development agreement does require that it be contiguous and adjacent to Valley and that its exact location be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. (Ms. Anderson displayed slides showing more views of South School.) Ms. Anderson continuted her presentation with a discussion of the site of Hermosa Valley which is also knoivn as Middle School. She noted that this site is currently most inconsistent with the use and with the General Plan of the surrounding area . The open space portions are the school buildings and the hillside . The portion that is currently zoned R-3 is the majority of the park of the playground area that currently exists. This area is to be restructured and regraded for the use of baseball and soccer, whereas it is now unsuitable for these uses. There is a provision that this area would be available to the public in off -school hours . Ms . Anderson stated tbat under the current zoning, the R-3 portion could be developed with 105 apartment units. Condominiums would come under the General Plan, but apartments would ot ·require a discretionary approval. What is being proposed is to turn that into open space since the School District bas no desire to develop that into R-3 use. Tpat area is vital to its new plan at Hermosa Valley. The surrounding area is R-1 and R-2. Open space will be of a great benefit to the City and the surrounding property owners . (Ms. Anderson showed slides of the Hermosa Valley School.) Ms. Anderson discussed North School which also has two zones, open space and unzoned. It also has a portion of ope.n space that is adjacent to and s omewhat landlocked by the R-1 area. The proposal is to take that area adjacent to the end zone and put that into an R-1 use and take the remaining portion that goes into Valley Park and sell that to the City . This open space area is 2 .2 acres and is a portion of Valley Park. It is owned by the School District, so the City must concern itself with acquiring it. Ms . Anderson noted that the property is zoned for 19 units based on the existing unzoned low -density designation. With out a discretionary approval, there could only be one house per lot so 15 single-family houses could be constructed . Most of them would be substandard lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 16 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS /tl 6022 AND //16023 (Cont.) Ms. Anderson stated that most of North School is surrounded by a medium-density designation and an R-2 zone. The proposal is to go to an R-1 zone with low- density which would be consistent with the properties to the south and inconsistent with some of the properties to the north. Under the proposed zone 27 units could be permitted. She noted that the difference between the 19 units and the 27 units is the small bit of open space that would be converted to R-1. (Ms. Anderson showed slides of the North School site,) Ms. Anderson summarized her presentation by saying that based on the proposal, the City will be acquiring 4.38 acres of open space that will be City owned. She noted that the important thing is that the open space that is now designated in the General Plan is not necessarily usable public open space, It is important for purposes of the City's Land Use Element, but it is important that the City consider what it has actual control over, The proposal is actually reducing the density that is currently permitted on each of these sites. In each of the sites, the proposal is to have the City acquire or grant to the City some open space . . Ms. Anderson stressed that the School District has gone through the lengthy. legal procedures for the sale of property at South School only and does '.no~ have the intention of selling the other school sites, It is important that the zoning be reaffirmed as far as the unzonedportion and moving that to an R-1 zoning to have assurance of future security. It is also important when the School District is selling so much of its open space to the City that the City give them some assurances in return. This is the entire purpose of the development agreement, Ms. Anderson concluded by saying that the acquisition of this property for this amount is far under current market value. She felt that there would probably not be another opportunity to acquire park land and open space lands for this amount that is being offered by the School District. Chmn. Izant thanked the School Board for a very thorough presentation. Chmn. Izant directed a question to Mr. Broiles. He noted that in the development agreement there was not a section providing for a right to cure, ·r ·In.'.the case: of either party, through no fault of his own, becoming in violation of the agreement, he questioned what would happen ,, He felt that some type of a right to cure would be appropriate in certain cases. Mr. Broiles replied that that would be embodied in each of the documents that would implement each sale or each transaction. In terms of the right to cure for the development agreement, that would be handled under the provisions of the enabling act in the Government Code, whereby annually the City reviews the performance of the City or the property owner under the development agreement, and it finds there has been substantial compliance or makes some modifications or terminates the development agr eeme nt based upon the performance. He stated that it is not thought necessary to p ut that language in because it would be duplicative of State law. Chmn. Izant questioned whether there was any way that the regional interests could somehow be subordinated to the City's interests to purchase first. Mr. Broiles felt that this is not a possibility. He felt that this is not a realistic choice. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 17 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS~ LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16 023 (Cont.) Conun. Shapiro directed a question to Ms. Corey. He questioned whether Hermosa Valley School was to always remain Hermosa Valley School no matter what the outcome of the proposal is to be. Ms. Corey stated that Hermosa Valley School is to house the K-8 students. That is why there was an agreement to the open space changes versus the current R-3 changes of the Valley site. Comm. Shapiro asked for clarification of the $3.37 per sq. ft. cost of the 4.38 acres. He noted that the residential value of this property is in excess of $20 per sq. ft. He questioned whether open space was being compared to residential property. He wanted to know how these figures were arrived at. Ms. Anderson replied that the $20 per sq. ft. was computed as a residential value instead of an open space value because the law requires that the market value be figured. It was figured that in these sites the market value is the residential value. She stated that it is very difficult to figure open space value. She said that the figure that was arrived at included the 1.3 acre gift to the City and a grant of $100,000 from the State. She stated that all of the sites do have a residential value and could be sold at that residential value. That is the reason for using the $20 figure. Chmn. Izant asked how the $20 figure was arrived at. Ms. Anderson stated that the figure is slightly low, but it is based on appraisals that have been done on R-1 zoning. She stated that this figure has been confirmed by approximately three real estate companies. Comm. Brown asked whether the City would be al1owed to convert the 4.38 acres to R-1 property and then sell it. Ms. Anderson replied that that would not be possible under the development agreement. Conun. Brown felt that the figure of $20 per sq. ft. is not relevant and is probably misleading. Ms. Anderson stated that the point of the figures was to show that the City would be able to acquire these properties at a considerable bargain. Comm. Brown felt that it would have been more ap.pi;optiate to haile it valued at the open space value. Ms. Anderson felt that that is just an opinion. Ms. Anderson stated that the $3.37 was based on very extensive negotiations between the School District and the City subcommittee, This is considered to be well under open space value and market value. Comm. Shapiro asked whether it would be necessary to build a parking lot in the 1. 3 acre area at South School to acconunodate people who would be coming there to enjoy the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 18 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AfIBNDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS i/16022 AND f/16023 (Cont.) Ms. Anderson stated that it would not be necessary. She said that there is access into that area from Cypress Street. She said that the exact way that that area is to be developed is by Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Ms. Anderson stated that there will be more testimony from other members of the School Board who have been on the subcommittee. She felt that maybe these comments could more properly address the topic of market values. Comm. Soulakis asked for more clarification on the birth rate statistics that were shown on the charts at the presentation. He questioned the disparity between the birth rates and the school enrollments figures. Ms. Corey stated that the baby boom of several years ago was higher than it has been in the past several years. The cleclining enrollment .:starts with the 8th grade students. Kindergarten is b a sically holding. As the kindergarten students move into 8th grade, you have declining enrollment. If there is not a higher birth rate feeding into the system, there will be a decline in enrollment. Comm. Soulakis questioned where many of the students are going. Ms . Corey stated that some go to private school, but also many students who were previously in private school are now returning to public schools. She also noted the fact that Hermosa Beach has a very mobile population, probably due to the high rental property in the area. Comm. Soulakis asked what the enrollment projections were for 1983 to 1990. Ms. Corey stated that the projections showed that the enrollment will remain constant, from between 650 to 700. That figure will level off because the incoming students seem to remain at around 70. She stated that this should be an accurate projection unless there is a radical change in the birth rate. Comm. Soulakis asked what flexibility the School District has allowed itself in the case of increasing enrollment. Ms. Corey stated that the Architectural Planning Committee has planned to house approximately 800 students at Valley School. This would constitute leeway for upward enrollment. Also the School District has no plans to sell Hermosa View School, North School, or Prospect Heights School. In the event that it became necessary, Hermosa View would house an additional 300 students. Also the other schools could be utilized if another baby boom occurs. Comm. Soulakis asked whether the School District has cut off its options in the event of another baby boom. Ms. Corey replied in the negative. She stated that public playgrounds are public playgrounds. The children would use the City park very much as at the current Valley Park. This has been a very cooperative agreement. Comm. Smith expressed concern over the statement that the School Board does not intend to sell school sites other than South School. He wanted to k~ow what would preclude the other sites from being sold off in answer to a non-use argument by the State Board of Education. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 19 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) Ms. Corey answered in all honesty that nothing precludes them from exercising their property rights as property owners. But that is not the intent of the School Board. Comm. Smith expressed concern on the question of withholding money on a non-use basis by th~ School District.., ·He questioned whether the potential withholding 0£ money from the School District on the basis of non-use could be used as a lever to force a School Board to end up selling these properties at a rate which they didn't intend. Mr. Broiles felt that the intention of the State Legislature is to keep schools out of the business of holding surplus lands. He felt that this could be a problem to the future of Hermosa Beach schools unless a productive use can be found for them. Comm. Smith asked whether "use" would necessarily mean sale. Mr. Broiles stated that this meant sale, either directly or lease with the option to purchase. Comm. Soulakis asked whether the schools that are leasing qualify the various school districts as exempt from the non-use provision. Mr. Broiles was not certain. He felt he needed to research that question. Comm. Soulakis asked if portions ·of school sites were sold to the City, would that qualify as having taken action and therefore exempt the School Board from making the payment. Mr. Broiles replied in the negative. Comm. Soulakis asked why the property $hould be rezoned or changed if there are no plans for it. Mr. Broiles discretion. property is want to see replied that the State Allocation: Board has a tremendous amount of Their view is that a reasonable amount of time to dispose of the three years after the original five years is up. At that time they the property back as school property or something with equal dignity. Chmn. Izant asked whether Hermosa View would qualify as an administrative center. Mr. Broiles stated that at least part of the school would qualify. Comm. Brown asked what the options of the State are if there is no use for the property. Mr. Broiles stated that the main objective of the School Dihs.tritt is tCJ avoid the non~use payment. Therefore, they can offer it for sale every year;as is. Comm. Brown asked what would happen if there were no buyers. Mr. Broiles stated that the State would be satisfied with that if they believe that what was offered was not fair market value. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1983 Page 20 SC HOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #1 60 2 2 AND #16023 (Cont.) CoillIIl. Brown asked Mr. Broiles what he felt the changes were of another agency coming in and purchasing the City's sites as is. Mr. Broiles stated that there were no assurances, but he felt it was not very likely to happen. Chrnn. Izant readdressed the issu e of selling the school sites. He noted that conceivably North School and Hermosa Vi e w Sch oo l c oul d be closed in 1985. He qu esti one d what woul d happ e n i f Herm o sa Vi ew do e s not q ualify as an administrative c enter . He no t ed t ha t Pr o sp ectHe igh t s i s alr e a dy c lo sed, He questioned whether th e Schoo l Bo ard woul d be for c ed to t ake meas ures t o <li pase of those properties or l o se St ate f un ding . Mr. Broiles stated that that is a very real possibility. Connn. Brown felt that there is a greater chance of an outside entity coming in if the properties are rezoned, He felt that an outside entity could come in and use the space not as open space but as R-1 or R-2. Mr. Broiles replied that most of the agencies must observe the 'zoning code, so it would not make that much of a difference. He stated that it would depend on what was being put on the site in terms of zoning, Comm. Shapiro questioned whether there were any drawbacks by not handling South School by itself. He questioned why everything was being handled as a package. Mr. Broiles replied that South School could be handled by itself, but the City wanted it to be handled as a package. Comm. Soulakis directed a question to Ms. Anderson. He wanted to know why, if South School were to be handled as a medium-density area, it should not be zoned as R-2 instead of R-3. Ms. Anderson stated that it was the intent of the Board and the subcommittee to permit the 35-foot height limit instead of a 30-foot height limit. That is basically the only advantage of the R-3 zoning. Chmn. Izant noted that the zoning code must be in conformance with the General Plan. He noted concern for the future on this point. Ms. Anderson stated that there would be more discussions with the District on this issue. Recess from 9:45 P,M. to 9:58 P.M. Public Hearing opened at 10:00 P.M. Vi ol e t I sg r een , 72 6 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, questioned how the zone ch a n ge s will i mpa c t th e General Plan amendments when the entire open space t hro ugh ou t t h e City is changed except for the beach area. She noted that the Gene r a l P l an mu st i n~lude the EIR of these elements --traffic element ,, economic elemen t, noi se element , safety element, California Health Code element, seismic safety element, safety element, air quality element. She questioned when these were done and by whom. She stated that she would like a copy of these to enable her to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 21 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #16023 (Cont.) make an intelligent evaluation. Hank Doerfling, 1011 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that he served on the City Council from 1972 to 1980. He stated that he was on the School Board Subcommittee for the entire eight years. He f el t tha t thi s gave hi m historical perspective on the issue. He noted that the pro b l em o f declin i n g e nrollment began to be discussed in 1972 with the Sch ool Board memb er s a t th at time. He stated that the goal of the School Board and the Ci t y Co un c i l a t th at time was to preserve the open space that the Cit y h a d. He sa i d t hat t he open space plan was implemented. Using the Gene ra l Plan, all of the s chool s i tes were i n j_tially zoned open space. Discuss i ons we re then entert~d into con c e rn ing t h e z o n i n g . He noted that those discu s sions were very lengthy and t borou gh. He out lin e d what was done with the sch oo l si t e s. Mr. Doerfling stated that he had strong objections to the planned use of the South School site. He felt that these plans are against the original agreement to take away the open space in the south end, Mr. Doerflin g a ls o no t ed that he had some procedural questions. He noted, that unless the l aws h ave been changed, that zoning and general plans cannot be changed simultane ously . He also questioned how this can be acted upon before a final EIR i s a ppro v ed. Mr. Doerfling also felt that there is a fair market value for the open space area. He tended to dtsagree··with ~th,r$20 ,figure, though. He felt that the School Board would not tend to build on the designated R-3 property that is adjacent to the Middle School. Mr. Doerfling questioned the staffs' reports on density calculations. He felt that streets always he~d to be considered in the case of a subdivision. Mr. Doerfling felt that even though the City does have open space, it is not enough. He questioned why the City should give up seven more acres of designated open space. Dave J on e s 33 4 Gulper Court, Hermosa Be a ch, concurred with Mr. Doerfling's comment s . He fe l t that the only t hin g r e ally being discussed is the question of Sout h Schoo l . He felt that e verythin g is conjecture and not guaranteed. He que stioned what future zoning woul d be . Mr. Jones stated that he went to zoning meetings where changes were being discussed. He went to the library but could find no mention of these changes. Mr. Jones also felt that the EIR is very vague. He noted that, by State standards, it should be clear and concise. He noted that there are no specific comments concerning the sewer lines. He also felt that the report is very vague on the topic of cars. He felt that the report is just not specific enough. He felt that the EIR should contain some time limits. He feels that the proposal is a ruse to get 99 units on the South School site, and that everything /will wait until a later time. else Mr. Jones noted that some cities are using their school sites for care of the elderly. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 22 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) Mr. Jones questioned why the School Board can propose only rooms when there are unused classrooms all over the City. available classrooms are acceptable. He felt that to sell on another site is ludicrous. to build new class He felt that the one site to build Mr. Jones expressed concern for the future of open space in the City. He feels that people need to put a stop to the situation of the selling of open space area. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Jones if he were against selling the school sites. Mr. Jones stated that he is for Alternative #5. Sheila Donahue Miller, 77 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that she served on the School Board for almost nine years. She noted that there was never any agreement with the City Council of Hermosa Beach as far as the School District was concerned as far as lowering density. She stated that the City Council and Hermosa Beach in the past took the land away from the citizens by down zoning it. She felt that the main businessof the School District is education, not open space, parks, and recreation, Ms. :-Miller believes that the members of the subcommittee and the City Council have reached a very good agreement. This agreement is really reducing density. Ms. Miller discussed alternatives. She noted that 13 units could be done at South; 19 on North; 16 on Prospect Heights; and 29 other units. She stated that the School District has the power of Emin~nt Domain. She felt that if it were necessary to stay at Hermosa Valley, the Storey property and the trailer park could be used. She stated that this had been discussed many times while she served on the Board. She noted that the School District did not want to do this. She questioned whether the City really wants to build more little box-like apartments that are only six feet apart. Ms. Miller felt that if the School District exercises its right as a property owner, Prospect Heights playground, South School Bark, North School Play Field, and Sea View Parkette would all be lost. Ms. Miller noted that another alternative would be for the School District to sue the City of Hermosa Beach. Francis Parker, 5211/2 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, noted that two corrections were needed in the EIR. She stated that on Page 11,2· under the heading South School, first paragraph, the reader is referred to Figure 22.to see a view of "Older apartment buildings to the south of the school along Monterey Blvd," She noted that Figure 22 is a view of the north end of the property. She noted that the apartments referred to as "older" is in error also, as they were built after the Playa Pacifica condominiums. She made mention of the reference to S.t ~Clare's renting one classroom. She felt it should be noted that that one classroom consists of an entire building. Ms. Parker stated that in looking through the EIR, she saw no provision for the offer of first refusal to those people who had lost property to the South School area through Eminent Domain condemnation procedures many years in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 23 SCHOOL DIS TRICT ZO NE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #16023 (Cont.) She felt that this fact must be mentioned in the EIR because many of those people would like to have their lots returned to full size. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Broiles whether he could respond to that at the end of the evening. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would be able to respond to this question. Ms. Parker recollected that at one time the State said that that land must be offered back. Ms. Parker stated that the 99 units must be looked at as potentially having 297 residents, since most two bedroom units have two or three people living in them. She felt that with a potential residency of 297, this would bring up the important question of the impact of cars in the area. She also felt that there would be an impact on the use of the Fire and Police Departments. Ms. Parker noted that the EIR did not mention the current parking facilities in the area. She felt that more study in this area was necessary. She felt that it is extremely important to provide adequate parking. Ms. Parker stated that she felt all of these items must be looked into further before a final impact report is made. Ms. Parker also felt it is necessary to study the use of the property in the area before a final EIR is made. Don Barth, 1561 1st Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he is a property owner in Hermosa Beach. His property is immediately west of the South School site. He stated that he has mixed emotions on the entire process. He noted that he is the Regional Commissioner for the American Youth Soccer Organization, which comprises the cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. He felt that the rights of the School District as a property owner must be protected .of their ability to raise funds to maintain the quality of the educational system. He felt that this is very much the responsibility of the School District. As Commissioner of the Soccer Organization, and having the responsibility for the youth, he felt threatened. He noted that there is presently a ban on the South School site for use as a soccer field. They are now using Clark Stadium. He noted that the Valley Park site is presently being used by 24 temns of five-and six-year old children. He also feels that there is a possibility of losing the Valley Park area for use as a soccer field. Mr. Barth felt that the School District has made a more than reasonable effort to compromise, but he felt that the real issue i 8 ' that of open space. Mr. Barth noted that the soccer organization provides many thousands of hours of recreation to the children, thereby keeping them off the streets. He noted that this service can be provided only if the City and the School District allows the use of their facilities. Rezoning could cause them to lose areas that could be utilized as workable playing areas. Lorna Johnson, 514 31st Street, spoke for the credibility of the School District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 24 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN A11ENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS 1116022 AND //16023 (Cont.) Ms. Johnson noted that the School District had been working under a handicap since the closure of Pier Avenue School. She noted that the children of Hermosa Beach do not have the facilities that the children of other districts have. She felt that selling South School would be beneficial for everyone in the community. She urged the community to be concerned with the betterment of the children. Ms. Johnson stated that she is very much in favor of the School District's proposal. She felt that the proposal is the only foreseeable solution to the problems of the district. Ms. aohnson felt that the most important thing is the children of the community and their education. Chuck Sheldon, 25 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, owns a business in Hermosa Beach and has a child attending Hermosa Valley School. He stated that he is very active in youth sports, and this fact makes him a strong proponent of open space in the City. He stated that his wife Missy is on the School Site Council of Hermosa Valleyand also on the Archite ctural Committee of Hermosa Valley School. Mr. Sheldon stated that there are many elements of the agreement which he does not agree with. , , Mr. Sheldon stated that he is in agreement with the process and therefore in agreement with the result. He also felt that there are some details to be taken care of, though. He does support the program as submitted by the School Board because he supports the process. Mary May Cioffi, 850 18th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that three of her four children are currently in each o f the Hermosa schools. She stated that there are so few teachers at each of the schools, that there are not many choices for a parent who want s the best for his child. She felt that if there were one school, all the children could be at one school and wou ld not need to be frag mented throughout the City. Ms. Cioffi stated that she supports the plan. She stated that she understands the need for open space in the City, but she felt it is more important for ber children to be educated than it is to have play sp ace . She stressed the fact that her major concern was to provide the best possible education for the children. Robert Currey, 1509 Monterey Boul1~vard, Hermosa Beach, felt that he disagreed with this plan more strongly than anyone else present. He felt that the argument against density has been going on for years. He noted that the enrollment ca l cul.ations did not take into account the possibility of children in the 75 · units to be put on the boatyard site or the 99 units at the South School site . Mr. Currey asked the Planning Commission to consider the fact thc1·t people who are crowded into the City need some air space. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 25 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) Bob Mo.rgan, 2127 Power Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he has a child attending Hermosa Valley and a child who graduated from Hermosa Valley. He stated that he is for the compromise. He referred to it as a "compromise" because he was not asked to be on the committee. Mr. Morgan stated that he served on the Citizens' Committee for Surplus Property several years ago. He is now on the Architectural -Committee. He felt that the idea is for the community to be the best community that it can possibly be, and that means compromise. Mr. Morgan felt that Hermosa Beach does not have the highest degree of education possible for its students, He feels they need a better program. He felt that this compromise will give them a better program. Mr. Morgan felt that the only way to protect Hermosa Beach schools is to see that the School District has a right to fund a quality educational program; treat them as any property owner along with the State parameters; and when the new school is built, see to it that the community and the School District share in that development. Mr. Morgan urged the Planning Commission to accept the compromise. Missy Sheldon, 25 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she served on the Architectural Planning Committee and on the committee to research the disposition of surplus school .properties in Hermosa Beach. She noted that she has been following this issue very closely for a number of years. She noted that she is striving for wonderful school facilities that are being designed for the City. She felt that the main issue is the South School density. She noted that there has been much discussion concerning the zoning of this property, but it is because of the fact that, at the insistence of the City, the properties are being handled together. Ms. Sheldon stated that, as a realtor, somewhere in the future she would welcome the possibility of North School R-1, low-density zoning. She felt that this would be a wonderful increase in good housing stock for the City of Hermosa Beach. Ms. Sheldon addressed the question of valuable open space. She noted that it is difficult to appraise open space, but the value is probably between six and seven dollars per square foot. Ms. Sheldon stated that the purchase of the open space and park lands will definitely be a benefit to the City. She noted that, as much as the City would like to keep the park, the income is needed f or the Sch ool District, so it needs to be developed. She felt that if the development were done tastefully, it would be a nice addition to the community. Ms. Sheldon stated that she is definitely in favor of thP. compromise and urged the Planning Commission to favor it also. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 26 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGE S, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOC AL COAS TAL PLAN AME NDMENT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #160 23 (Cont.) /---"'\. Jack Ritter, 500 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is a former School Board member, and one-time participant in the School Board, City Council committee on development and rezoning. He stated that he has a child attending North School. He also noted that he lives only one block from South School. He noted that this proposal has been studied extensively over the past several years .and is certainly worthy of consideration. Mr. Ritter felt that the zoning changes in the Master Plan have several inconsistencies. He noted that these inconsistencies have been pointed out to the City Council, and he feels that they should be corrected. Mr. Ritter noted that the schools in Hermosa are very old and definitely need improvements. He said that some of them cannot be improved to the extent that they should be to give a full educational program to the students. He noted the need for more modern, updated facilities. Mr. Ritter stated that South School is presently in very bad condition. He noted that children do not use it as it is presently maintained. He said that the playfield is in bad condition, unusable in its present form. Mr. Ritter felt that the overall plan is viable, and he is strongly in favor of it. He stated that he is concerned with density. He said that his main concern is that the development of South School be very carefully controlled. He feels that there should be open space consisting of a park located in a place where the people would use it. He noted that he feels there should be recreational facilities for the smaller children. Mr. Ritter expressed concern over the parking situation at the south end of Hermosa Beach. Mr. Ritter stated that he strongly favors the report as submitted, and he urged that the School District be given to go-ahead to proceed. Etta Simpso n , 651 25th St r e e t , He rmo s a Be a ch, had two re qu e sts to make ,of the Co mmis s i on . She ur g e d that ve r y ca r eful co ns i derati on be g iven to the r ever s i onary right s agreeme nt s th a t ar e wr i tten i n to the de velopment agreement. She al s o req uested that comment s ma~ by the BZA c oncern i ng the draft EIR be ma d e ava ilabl e to t he public . Karen Hayne s, 339 South Broadway, Los Angeles , stat ed that she is not only a prope r ty own el!-but a renter in Hermosa Beach . She felt t h at the proposal a dd re s se s the issue of land use, speci fica lly South Sc h o ol land use. Ms. Haynes ques t ion e d why 99 units would be put on the school site if the dens ity wer e tryin g to be kept down. Ms. Haynes noted that the area near Sout h Sch oo l is high density. Ms. Haynes felt that the School District's offer to dedicate 1 ;3 acres for use as a park area is nothing more than a bribe. Ms. Haynes questioned why it is necessary to develop all of the Hermosa Valley site. She questioned why half of it should not be kept as open space. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 27 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGE S, GENERAL PLAN AMEND~fENT S , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,) Ms. Haynes stated that she could not understand Ms. Cor~y's claim that there are fewer children in Hermosa Beach. She noted the fact that there are many more multiple units that are replacing single-family units. Ms, Haynes felt that in the future the other school sites would be sold just for the purpose of making money. Ms. Haynes felt that the future holds a baby boom and that it is already under way. Ms. Haynes felt that as the population of Hermosa grows, there will be a need for more open space to be used for parks and recreation. Ms. Haynes felt that it was wrong for the communi ty to a s k advice of the attorney for the School Board. She ·. felt t hat his a dvice w as very one-sided information on the selling of the school s ites to main tain Sta te f undi n g. Ms. Haynes further stated that she felt that the way the EIR is written, it gives the impression that the School Board intends to develop all properties. it Ms. Haynes felt thatlis n ecess a ry to give children adequate areas to play in so t hat they can exercise mo re than their minds. She feels that the students are receiving adequate e ducations at this time. Ms. Haynes stressed that she is against the development of the South School open space. Puolic Hearing continued at 11:13 P.M. to the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for January 17, 1984. Ms. Anderson stated that the closing statements of the School Board would be made at the next Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Brown felt that one or two meetings of the Planning Commission is not a sufficient amount of time to make any thorough determination. He felt that the issues are much too important for this amount of time, Comm. Brown made a motion to continue the proceedings beyond the Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1984. Motion died due to lack of a second. Comm. Shapiro requested staff to find out the original terms of the School Board and the City. Comm. Smith objected to Comm. Shapiro's request. He felt that it is unnecessary because that information is a matter of public record. Chmn. Izant was not clear bn how Comm. Shapiro would be better able to make a decision were he provided with this information. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1983 Page 28 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELO PMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) Connn. Shapiro stated that it would help him in deciding whether these things are all necessary or whether he could just concentrate on the South School site. Chmn. Izant suggested that possibly a meeting could be set up between Comm. Shapiro and several of the members of the subcommittee so that they could fill him in on the background and history on what was developed. Comm. Smith did note that there are certain things th~t are unclear. He noted that one cannot v.ote on issues if one does not understand what the issues are. Ms. Sapetto questioned if Co1mm. Shapiro were interested in further elaborations of the alternatives availablt~. Connn. Shapiro replied in the affirmative. Comm. Strohecker asked exactly who it was that suggested handling all of the school sites as one package. Ms . Sapetto replied that tbe development agreement was revi.ewed by the entire City Council. They wanted the project to go through the public hearing process so that many questions could unfold and all of the impacts could be examined that could not necessarily be examined through the negotiations between the subcommittees. Comm. Smith asked whether there were land use planning reasons for packaging it and havi.ng it come up at once in this fashion. Carol Resniack, 2234 Strand, Hermosa Beach, addressed Comm. Smith's question. She noted that it was the City's desire in the negotiation process to get as much open space as possible. She noted that zone changes would not be considered unless there was a guarantee that they could get open space for the City. Chmn. Izant asked Ms. Sapetto what became of the property that was taken by Eminent Domain by the School Board from South School. He questioned what the status now is of that property . Ms. Sapetto stated that she did not have the answer to that question. She stated that that question could be addressed to the School Board itself or to the Superintendent. Chmn. Izant then posed the question to the applicant. Mr. Broiles responded to the question by quoting from Section 39369.5 of the Education Code: "The governing board of the School District that intends to sell real property pursuant to this property shall take reasonable steps to insure that the former owner from whom the District acquired the property receives notice of the public meeting prescribed by Section 39366 in writing by Certified Mail at least 60 days prior to the meeting." Mr. Broiles noted Lhat Section 39366 is the section that provides for the Resolution of Intention to sell 1 which starts the formal bid process. Mr. Broiles continued by reading Part B of Section 39366: "The governing board of the School District shall not be required to accord the former PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 29 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.) owner of the right to purchase the property at the tentatively accepted highest bid price nor to offer to sell the property to the former owner at th.e tentatively accepted highest bid price,11 Ms. Corey noted that this is a recent legislative change. Ms. Corey further noted that every reasonable attempt was made to locate former owners of the property. She communicated with all the local newspapers and asked them to publish the fact that there was a c onsideration t0 sell the South School site. There were no responses. Title Insurance and Trust also did a search on former owners and came up with nothing. So under the old Educational Code, there were several attempts to locate former owners. Comm. Soulakis r e quested that parcel maps for tbe other three sites be provided at the next Plannin 1g Commission meeting. He also felt that the parcel map for Sou t h School be 111ore specific. He would also like more comments as to the questions raised by the BZA on thei.r last meeting. Re noted that he would like to see those cennnents before the next P.C. meeting. Ms. Sapetto noted that a motion would be needed to request the parcel maps from the applicant. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapir~ that parcel maps for the other three sites be provided and also a more definitive parcel map for the South School site be made available to the Commission prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Ms. Anderson responded to the question of receiving all five parcel maps. She stated that she is unclear on what bene fLts the City would receive by parcel mapping an already defined piece of property. She noted the cases of South, North, and Hermosa Valley Schools. She stated that these properties have legal descriptions that will correctly define where the zone changes are. She noted the economic concerns of preparing the tentative and f:inal maps and also the recordation of these parcel maps. She stated that if the Ci t y did require that, she couldn't see why the City wouldn't let that be a condition. Ms . .Anderson stated that her strongest . feeling toward this request of defining at this time where that 1.3 acres is going to be is that the development agreement makes it clear that that is going to be up to the prerogative of the City. For us to cast that in concrete now would not be along the lines of the development agreement, no r would it be of benefit to the City or a developer. Ms. Anderson asked whether she could provide at the next Planning Connnission meeting some mapping showing just what 1.3 ~cres looks like and also giving the approximate location without making a concrete definition. Comm. Soulakis stated that he would forego the request for South School but noted that he would stand on the other three parcel maps. Comm. Smith asked whether more information would be available from the parcel maps than would be available from the current legal descriptions that are already included as part of this application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 3, 1984 Page 30 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,) Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. l'.1:s. Anderson suggested that she could bring in a parcel map for the North School site because there are different considerations on this property than on the other sites. Chmn. Izant stated the now modified motion: To request parcel maps for South, North, and Hermosa Valley Schools. Ms. Anderson registered an objection to the requests for parcel maps on South and Hermosa Valley. She noted her willingness to prepare a parcel map on North. Comm. Smith stated that he was still unclear. Ms. Sapetto stated that she felt a parcel map would .be•,ne5?essary for South School at the time that it is developed for the 99 units so that there would be a guarantee if there is a residential designation. Ms. Sapecto felt that a parcel map for Hermosa Valley is unnecessary if it is zoned open space because then it could not be developed as residential. Connn. Brown suggested withdrawing the two submitted parcel maps and proceeding with just South School. Ms. Anderson stated that the parcel maps were not required as an incident of the zone change, except that on two sites the legal descriptions were being modified along with the existing lot lines to conform with the new desired change. This fact made the requirement for the parcel maps. ChlµIl. Izant repeated the current motion: To call for parcel maps for South, North, and Hermosa Valley Schools. AYES: Connns. Brown, Shapiro, ··soulak±'s NOES: Comms. Newton, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Motion by Connn. Smith, seconded by Comm. Newton, to require an additional parcel map for the North School property only. Chmn. Izant noted that at the North School site legal lines already exist, but they are substandard. He sriated that it would be possible for the City to make those lots standard size again by requiring a parcel map. Comm. Brown asked what the mifference would be in terms of density because of those substandard lots. Chmn. Izant replied that there would be no difference. AYES: Comrns. Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES'l:. Conun. Brown PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 31 SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,) Carol Resniack came forward to note that it was the original intention of the Sch6ol District to come forward for the rezoning of South School. Connn. Soulakis asked if ¢ouncil were willing to reopen the negotiations , on just South School, would the School District be receptive to the con~ept of reopening the negotiations to just the topic of South School. Ms. Resniack felt that this is not a possibility, Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification of the R-2 and R-3 zoning at South School. He asked if ::R.,:,3 were compatible with the medium density R-2 that is being proposed for the 99 units. He asked if this were compatible with the General Plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that the R-3 zoning is not compatible with medium density. She noted that the main concern of the development agreement was tri.e he ight of R-3 whiicn tv"ou:hd be allowed, She felt that this issue should be dis cussed at the time that development is proposed. Comm. Smith noted that he had several questions which be would like to discuss at the next meeting. He felt that there was an infirmity with Section H, Page 3, of the agreement. He stated that he had problems with the wording contained in this section. He also questioned whether it is common for sellers ··to -retain all mineral rights. Connn. Smith also commented on Page 8 under "Sale and Transfer of Title," He noted Section 7 which mentions the use of code requirements. Chmn. Izant noted that the Public Hearing is continued to January 17, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Ms. Sapetto noted that the League of California Cities will be having a seminar entitled: "How to Be a More Effective Commissioner or Public Board Member." Ms. Sapetto asked whether any of the connnissioners were interested in participating. Several of the commissioners expressed interest in attending. Motion to adjourn at 12:03 A.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 3, 1984. Joel Shapiro, Secretary Dote ~/w