HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01.17.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 17,
1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:36 P.M.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm, Shapiro.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Colll1Ils, Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Chip Post, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Connn. Smith, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting of January 3, 1984, with the following
corrections:
Page 5, Paragraph 1, last sentence: "if that fact" should read "if in fact."
Page 11, Paragraph 7, Sentence 3: "the least bid" should read "the highest bid."
Page 12, last paragraph: 11 playground portion is unzoned open space" should read
"play ground portion is zoned open space."
Page 13, last paragraph, third sentence: "the playground area" should read "the
upper playground area."
Page 15, Paragraph 6: "open space area is 2,2 acres" should read 11 open space
area is 2.82 acres."
Page 17, P aragra ph 1: Comm. Shapiro noted that his question was asked to point
out that t h e 105 units being used to show that the proposed zoning potential
would be le ss r at her than more. Comm. Shapiro felt that this was a maneuvering
of the fi gure s.
Page 20, Paragraph 1, should read: "Co.mm, Brown asked Mr, Broiles what he
felt the chances were of another agency coming in and purchasing the school's
sites as is."
Page 31, Paragraph 2. Comm. Shapiro noted that both he and Comm. Soulakis had
asked this particular question.
APP ROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve P.C. 84-1,
AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
FENCE HEIGHT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR SATELLITE ANTENNA
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She asked the Planning Commission :t'o ;.• . .J ..., )t a
Resolution of Intention to amend the zoning code, Section 1215 with r egard
to fence heights. She stated that the Satellite Antenna Ordinance now requires
PL.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 2
FENCE HEIGHT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT .FOR SATELLITE ANTENNA (Cont.)
the ant enna to b e in co nf ormance with Building, Zon i ng, and Electrical Codes.
She not ed th at t h i s has c reated a slight discrep ancy since the Zoning Code
al l ows only a maximum f ence height of six feet, Th is can be resolved by
amen din g th e Zon i n g Code.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Zoning Code restricts fence height to a maximum
of six feet. Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code to include a section
pertain i ng speci f ically to satellite antennas. Since there are times when
screeni ng for an antenna would necessarily need to exceed the six-foot height
limit to e ffectivel y screen the antenna, conflict may arise with the Zoning
Code a s it now exi st s . The Satellite Antenna Ordinance requires antennas and
their concomitant structures to comply with the Zoning, Building, and Electrical
Codes, Hence an amendment must be added to the Zoning Code to allow higher
fence heights exclusively for satellite antennas. Otherwise, screening will be
limited to six feet in height.
Comm. Smith asked whether the entire height from the base of the building to
the top of the antenna and/or to the top of the fence would still have to
fall within the height restrictions for each particular zone.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Chmn. Izant noted that the Planning Commission would only be making a decision
as to whether or not the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing to
consider the amendment. He noted that if it were decided to hold a public
hearing, the Planning Commission could recommend that no change be made to the
current code.
Comm. Brown asked how an amendment would affect the decision made by the
Planning Commission at th~irmeetiil.g . of Jantla:r,y._.3, 1984, to approve a nine
foot fence.
Ms. Sapetto replied that that particular ordinance was not in effect at the
time the nine-foot fence was approved. At the present time, fence heights
are limited to six feet. She noted that she had not received any comments
from the Building Department as to whether the nine-foot fence violates the
existing code. If the Building Department does feel that it violates the
existing code, Ms. Sapetto noted that staff would be required to come before
the Planning Commission for their approval on that project.
Comm. Brown asked if that project were brought back to the Commission, would
the six-foot fence be sufficient to shield the antenna from street view.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the six-foot fence would not be sufficient to shield
the antenna from view.
Comm . Soulakis noted that when the Commission approved the nine-foot fence for the
Pier 52 satellire antenna, he raised the issues of whether or not this was
exceeding the ;_exi s t i n g height ordinances and the question of safety. He
noted that the ord inan ce does not specifically mention nine-foot fences, but
it merely says nine feet for the dish. He noted that fence height has not
) been directly addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 3
FENCE HEIGHT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR SATELLITE ANTENNA (Cont.)
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to pass the Resolution of
Intention to consider the amending of the Zoning Code, Section 1215.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
NO'ES: None
ABSENT: None
SCHOOL BISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS //16022 AND tfl6023 (Continued
from January 3, 1984)
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that at the Planning Commission meeting
of January 3, 1984, several questions were requested to be clarified by Staff:
the EIR process and tbe role of the Planning Commission; the history of the
development agreement; certain technical questions of the development agreement;
further discussion of the alternatives available to the Commission.
Ms. Sapetto discussed the topic of EIR review by the Commission. She noted
that the State requires the decision-making body to have a final EIR before
them at the time a project application is decided upon. The following process
dictates how a final EIR is adopted:
1. Preparation of a draft EIR.
2. When prepared, a Notice of Completion is sent to the State
Clearing House which notifies any affected public agency of
the project. Local public hearing, can then be.gin to be held,
however, they are not required. The State notifies the City of
the starting date of a 45-day review period. All public comments
must be made during that time. The public review period for
the School Site EIR ends 2/10/84.
Ms. Sapetto noted that whoever prepares the EIR must then respond to all
public colllll1ents. The Planning Commission must review the comments and
responses to ensure that all comments have been addressed. She noted that
the Planning Commission has received the Draft responses to the BZA hearing
comments of 12/29/83. She stated that the Commission will also receive the
responses to comments made during the P.C. public hearings and other State
agencies at the meeting of 2/15/84
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission, as an advisory body, does
not need to finalize the EIR before making a recommendation to the City
Council. She noted that all information and public hearing testimony should
be considered before making a recommendation. She said that the information
in the document must be used as a part of the decision-making process. If
there are any negative environmental effects identified, the mitigation
measures or alternatives described must be a condition of approval of the
project.
Ms. Sapetto stated that Staff has provided the Commission with excerpts of
the CEQA regulations for further information.
Ms. Sapetto also noted that the City Attorney, Chip Post, would be willing to
provide further elaboration on these procedures.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 4
SCHOOL DI STRI CT ZONE CHANGE S, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
.AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEME NT , AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #160 23 (Cont,)
Chmn, Izant asked whether the Commissioners had any questions of Ms, Sapetto
or Mr. Post at this time in the Staff Report in regards to the role of the
Commission in the handling of the EIR and how it will finally be moved to
the City Council level,
asked
Comm. Soulak i s/whether the comments of the Commission and the r esponses to
those comments would form part of the Final EIR,
Ms, Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Chmn. Izant stated that many different elements will go into the final
recommendation that will be · given to the City Council: the comments made by
the BZA in December 1983; comments and questions posed by the Planning
Commission; questions posed by citizens before February 10; and the City
Consultant's responses to those questions.
Chmn. Izant stated that all of this input, which will become available to
the public, will then be attached to the Draft EIR.
Chmn. Izant further noted that the original EIR plus all comments, questions,
and responses then goes forward to the City Council.
Chip Post, City Attorney, noted that it is impo :r tant that the decision-making
body review and certify that they have reviewed the Final EIR before they act
on the project. He noted that the City Council is the body which will make
the final decision as to the development agreement, the zoning change am~ndments,
and the General Plan. In order to make their final decision, it is necessary
that the City Council have before them the final EIR. He noted that any
future comments or responses can be referred back to the Planning Commission
by the City Council to aid them in making their decision,
Mr. Post stated that he did prepare a memorandum dated January 1 6, 1984,
addressed to Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager, He noted that each Commissioner
had received a copy of the memorandum, and he felt that this would help
clarify how the EIR meshes with all of the other decisions being made.
Chmn. Izant noted that all interested citizens had until February 10, 1984,
to make comments or pose questions that will be addressed by the City's
consultant. He stated that, technically, the City Council cannot certify
to the adequacy of the EIR until February 11.
Comm, Strohecker asked just exactly what approval or denial of the EIR
would mean to t h e project at hand, He asked whether approval of the EIR
would mean the project will be approved or whether this approval or denial
relates at all.
Mr. Post responded to Comm. Strohecker~s question. He noted that, technically
speaking, a draft EIR is prepared, comments are received, and responses to
those comments are incorporated into the EIR. It then gets a new label,
Final EIR. The decision-making body must then certify that the EIR has been
prepared in compliance with the guidelines and that they have reviewed the
Final EIR prior to acting on the project. If that is done, that constitutes
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
.approval of the EIR. All that says, essentially, is that the decision-making
body has considered the environmental consequences that are described in the
EIR. It does not limit their ability to act on the project, That is a
separate decision. So, in a technical sense, there is not an approval of the
EI R. It is a certification that it has been prepared in compliance with the
guidelines and been considered prior to decision making by the City Council.
Cornm. Brown asked whether the Planning Commission had approved prior EIRs of
other projects.
Ms. Sapetto stated that this is the first time that the City has carried through
a Draft EIR.
Chmn. Izant added that the Planning Commission does not normally deal with
issues of this weight and scope.
Chmn. Izant noted that the Planning Commission had received correspondence
from several concerned citizens. The questions asked in those letters will
become part of the EIR along with the responses to those questions.
Mr. Post stated that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to raise
questions concerning the EIR. He noted that that is a P.C. function.
Comm. Soulakis asked whether the connnents and their responses will be presented
to the Planning Commission in summary form or verbat.im. He noted that he would
like to see the responsEEto the P.C.'s comments in verbatim form.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the responses will not be verbatim because they will be
written after the comments have been made, She noted that the comments and
responses would be in the same format as those comments and responses from the
BZA.
Connn. Soulakis felt that it was important to note that the Final Draft is the
draft plus the attached comments, those comments not necessarily having to
be incorporated or retyped into the draft,
Comm. Brown asked a question of Mr, Post. He noted that if something signifi
cant were to come up following the Planning Commission meeting, that the
City Council would bring it back to the Planning Commission. He asked Mr.
Post what would constitute a significant item, and would a public hearing
be required.
Mr. Post replied that it would not be necessary to have another public hearing.
As for something being considered significant, Mr. Post stated for
illustration, if it were discovered that there was an earthquake fault under
one of the school sites that no one was aware of before, that would constitute
a significant fact 't:hat possibly the City Council would send back to the
Planning Commission level to be thought through.
Comm, Brown asked whether the citizens would be required to comment upon
those significant issues along with the Planning Commission,
Mr. Post stated that further investigation on his part would be necessary in
order to respond to the question.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 6
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS i/16022 AND 1116023 (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto continued her staf f report by discussing the history of the
Development Agreement. She stated that the respective subcommittees of the
City Council and the School Board began to negotiate an agreement about a
year and a half ago. The School District at that time solely requested
the rezoning of South School. It was and still is the School Board's
intent to sell South School and use the proceeds for the improvement of
Hermosa Valley School which will be the single school site open in 1985.
The School District estimates it will require around $4.5 million to achieve
the desired improvements.
Ms. Sapetto stated that there were five basic premises used by the City
Council subcommittee in their negotiations:
(1) There is no guarantee that the school-owned property
designated as open space can remain open space unless
the City acquires it. This premise is substantiated
through court holdings regarding inverse condemnation
and through the State regulations which govern the
disposal of school-owned properties.
(2) The School District does not have authority over the
disposal of their property but is dictated by State
regulations.
(3) If the City were to rezone only South School, there
would be no guarantee that the School District would
not request zone changes for their other properties
in the future.
(4) Since there is no guarantee that property zoned open
·space will remain open space unless the City acquires
the property, the leverage provided by the District's
desire to rezone South School would be an opportunity
to acquire as much of the District's open space lands
as possible at a low cost.
(5) The reduction and dispersion of density and the maximum
acquisition of open space so that "home rule" can be
brought to the open space areas.
Ms. Sapetto stated that various Councils in the past have attempted to reach
an agreement with the School District regarding the future use and zoning of
their land. The last round of agreements rezoned the built-up portions of
the property to residential uses and the playground portions as open space,
Overall, this new proposed agreement reduces the number of potential dwelling
units from 185 to 167 and disperses them to a greater extent.
Chmn. Izant asked whether the Commissioners had any question concerning the
staff report thus far. There being no questions, Ms. Sapetto continued with
the report.
Ms. Sapetto stated that if the Connnissioners had any questions pertaining
to the Development Agreement, Mr. Post would be available to answer those
questions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 7
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS l/16022 AND //16023 (Cont.)
Comm. Smith noted concern over Section H (Page 3) of the Development Agreement.
He expressed difficulty in understanding the wori:ling contained in this portion.
He felt that the wording would severely limit the City's alternatives in terms
of providing safe and sanitary structures.
Mr. Post stated that this is why the development agreement is of benefit.
He noted that the State law was amended to provide that a city or pulUic
agency could contract with an owner of land and provide assurance to the owner
of the land that the approval, particularly an approval of a project that
might take a longer period of time, that the rules in effect at the time the
agreement is entered into applied into the future. He noted that this is the
fundamental purpose of a development agreement.
Chmn. Izant referred to Page 8 of the Development Agreement. He noted
Section 1. Building Permits and Occupancy Certificates. He noted that that
section states that a number of items would be subject to compliance with
the Zoning Agreement and the City's Building Code. He noted that the zoning
and density would be frozen in time. He asked whether there are some things
that are perhaps superseded by changes in the State law that this agreement
does not address.
Mr, Post replied that it is true that the Building Codes and so on that are in
effect at this moment will continue even if the Building Code is amended some
time in the future. He stated that the laws in effect at the time construction.
is commenced are the laws that will prevail.
Comm, Smith ·asked whether Section 18 of the Development Agreement; Superseding
State or Federal Law, applied to the Uniform Building Code.
Mr. Post replied that; according.to the agreement that is being suggested, it
does not. He noted that the terms of the agreement are subject to negotiation.
Chmn. Izant asked whether the current agreement does freeze the Uniform
Building Code.
Mr. Post replied in the affirmative.
Comm. Smith asked whether this could be considered a concessionary clause in
terms of the agreement~
Mr. Post noted that in historical terms, it would be a vested rights clause.
It gives the owner _ the vested right to develop according to the standards
in effect at the present time. Historically, this kind of a right could be
acquired only by securing the final governmental appreval, and then in good
faith reliance on that approval, extending substantial money or incurring
substantial indebtedness. If all that were done, then there would be a
vested ri.ght to complete the project even if the law changed before completion.
What the Development Agreement does is allow the City to agree that the rules
in effect now are going to apply in the future even if the builder does not
incur suostantial liabilities or expenditures in reliance on any last permit.
Chmn. Izant noted that at a previous meeting of the Planning Commission the
issue was raised of mineral rights.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 8
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Mr. Post was unable to address the issue of mineral rights, He noted that this
is really a question of the marketplace.
CoID!Il, Newton made reference to Page 6 of the Development Agreement. She
asked whether the City would be required to pay one hundred percent of the
closing costs or only half.
Mr. Post replied that it is written that the City would pay one hundred percent
of the closing costs.
Comm. Newton asked whether this was something that was bargained for in the
negotiations.
Mr. Post replied that he felt that this was a possibility, but he was not
present at the negotiations.
Comm. Newton noted that she would be interested in knowing whether this was
bargained for or not. She felt that it would be fair to share the closing
costs.
Comm. Soulakis made reference to Page 8 of the Development Agreement. He
noted Section B which discusses re-entry rights of the School District.
He expressed concern for the future should the character of the City change.
Re asked whether the School District could come back in for that property
if anything other than parks were on the property.
Mr. Post stated that that clause grew out of a provision in the Education
Code that states that any land purchased from a School District by a public
agency (at the rate we are paying) shall be maintained by the public agency
in this case the City --for playground ,, play field, or other recreational or
open space purposes. If at some time in the future the City decides that it
does not need the land any longer for playground purposes, the City notifies
the School District. They then have an opportunity to reacquire the land at
a price. The method for determin~ng a price is also set forth in the Education
Code. If the School District then chooses not to exerd,se its right to reacquire
the property, the City is then free to do with the property as they wish.
Mr. Post further stated that it is his belief that that is the purpose of
that paragraph in the Development Agreement, that the right of re-entry
would be based upon that provision of the Educational Code.
Comm. Soulakis asked whether the clause would still apply since the School
District is rezoning these for resale. He noted specifically the R-1 areas.
He noted that a school would no longer exi st on the site and questioned whether
the clause would be applicable.
Mr. Post noted that this question is addr essed in the Educati on Code. He
noted that if the School District reacquired the property, then they would
own it subject to all the limitations that the School District presently
has. If it wanted to go through the process of declaring it sutjlus and then
selling it, it could do so; but they would be required to go through the
process provided for in the Education Code.
Chmn. Izant noted that Mr. Broiles, the attorney for the School Board, might
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 9
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
be able to add further clarification to this question,
Comm. Smith referenced the last sentence of Section B (Page 8). He read:
"In addition, any portion of the property may be reacquired by School District
for school purposes at any time upon written notification to City by School
District and refund of any purchase moneys paid by City," He asked whether
this particular section was necessarily dictated by the Education Code as well,
Mr. Post stated that the Education Code section which addresses re-entry does
not address this particular topic, He noted that there is another section in
the Education Code that would be applicable to this. He stated -that Mr. Broiles
would probably have more details on this question.
Connn. Soulakis asked whether the City would get back only what it paid,
Mr. Post replied in the affirmative.
Comm. Soulakis noted that the City would receive only the original purchase
price regardless of any improvements made to the property or any land value
increases.
Mr. Post suggested that it might be an area which could include further negotiation.
Comm. Soulakis felt that Paragraph B, Page 8, of the Development Agreement should
be looked at more carefully. He felt that the entire paragraph needs further
review.
Comm. Brown asked how long the Development Agreement is in effect.
Mr. Post replied that it is in effect for ten years.
Co.nnn. Brown noted that .c the agreement is in effect for ten years and
everything is frozen for this time period. He questioned whether this is a
reasonable amount of time. He noted that a developer on a long-range project
would want to get certain guarantees that the code is not going to change
overnight. He noted that ten years is quite lengthy to try to project into
the future.
Comm. Brown questioned?~We role of the Coastal Commission would fit in should
there be something very strict in the code.
Mr. Post noted that in the short history of development agreements, ten years
is not an unusual time frame. He stated that whether that is agreeable or not,
depends on an assessment of the overall merits of the agreement. He noted that
if the agreement is of benefit to the City, then the longer number of years, the
better,
Mr. Post felt that the Coastal Commission would approve of the longer term
since the agreement promotes the purposes of the Coastal Commission by
preserving open space and access to the coastline. He noted that if the
Coastal Commission feels differentiy, then they would probably not like the
ten-year timeframe. Mr. Post did not feel that the Coastal Commission has
any power to approve the Development Agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES~ JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 10
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16 022 AND #1 6023 (Cont,)
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Coastal Commission would have input only insofar as
the General Plan changes are concerned.
Chmn. Izant noted that the conmients from the Coastal Commission would apply only
to North School and South Schhol, not the other three school sites.
Comm. Brown noted that their comments could affect the other three, though.
Chmn, Izant noted that that is true.
Connn. Brown noted concern for the future should something drastic change within
the Coastal Commission. He noted that the Coastal Commission is a state agency
which could make .changes which could deter future development ten years from
now on the School Board's side or on the developer's side.
Mr. Post hypothesized. Assume the School Board wanted to reopen one of the
schools. To do that, they might have to secure Coastal Commission approval,
and the C.C. would be free to view whether they agree or disagree in light of
the circumstances at that time in the future. The same thing would be true if
the School District wanted to seek a permit to build something on one of · these
school sites. The C.C. would be free to review that approval in light of their
requirements as they exist at that time in the future independent of this
Development Agreement,
Comm. Soulakis referred to Page 11, Section 10, Paragraph (a) Permitted Uses .
He noted that in that section the South School site is R-3. He noted that
R-3 is medium density. Why couldn't this be zoned R-2. He noted the 0 : obser
vations that it is R-3 so ,: t h at the he i gh t c an go to 35 feet. But he pointed out
that on Page 12, Section (c ) Maximum Height mentions 35 feet. He did not see
the need for R-3 zoning at t he So u th School site.
Chmn, Izant felt that this question could best be addressed during the discussions
concerning the change for zone request for South School,
Chmn. Izant noted an error on Page 11, Section (4). It should be: "Seaview
Parkette Site -Open Space."
Connn. Soulakis asked for clarification of the Right to Terminate Agreement.
(Page 10, Section (a).)
Mr. Post replied that this is an agreement pertaining to court action, If some
one files a lawsuit to challenge a building permit or any other permit under the
agr eemen t, then t hat owner has the right to termina t e the dev e l opment agreement
wit hin a certain t ime . Th e pur pose is to allow the property owner to make a
jud gment as to wh ethe r a l awsu it, if one i s f iled , would s o delay or complicate
the proje ct that he or she coul d retreat f rom th at p roj e ct and be f orce d .py the
agreement to be tied up for years and years . He felt that this is a clause that
favors the property owner.
Mr. Post felt that this is a good clause to have, but he feels that it is at
odds with the Development Agreement and the State law which sets forth a pro
cedure by which agreements are terminated.
\
J
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 11
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16 023 (Cont,)
Comm. Brown noted Page 13, Section 11 Dedicatio.ns, Paragraph (2) South School
Park. He felt that there should be discussion as to the location of the
1. 3 acre park.
Chmn. Izant felt that this subject could best be addressed after the Planning
Commission ·comes to a final determination on the South School site. He did
note that future in-depth discussion would take place on where the 1,3 acre
park would be located.
Chmn. Izant noted two typographical errors on Page 14 of the Development
Agreement: Section 13, Line 2, should read "provided in paragraph 9(a), ... ";
Section 14, Line 2,should read: "hereinafter,"
Ms. Sapetto continued the staff report with further discussion of the alterna
tives available to the Planning CollllUission. Ms. Sapetto stated that the two
alternatives identified in the EIR which deserve further discussion are:
(1) No project alternative, or the denial of the zone change by the
Commission. If the Co.mmission were to allow the existing zoning
to remain, that zoning allows for the construction of 185 units.
The School Roard could legally construct those units without
further City review if they built according to the existing
subdivisions.
(2) The rezoning of all School Properties to open space. If this
were to happen, the impact to the City would be that there would
be no City acquisition of open space.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the impact to the School District would be:
(1) If it expects to raise the revenue necessary to improve Valley
School, it will have to develop/sell more than one site.
(2) If the Commission were to rezone all the school property open
space, there is a question of placing the City in legal jeopardy,
Recent court decisions tend to require that property must be
allowed a "reasonable economic use" or the City must be prepared
to acquire the land and can be assessed penalties,
Ms. Sapetto noted that in the Planning Commission review of the project, Staff
reconnnends looking at the land use proposals, as has been done in the Develop
ment Agreement, and how they support the goals of the General Plan. For
example, development at the South School site could be examined in light of
a higher density and more open space; or North School, etc.
Comm. Newton asked what the status would be of the portions of the school
sites now zoned open space if this proposal is not approved and nothing further
is done by the City with respect to closed school sites,
Ms. Sapetto replied that there are two problems, One is that if there was to
be no rezoning, then there is a problem of existing zoning ,ail:.lowed to be
exercised, which allows for 185 units. There is also the problem of legal
jeopardy for the City. It is basically a question of whether or not the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 12
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS , DEVELOPMENT AG~EMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #1 60 2 2 AND #16023 (Cont,)
the open space zoning allows reasonable economic use of the land. If it is
determined that it does not, the City could be assessed penalties pending the
maintenance of the open space. She noted that it would be of advantage to the
City to acquire as much open space as is possible during the negotiation process
so that the open space can remain under City control, It could then become entirely
public open space,
Mr. Post supplemented Ms. Sapetto's response. He felt that the City's open
space zone is eminently defensible; however,open space zones are under much
attack throughout the state, One cannot be absolutely certain that the courts
might not agree with that, He noted that the essential question is whether
the zone allows a reasonably viable, economic use, He felt that there is a
possibility of the City being sued, but he felt that the owner of the property
would not prevail.
Chmn, Izant made some observations. If no action is taken, there is a good
defense for the area that is now actually zoned open space because it has been
zoned open space all along. The City is therefore not necessarily denying them
some economic rights other than what they have had all along. In the case of the
unzoned areas, to try to deny them a use less than full R-1 rights might subject
the City to legal challenge.
Mr. Post was not certain that Chmn. Izant 1 s observations were correct. He
stated that it is proper to zone property in a way that has the effect of
reducing the market value of the land. The market value may be reduced
dramatically. He noted that there is a vague line that says so long as
there is a reasonable use of the land, then that is not inverse condemnation
He noted that it may be possible for the City to rezone R-1 to open space, and
that would not necessarily constitute a taking at all. If there is a reasonable
basis, any of the land could be zoned open space, The land must remain in its
natural state, though, For example, if trees or grass were removed, then the
chances are that much of the value will be rezoned out of the land. That might
well constitute a taking. That is why it is necessary to come to some judgment
about what uses are reasonable. A permissible use of the land must be allowed
while at the same time it is restricted to an open space use.
Mr. Post continued by stating that the current open space zone allows the
development of private recreational uses, There are development restrictions
on parking, heights, setbacks, etc. Our present open space zone depends
heavily for its constitutionality on the fact that certain things can be
built on there which provide an economic return to the people who own it.
Mr. Post felt that the fact that the open space zone has been on the school
property for a long time does not necessarily make it inverse condemnation.
The question is always whether it has an economically viable use.
Corrnn. Strohecker asked whether unzoned property could be rented as office space
or something of that nature,
Ms. Sapetto replied that unzoned property is technically considered R-1
according to the Zoning Code, As far as the school site is concerned, their
uses are being allowed because of a C.U.P, That is how they are operating as
school sites.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 13
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS 1/160 22 AND #1 6 023 (Cont,)
Cbmn, Izant ·felt that it would be appropriate to set a date for the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Colllill. Smith suggested setting a date sometime after February 10 but before
February 21. This would enable the Commissioners to study the responses of
the City's consultant, the responses of Staff, and the questions raised in
the Public Hearing.
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Brown, to schedule meetings of the
Planning Commission for Tuesday, January 31 and Wednesday, February 15, 1984,
in the City Hall Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. No objections, so ordered.
Conun. Brown noted that he would like to have a workshop to discuss the CEQA
act and its provisions.
Mr. Post noted that he is in the office on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons,
He invited the Commissioners to call him if they had any questions that
needed clarification,
Chmn. Izant outlined the topics before the Planning Connnission: the request
for five zone changes; the request for the passage of the Development Agreement
between the City and the School Board; the session for response to questions
or observations on the EIR.
Public Hearing reopened at 9:08 P.M.
Cathy Anderson, 1003 Broadway, Santa Monica, spoke on behalf of the School
District. For the benefit of the audience, Ms. Anderson reiterated what the
School District is proposing for each of the five school sites.
Ms. Anderson noted that the Sea View Parkette site would be sold to the City
for public park purposes under the Development Agreement, She stated that it
is not the intention of the School District to have that rezoned to R-1. She
noted that the Sea View Parkette, being unzoned, could be used as R-1, but
it is not being specifically requested to zone it R-1. The proposal is to
have the City purchase that property• Even if the City does not purchase that
property, it is not being requested to have it rezoned R-1.
Ms. Anderson noted that the Development Agreement discusses the issue of
permitted uses of those sites, not what the rezoning request is.
Ms. Anderson stated that the 1.3 acre dedication site would best be determined
by the City and the developer. She urged more public hearings between the
City and the Parks & Recreation Department on this question of location.
She noted that it is not the intention of the School District to have the
1.3 acre site be subject to the School District's discretion or subject to
segmenting.
Ms. Anderson noted that it is the deep concern of the School District that
the: ·sale 0£'. only one site be required for the improvements on Hermosa Valley
School. By going with a higher density on the South School property versus
any of the other sites, the School District would be able just to restrict
the sale to this one particular site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 14
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS f/1 60 22 AND 1/1 6023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson addressed the question of R-3 zoning versus R-2 zoning. She
noted that the reason for the R-3 designation was the height. She noted
that changing the R-3 to an R-2 with the same density restrictions could
certainly be a consideration for modification in the Development Agreement.
She noted that the original intent for the R-3 designation was to provide
the developer with a restriction on density down to 99 units, but with the
benefit of the R-3 building standards, those being height standards.
Ms. Anderson felt that it didn't matter whether it is R-2 or R-3 so long as
the density criteria is understood,
Ms. Anderson stated that the plans for Hermosa Valley School are to greatly
improve the school buildings and also to make the playground area more usable
for the students of the school and for the public. She stated that it is the
intention of the School District to turn this into an attractive and usable
playfield that would be available to the public after school hours.
Ms. Anderson noted that the rezoning on this is really to correct an existing
situation wherein an R-3 zone was being used as open space. As noted in the
past, 105 units could be built on the site with the existing zoning.
Ms. Anderson noted that there has been criticism of the School District's
using the 105-unit figure at a site where there are no plans for development.
She noted that it is important to understand that South School is the only
site which is being considered for development. She said the potential
should be looked at regardless of what the existing is, or the jntended
potential must be looked at. She stated that if the potential of densities
on the other school properties were being considered, then the potential
should also be considered for Rermosa Valley. She noted that the School
District is giving up what is actually a very valuable piece of property at
that site.
Ms. Anderson noted that it is in the best interest of the School District
to include it as part of their Valley School project. When you think of
the value of an R-3 property going down to open space, it is a considerable
consideration. They could ask to keep it as R-3 but continue to use it as
open space and always maintain that higher value potential. She stated that
that is important to consider as being a major consideration that the
School District is taking.
Ms. Anderson continued by discussing the North School site. In short, on
all of the site open space remains. In most cases the open space remains
as currently delineated with the offer to sell to the City for public use.
The City and the residents currently do not have any rights to use the open
space owned by the School District except with express written permission.
Ms. Anderson stated that under the proposal, the City would own and control
and have the rights for public development of 4.38 acres. She felt that the
density issue really relates to South School since on the other sites the
proposed density is just a reaffirmation of what can be done now.
Ms. Anderson noted that the School District is offering a more restrictive
review on any development by the rezoning of these properties and by the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 15
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #1 6023 (Cont.)
parcel maps that have been submitted.
Ms. Anderson noted that she had submitted parcel maps for North School,
Hermosa View and Prospect Heights as requested by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Anderson readdressed the previous question of what would happen if nothing
happened (Pages 11 and 12). She noted that Mr. Post had mentioned that a
health club could be permitted in the open space. There are certain restrictions
relative to height and setbacks, and only ten percent of the area can be
developed with a structure. It certainly does not preclude things such as a
private tennis club, private health club, or private swim club where there is
no structure, fencing of the property, or using of the property in connection
with the unzoned portions or the residential development of the unzoned portions,
Ms. Anderson noted that there is development that could happen on that open • .
space. Unfortunately, with the make-up of the current open space, one would
end up with something much less -restrictive than what we have now, and certainly
without the benefit of having the City own this property.
Ms. Anderson stated that in considering the existing potential, it is important
to include the existing potential of the open space as being something with a
negative potential now but with a very positive potential after the adoption
of the Development Agreement.
Ms. Anderson continued her presentation by reviewing the EIR and by stating
her opinion of the CEQA process. She noted that there has been a great deal
of concern over the EIR and what it should cover and over its adequacies and
inadequacies. She noted that this portion of the presentation was for the
benefit of those in the audience.
Ms. Anderson noted that the preparation of the EIR was required under the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under this
act all projects or series of projects such as this are required to go through
an environmental review by the City Staff to determine if there are sufficient
environmental concerns to warrant an EIR. In a case such as this where a
number of concerns exist, the City Staff requires a report and authorizes
that it is prepared, and the School District or the applicant pays for it.
This process starts by the completion of an initial assessment form. She
noted that she prepared this initial form for the School District in February
1983. The form described the project,.and the project as requested at .~that
time was the main project that was in the EIR, i.e., R-2 on Prospect Heights
and 134 units on South School.
Ms. Anderson stated that when talking about environmental impacts, it means
environmental changes. Just because it is an impact does not necessarily
mean that it is a negative impact. It only means that it is a change. Any
time that there is a change that the City feels is substantial, it must be
addressed in the EIR.
Ms. Anderson continued by stating that after the School District has listed
what they believe are all of the environmental impacts, Staff holds a hearing
(which is posted on all of the sites) and the public is welcome to attend and
present their comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 16
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson noted that three such hearings have been held -one strictly on
the South School site and two hearings that incorporated the other school
sites.
Ms. Anderson stated that Jim Hinzdel & Associates was chosen from a list
of over 20 environmental firms in -Los Angeles and Orange counties. She
noted that this firm specializes in preparing EIRs. She said that once the
firm is chosen, the firm decides which aspects of the study need to go to
specialists. This particular EIR required a traffic consultant, biologist,
archeologist, civil engineer, and an expert hydrologist. All utility .
companies were also contacted.
Ms. Anderson noted that once the EIR is prepared, it then goes into the public
review process, which is to be no less than 30 days. The State Clearing House
requires 45 days, but the process is to be no longer than 90 days. She noted
that this document was submitted to the City on December 1, 1983. It was
noticed in the Easy Reader that the document was available to be picked up
and was also available at the library.
Ms. Anderson stated that CEQA does not begin counting the 45-day period until
they have actually received the document, which was sometime late in December.
Therefore, this accounts for the deadline of February 10.
Ms. Anderson noted that the purpose of CEQA's 45-day review period is to give
them time to circulate copies of the EIR to various agencies to receive their
comments. CEQA does provide for public hearings during this time, even though
public hearings are not necessarily requ:lred. It is noted that during the
public hearings other proceedings of the public agencies may· also be conducted.
These other proceedings might include the zone change and the general plan
amendment. These items cannot be decided upon completely until after the Final
EIR has been certified.
Ms. Anderson noted that CEQA provides three different forms of noticing when
public meetings are to be held. One of these may be chosen for noticing the
publication of the EIR and for noticing the public review. Ms. Anderson
pointed out that the applicant has fulfilled all three, These three forms
of noticing include publication in the newspaper, posting of all of the
properties, and a direct mailing to owners of the property contiguous to the
parcel.
Ms. Anderson noted that what the Planning Commission is doing is unusual in
that the comments do not generally go back to the board who expressed the
comments. She stated that normally once the questions and comments are
given, they go immediately into the Final.
Ms. Anderson stressed to the Commission how carefully the EIR has been prepared
and she noted the seriousness of the infonnation contained in the EIR, She
noted that : the infonnation is not prepared to try to influence one way or the
other on whether the project is good or bad, It is to give a full informational
view of the impacts. It is not to evaluate the benefits of the project. It
is also not intended to give an economic analysis. An economic analysis is an
evaluation that should be addressed by the City, not the EIR.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 17
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, .AND PARCEL MAPS #1 6022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson at this point wished to address the comments made by the Commission.
She noted that Mr. Broiles would address questions concerning the development
agreement.
Ms. Anderson noted that copies of the EIR are readily available for anyone
who wishes to have a copy. She also stated that if anyone were unable to get
a copy, she would be more than happy to mail them a copy.
Ms. Anderson noted that once the EIR is turned over to the City, it no longer
has anything to do with the consultant. I~ be.c~7~s 1 the City's document. The
consultant would now merely assist the City planners.
Ms. Anderson addressed the comments that the EIR is confusing. She noted that
there was a comment made at the BZA that the document should be segregated into
four separate documents. She noted that, even though the document is very
lengthy, it is not difficult to understand. One must take time to study the
EIR. She noted that it is not provided for by CEQA to divide the document into
four different sections, nor does the City Code . provide for that option. She
noted that when there is an overlapping of projects, it is appropriate to have
them all in one document.
Ms. Anderson noted that when alternatives are given, these alternativ~ are
suggested by the City and the Planning Department. The applicant is also
consulted to give further alternatives. She stated that one of the absolute
requirements of CEQA is that the alternative of no project be addressed.
Ms. Anderson noted that another concern was would the State allow R-3 development
on Hermosa Valley. She stated that it was quite clear that the State would
determine the disposition of the property. The State would get involved in
the development of it if the State acquired it. The State would certainly have
to be notified through the bid process as would the County and the City. With
the valuation of the property what it is, it is unlikely that the State would
pick it up. She noted that if the value were to drop so that the property
were worthless, then it might be reasonable for the State to pick it up.
Ms. Anderson noted the comments concerning the inclusion of streets in determining
the density in the development agreement. She stated that when dealing with
dwelling units per acre, most of the time it is understood to mean dwelling
units per gross acre, She addressed the topic of gross acre versus net, Net
is what you have within your boundar~es. Net is what the City of Hermosa Beach
operates under. She noted that most cities use gross acres. In computing
gross density, a developer can go to the center line of any street that he is
boardering. This goes back to when density was based on the overall parcel.
He would then go back after the density is figured and do the street improvements.
Ms. Anderson stated that the purpose of the woroing in the development
agreement is to hold the City to a specific number of units on a site.
Comm. Smith asked for clarification of Section Hof the Development Agreement.
Ms. Anderson questioned whether Comm. Smith's concerns were relative to
freezing.
Comm. Smith replied in the affirmative.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 18
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16 022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson specified the reason for having that section in the development
agreement. She said that if they don't ask the City to stick to its building
requirements now, you could very easily go in and redefine the requirements for
setbacks. Essentially, the number of units could be restricted along with the
ability to develop what was agreed to under the development agreement by
changes in the Building Code and the Zoning Code. What is being asked in the
agreement is that the Building and Zoning Codes be frozen relative to the
construction and planning that are not subject to state mandates.
Ms. Anderson stated that one of the reasons for asking for the freeze was because
of the length of the agreement. This is to guarantee that the building and
zoning requirements will remain in effect during this ten-year period,
Mr. Post added that one of the benefits of the development agreement is to
give trade-offs. The property owner is given special treatment in return for
special benefits to the City. The advantages of the agreement mean · that it is
fair not to apply the later restrictions.
Connn. Brown noted concern for the City's acquiring of the property. Since the
School must follow certain procedures in disposing of the property even though
the State has agreed to purchase said property at a price, lie questioned whether
there is any guarantee that the City would be able to acquire it. He noted
that there is the possibility that someone else could come in and acquire the
property that the City wants, with the exception of the 1.3 acre dedication site.
He noted that this would be of no benefit at all to the City.
Mr. Post felt that the way the agreement is set up that no one else could come
in and acquire the land once the agreement is agreed to.
Chmn. Izant referred to the Universal Building Code, He noted that it is very
different from our zoning and density regulations. He questioned why it is
necessary to include Section Hin the development agreement. He noted that
it might be better left out of the agreement and still protect the rights of
the School Board.
Ms. Anderson felt ' that she needed to give that more review. She felt
that by looking more closely at the U.B.C. she might be able to determine if
there were any dangers to the School District in terms of changes.
Chmn. Izant had a question concerning North School. He noted that the current
unzoned portion would permit 19 units. Yet under the proposed zone change,
27 units are being applied for. He asked how the additional eight units
came about.
Ms. Anderson stated that the discrepency is relating to that small portion
of open space which is separate from the open space that is a part of the
Valley Park. It is the change in open space adjacent to Myrtle. This will
not be shown on the parcel map, but it will be shown on the submission maps
and on the map in the EIR.
Chmn. Izant felt that the R-3 zoning for South School is in conflict with the
medium density. He asked whether .the School Board would consider an R-2 planned
development zone situation for this site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page l9
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson offered her personal opinion on the R-2 planned development.
She did not see what benefit the City would derive from this zoning.
Chmn. Izant felt that the benefit to the City would be that it would allow the
City to retain control over where the open space would be. The City and the
developer would have to come to an agreement on its placement, With straight
zoning, the City would lose that control.
Ms. Anderson stated that the development agreement specifically states that
the location of that must be agreed on by the City.
Ms. Sapetto noted that with the straight R-2 zone, there is not the discretion
to allow a 35-foot height. She noted that the R-2 zone is very specific in
the Code. She stated that the only way to guarantee the height limit at 35
feet would be to guarantee in the development agreement that some of those
development standards would prevail. Under those circumstances, a planned
development zone would not be a controversial item. She noted that the
only difference that the planned development zone was created for was to
negotiate development standards. The standards, though, would not be
negotiated because they are guaranteed in the development agreement.
Ms. Sapetto noted that under those circumstances, there is a zone that is
compatible with the R-2. There exists no such zone as R-3, 35-foot height
limit, in Hermosa. Therefore, she felt that this is technically incorrect,
Comm. Smith noted that concession exceptions were being made to the zoning
code.
Ms. Anderson stated that this was the purpose for the request of the R-3 but
with a density restriction.
Mr. Post noted that a development agreement is not a substitute for a zone
change. The zoning standards cannot be changed by way of a development
agreement. The development agreement can only specify and freeze zone
standards, so it is not like an alternative to a variance.
Ms. Anderson addressed a question to Mr. Post. She asked whether the develop
ment agreement, as it is written now with the request for R-3 but with the
restriction on density to 99 units, is an appropriate request.
Mr. Post replied in the affirmative.
Chmn . Izant felt that there is a problem with the R-3 zone and the medium
density. He questioned whether this would be illegal. He noted that the
Commission will be trying in the next few months to make those places in the
zoning code and the general plan that are inconsistent consistent. He felt
that the area would either have to be made R-2 medium density or R-3 to
c oincide with the high density.
Chmn. Izant felt that this particluar aspect of the development agreement is
not an appropriate request. He felt that this area needs to be resolved.
Comm. Smith raised the issue of other agencies coming in and being exempt
from local zoning codes. He asked for more information on this.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 20
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS , LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #16 02 2 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson noted that Mr, Boiles would be better able to give a fuller view
of this issue.
Connn. Soulakis felt that it is important to have the subdivision maps for
each property to have more clarification on what the potentials are for
each of the properties as they now exist.
Ms, Anderson stated that she would be happy to bring individual maps of the
!ireas showing the underlying subdivisions. She stated that she could provide
these at the next meeting.
Chmn. Izant stated that information was handed out in the original packets
showing what the current lot combinations are at present.
Ms, Anderson also stated that these maps are in the EIR.
Recess from 10~10 P,M. to 10:22 P.M.
Connn. Shapiro asked why the R-3 heights are necessary at South School.
Ms. Anderson replied that it is mainly because of the topography of the site.
The 35 feet is consistent with what is being done on Monterey now. As you
go down the slope further and development is started on the flatlands, the
extra five feet could mean the difference between a flat roof versus a pitched
roof. This is more desirable and it gives the developer more latitude in his
design,
Comm. Shapiro asked whether there is a specific buyer for this property.
Ms. Anderson noted that several developers have expressed an interest in this
property and want to be notified when the big package is available.
Comm. Shapiro noted that he heard Ms. Anderson's rationale for using the
105 units in the statistics for Hermosa Valley. He asked whether Ms. Anderson
had any comments on a price for the square foot for open space.
Ms. Anderson noted that there was an appraisal at Prospect Heights approximately
five years ago. The appraiser valued that site as open space at $5 per sq. ft.
Comm. Shapiro asked who did the appraisal.
Ms. Anderson said that she would need to get that information.
Comm. Shapiro asked whether Ms. Anderson could comment on the 2.4 acres at
Hermosa Valley that are to be used as open space behind the 29 units. He
asked whether people who wanted to use the P?rk area . would have to walk
past the 29 units and the garages.
Ms. Anderson replied in the negative. She noted that there is a 20-foot
accessway from Prospectat the present time. She noted that there is a
10 -11 foot driveway that currently goes into the playground area.
The Traffic Department has stated that 11 feet is not sufficient and they
want a 20-foot right-of-way. So on the parcel map it has been extended to
make it a full 20 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 21
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS /116 022 AND t/1 60 23 (Cont.)
Comm. Shapiro asked whether there would be a sidewalk.
Ms. Anderson stated that with 20 feet, there would be enough room for sidewalks.
Comm. Shapiro noted the 105-unit potential for Hermosa Valley. He felt that
if the City could not give the School Board what it is requesting, the 105
units might be constructed .so that the money could be obtained to do what is
necessary for Hermosa Valley.
Ms. Anderson stated that the School District does not have at present a plan
on what it is going to do if they are not permitted enough density to sell
South School. The Board has not discussed what other alternatives they might
look into.
Ms. Anderson noted that no one person could speak on what would happen if
the project were not approved. There would have to be meetings and hearings
to make a final determination on what was to be done in that case.
Comm. Soulakis asked what the maximum density allowable would be at the
conclusion of the ten-year agreement at South School were it to be done as
an R-3 as requested.
Ms. Anderson stated that once the property is developed, the number of units
is fixed.
Comm. Soulakis asked what would happen if, at the end of the ten-year period,
the property were s·old. Couldn't a developer come in and request more units.
He wanted to know whether the ground rules would still apply after the ten
years. His concern was with the R-3 high density.
Mr. Post felt that after the ten years the owner could apply to develop to the
maximum allowed by the zone. He felt that the restrictions of the development
agreement would . not be applicable after its expiration.
Comm. Brown noted that open space has other uses. He asked whether this open
space could be sold. He asked whether the School Board planned on giving
written permission to use this open space that is available. His concerns
included all schools.
Ms. Anderson noted that all the open space would be City-owned with the
exception of Hermosa View. She noted that in regard to North School, since
the City would be the owner, the City would be the one to give permission to
use that area. She stated that Hermosa View is not part of the sale
agreement.
Ms. Anderson stated that in the development agreement it indicates that the
site is to be available for public use during off-school hours. She also
stated that the School Board would hot be precluded from selling that as open
space.
Ms. Anderson stated that the School District's existing policy is that the
public can use their playground portions after school hours. Specific clubs
wanting to reserve the areas for activities such as soccer or Little League
can do so merely by requesting the time and by signing a basic liability agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 22
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS //1 60 22 AND /1 1 60 23 (Cont.)
Ms. Anderson stated that the only condition to that is if the school property
is used for a purpose that creates a profit, then the School District has the
right to charge for it.
Comm. Soulakis asked whether it is true that South School is not available for
the A.Y.S.O (American Youth Soccer Organization).
Ms. Anderson stated that the availability of the property for use is up to the
School District. She noted that one of the biggest problems at South School
has been the problem of maintenance. Since the A.Y.S.O. is a non-profit
organization, they could not be charged to help with the upkeep of the field.
Comm. Soulakis asked for the status of Hermosa View at the present time.
Ms. Anderson stated that the School District is not specifically required
by the development agreement to let the public use it.
Comm. Shapiro made reference to the Draft EIR, Page I-4, Table 1, Zoning Summary
and to the handout entitled Zo ning and Ge ner al Plan Summar y . He noted that in
both documents, it indicates a total of 5.38 ~G ~~§ for South School. 1.30 is
open space, leaving 4.08 acres, Under the proposed conditions it indicates
medium density, 18 dwelling units maximum. He noted that by taking 18 units
per acre and multiplying it by 4.08, he comes up with 73 units, not 99, He
asked for clarification on thi~ point .
Ms. Anderson stated that one of the reasons for the R-3 zone request on South
School is specifically to have the dwelling units per acre computed on the
entire site so that there would be no penalty which would result from the
park dedication, She noted that this is not an unusual way to compute density.
Comm. Smith asked if this was the .~eason for the developer dedicating the site.
Ms. Anderson replied in the affirmative.
Steven Broiles, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, attorney from the law firm
of Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, spoke on behalf of the School District,
Mr. Broiles felt it might be helpful for him to share some of his views on some
of the issues before the Planning Commission. He noted that the EIR is basically
an informational document. There is really nothing for the Commission to approve
or disprove, but it is for the purpose of stating what the condition of the
environment is at the present time, what it is likely to be after the project
is implemented, what some of the alternatives are, and how any negative
environmental impacts might be mitigated. He felt that the EIR should be
viewed as a master staff report for what is being proposed and it should be
viewed in this light as a basis on which to make a final recommendation.
Mr. Broiles stated that the development agreement is really a planned use
mechanism that freezes development standards and land uses on a particular
piece of property or properties at a certain moment in time. The moment in
time that this particular plan references is after the approval of the general
plan amendment and the zoning amendments requested by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 23
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont,)
Mr. Broiles noted that some questions have arisen as .to why some provisions
are in the development. He noted that these are mandated by State law.
Mr. Broiles noted that there has been some concern as to what happens at
the end of the ten-year period. He noted that there can be a zone change
at any time. Once the development agreement is in place, the restrictions
on that property are governed by the development agreement. The zoning could
be changed a month after the agreement is signed and implemented, but the
land owner will not be bound by that zone designation. At the end of the
ten years, the owner will be bound by that new designation that is in place
at the time when the period runs out.
Chmn. Izant asked if during the course of the agreement the City has made
a number of changes in density, setbacks, and height limits, at the end of
the expiration of the agreement would the owner then itmnediately apply to
that particular zone,
Mr. Broiles replied in the affirmative. Also during the period of time the
parties are free to reach agreement to modify it. If during that time the
City finds that the owner of the property is not living up to the terms of
the development agreement, the City has the authority under the State law
to unilaterally amend it, cancel it, or change it,
Cotmn. Soulakis asked if the existing leasing of the schools qualifies a
School District to be ~empt from the non-use penalty.
Mr. Broiles stated that the term "use" as used in the Code for the purpose
of the Allocation Board means if the site in not being used for school
purposes (Mr. Broiles felt that this probably means public school use, not
private) it must be used for something that is of equal dignity or similar
dignity. Mr. Broiles felt that leasing it for private school purposes
would not qualify.
Connn. Soulakis asked for clarification on the term "equal dignity."
Mr. Broiles stated that if it is not used for classrooms, it could be used
for administrative purposes. Mr. Broiles stated that the State has not been
rigorous in this point of view. He noted that if it is not being put to
school use, they will start cutting back on the amount of money available
to the school.
Comm. Soulakis asked if the School District receives a certain amount of
money allocated to them and they don't use these school sites, would they
be assessed a penalty.
Mr. Broiles stated that there is a certain
District is to receive.
minimum that the School
Connn. Soulakis asked if the school site were to be sold, would the State reduce
the funding.
Mr. Br6iles stated that the funding would not be reduced. He also noted that
if the property were offered for sale and there were no takers, they would
not be assessed the penalty reduction.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 24
SCHOOL DI STRICT ZONE CHANGE S, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT S, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT , AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #1 6 0 23 (Cont.)
Comm. Soulakis asked whether the funding would be less if the school sites
were sold because they would no longer have these school sites to maintain.
Mr. Broiles stated that the funding is based upon the A.D.A (average daily
attendance) per pupil. The number of students attending the schools would
determine the amount of money they were to receive. The number of sites is
not relevant.
Comm. Newton asked a question relative to the A.D,A. She asked if the School
District receives any funds in addition to the $120 A.D.A.
Mr. Broiles stated that that is the minimum amount. The penalty would only
take it down to the minimum of $120 per pupil per A.D.A.
Comm. Newton asked how mu ch more than $120 is the School District receiving
at the present time.
Marilyn Harris Corey spoke from the audience. She stated that the funding is
based on the A.D.A. with additional funding on categorical programs. She noted
that the school finances are very complicated and detailed and they rely on
the County office for the mathematical form9lations,
Comm . Newt on n ote d t hat if t her e is c onsiderably more than $120 A.D.A. coming
in , .th er e i s the ris k of the p enalty . I f the r e i s no t much more than the
$120, they cannot be p enalized bel ow t hat amoun t . Sh e felt that the School
,·-,-:1i . _tic ':s wi11 r>?t b e at ri s k wi t h res p ect t o the non -us e penalty,
Cormn. Newton asked if the proposal is approved and South School and any other
school site properties are disposed of, would the sale proceeds remain in
Hermosa Beach, or would the proceeds have to be shared with the State.
Mr. Broiles noted that proceeds remain with the school and have to be used
for capital expenditures.
Ms. Corey noted that there is no bond indebtedness, so the money would be
for Hermosa Beach.
Comm. Newton questioned whether there might be some fiduciary duties or
other responsibilities by the School Distri c t t o t he City that might alter
their expectations of pro fit s fro m t he s a l e of t heir property. In other wo r ds,
is it not unreasonable to asst1me that t he re might be some public policy co nsi der
ations that would operate to t h e ben ef it o f th e City i f the City were to do wn
zone any of the properties and if it migh t a i d t he Ci ty if there were litigation,
as has been threatened, to assert that the District stands in a different
relationship to the people of Hermosa Beach.
Mr. Broiles stated that the School District, as a state agency, owes its
fiduciary relationship to the pupils to operate the school system. It is tbe
presence of that system that prevents them from giving the land to the City.
Chmn. Izaht asked whether the School ·._Board has any more rights than any
other property owner.
Mr. Post stated that the legislature has set up a system where under certain
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 25
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,-AND PARCEL MAPS fll6 022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
cdriditions they can grant or sell property to public agencies such as the
City at less than they would otherwise have to sell it, He felt that the
cities were being given an advantage in being able to acquire these properties
which are surplus school larid. Mr. Post felt that the City _,would look at
the School District as any other property holder.
School District operating a
Mr. Post also noted that the/school system does not have to observe the City
zoning code in regards to the placement of its school buildings.
Mr. Post further stated that the main purpose of the agreement is to provide
for park purposes. This is the first priority that is given to the City, the
County, and other public agencies when the opportunity arises to acquire
surplus property, Other agencies that have first priority are for low-income
housing. That is why the rest±ietiorirds ·.included that this is being sold
for park purposes.
Comm. Newton noted that if property .is made available to purchase for park
purposes, the bidding would be lower for that property because of the lower
value, She asked whether they would be bidding with the other agencies,
for instance, bidding for housing purposes, which would increase the property
value because of the higher value of the land. She asked how that bidding
would be handled.
Mr. Post stated that it would be offered with the restrictions that it be
used for park purposes,
Ghmn. Izant then noted that a housing agency would probably not wish to
purchase the land because they would not be interested in putting in a
park. They would be interested in putting in housing. There would be
no reason to pay more for the land because they would not be able to build
housing on the land.
Comm. Brown stated that Chmn Izant's comments were good, but that they
covered only areas that are designated for "Qark purposes, He showed concern
for the other property involved which "-,ilJ. be zoned R-l but will not be
developed. He stated that that would then come under Section 54220 of the
Government Code which pertains to low-income housing.
Mr. Post stated that that is the reason for the development agreement.
Conrrn. Brown asked whether the development agreement would take priority
over the Government Code,
Mr. Post stated that the development agreement is a binding agreement.
Comm. Smith asked whether other agencies are exempt from corning in.
Mr. Post stated that post offices and other Federal agencies are exempt.
He was not aware of any situations where other agencies have tried to come
in in this situation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 26
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #16022 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Chmn. Izant asked citizer-t3·to limit their comments at the public hearing to
the topics of the EIR and the development agreement. He noted that the
public hearing would be continued to January 31, at which time citizens
could make comments regarding the zoning issues.
There being no citizens who wished to testify at this time, Chmn. Izant
continued the Public Hearing to January 31, 1984.
Ms. Anderson noted that there was concern by the School Board in that
there might be a delay in the Planning Commission's taking action until
after February 10, She noted that there is a ti-'me frame on the Valley School,
which has been publicized and noticed to people that they are attempting to
get these improvements done by the 1985 school year. She noted that time
is now getting to be limited. She noted another concern over the environmental
comments. She noted that the responses can be provided at the next meeting
of the Planning Commission. She requested that the comments to the EIR be
given tonight so that they could be addressed at the next hearing, and
thereby not forcing a delay until after February 10, which is over the
45-day period that the public has had to review the EIR.
Chnm. Izant expressed appreciation for the concerns of the School Board.
He noted that he could not predict the actions of the Commission, and
he noted that these matters take some time.
Chmn. Izant asked the Co111IIlissioners if they wished to share their cormnents
on the EIR.
Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commission is free to write their comments and
give them to staff. The comments could then be responded to.
Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to continue the matter to another
Planning Commission meeting or possibly have a workshop. He also stated
that he would prefer to hear the comments, not write them.
Comm. Shapiro concurred with Connn. Soulakis.
Comm. Shapiro asked whether or not it was the privilege of the Commission
to call an additional meeting or workshop if so desired by a majority of
the Commission,
Chmn. Izant stated that that is a prerogative of the Commission, He suggested
continuing with the discussion at this particular P,C. meeting. He stated
that if there were many questions left at:the end of the meeting, they could
possibly have a workshop session.
Comm. Newton referred to Page 1 of the attachment of the comments by the BZA.
She noted that it states (under Environmental Impact) that the project will
generate a total of 12,000 vehicle miJ.es traveled. She noted that it does
not indicate over what period of time. She would like to have that i.nfornwtion.
J Comm. Newton referred to Table 3 of the attachment of the comments by the BZA.
She noted that the column entitled "Cumulative Emissions (in lbs.)';gives a
total of 5,642 pounds. She would like to know what period of time this
figure covers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 27
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS #160 22 AND #16023 (Cont.)
Comm. Brown asked for more clarification to the comment by CoI!IDl. Corder of
the BZA: "The sewer system is inadequate to accommodate the development."
He noted concern for the capacity of the Hyperion Plant in terms of the future.
He felt that the response given is not adequate.
Comm. Brown stated that he would like more discussion on the air quality.
He feels that there might be a significant impact which might not be mitigated.
He would like to discuss the alternatives.
Comm. Soulakis mentioned the flooding at Valley School. He would like to know
what is being done about this. He feJ:t ,that a response to this topic is in
order.
Comm. Soulakis felt that more thought should be given to the Santa F~ right-
of-way. He noted that if ten-percent of the area had public buildings,
there would be considerable impact. He felt that the response to the rigbt
of-way is inadequate in that it does not address potential problems.
Comm. Brown noted the comment that each school site should have its own
EIR. Re stated that according+.,CEQA, there is a staged EIR that would perhaps
be beneficial to the City. He questioned whether the staged EIR would be
of more benefit to the City.
Chmn. Izant asked if the staged EIR is of more benefit to the City, what
are the requirements for requesting one as opposed to the program EIR.
Ms. Sapetto replied that that question would be addressed at a later time.
Comm. Strohecker referred to Page 11 of the BZA comments. He asked for
clarification of the words "intensification of development."
Ms. Sapetto replied that it means the greater bulk of the development.
Comm. Strohecker asked what "intensification of development" means in
regards to the Santa Fe development.
Jim Hinzdel of Jim Hinzdel & Associates came forward. He noted that there
were some changes in the comments which caused a misunderstanding.
Mr . Hinzdel commented on the intensification of development. He noted
that open .space could theoretically allow for tennis courts, sports
applications, and a variety of other uses, even though those uses have not
been applied for. That is what is meant by intensification of development.
Comm. Soulakis made reference to the traffic situation at South School.
He stated that reference was made to a service level D. He needed
clar~fication on this point. He noted that the De port does not address
the question of safety relative to children. He also stated that the
term "devalue " is not applicable.
Comm. Soulakis further stated that the inters ection of Gould and Ardmore
was not addressed. He also noted that Gould and Pacific Coast Highway was
not mentioned . He felt that a traffic pattern should be developed for these
intersections.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 28
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES , GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT S, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAPS 1116 022 AND 111 6023 (Cont.)
Comm. Soulakis also expressed concern for public transportation, specifically
the free bus. He requested clarification on the matter of the free bus.
Comm. Soulakis asked for a definition of "critical C.V. ratio." He asked
whether it is of any significance.
Comm. Soulakis requested more information on Table 11 in the EIR on A,M.
peak traffic hours.
Comm. Smith suggested taking the EIR section by section to make the comments
more cohesive. He felt that impacts are what the P.C. should be concerned with.
Comm. Soulakis felt that it is important to understand the charts before
coming to any final conclusions.
Chmn. Izant suggested th a.t the ·comments made should be directed to the
summary impacts or things that have not been considered.
Comm. Soulakis suggested having a workshop.
Comm. Soulakis needed clarification of Page IV-1 of the Draft EIR. He
asked how the conclusion was determined for the cumulative impacts.
Connn. Soulakis asked whether there would be an opportunity to discuss
alternatives other than 1 -6.
Chmn. Izant felt that discussion on the topic might be better addressed at
another time. He noted that other alternatives might come out during the
zoning discussions.
Comm. Browireferred to the BZA comment s. He specifically mentioned No, 12,
Page 10. He asked whether the bi lls s egregate open space irrigation versus
other uses. He felt that the re s pon se did not meet the comment.
Comm . Smith did not see the relevancy of the question pertaining to the water
b i ll s . He felt that the comments should be limited to issues of a much
large r importance.
Chmn . Izan t felt that t he que st i o n ab o ut t h e wate r is a n important one.
He q ues ti oned wh ether there wo uld be enough wa t er if there are a number
o f r es iden ce s t o be b uilt on the p r op er t y . He als o que stioned whether
t he r e would be ade qua t e s ewa g e to carry t he wa ter away .
Chmn. Izant noted that all questions, comments, and responses will become
appended to the Final EIR.
Comm. Soulakis felt that alternatives should be discussed as part of the EIR.
He felt that there are other alternatives other than 1 -6.
Ms. Sapetto stated that discussions on other alternatives would take place
during the discussions on rezoning.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, that the Planning
Commission meet in a workshop with the consultant and staff to discuss
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 17, 1984 Page 29
SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONE CHANGES, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND PARCEL MAP S #16022 AND #1 60 23 (Cont.)
any technical questions and request that those be added as comments, if
necessary, to the EIR,
Chmn. Izant spoke against the motion . He noted that what was asked for at
this P.C. meeting was the question of any fatal flaws in the Draft EIR,
significant issues that have not been considered, or issues that have not
been considered correctly. He felt that it is more appropriate for individual
Commissioners .... meet with the consultant for clarification, if necessary.
Comm. Brown noted that workshops have proven very beneficial in the past.
As a new commissioner, he felt that a workshop would be very helpful.
Comm. Smith stated that he is basically in favor of the motion, but he felt
that the timing is inappropriate.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker
Chmn. Izant
None
Mr. Hinzdel noted that not every question can be addressed at the workshop.
He noted that full responses to all the comments were made as best as was
possible. (In the BZA comments.) He noted that it is important that specific
comments be given, not vague concerns.
Mr. Hinzdel noted that the only constraints in responding to the comments are
time and money.
Comm. Shapiro stated that he had questions concerning the sewars and drainage.
Chmn. Izant felt that it is important that the engineer and the traffic engineer
be present at the workshop.
Comm . Smith stated that he would like to discuss the topic of air quality.
Connn. Shapiro asked whether Ms. Anderson could provide the name of the
appraiser.
Ms. Anderson replied that the name is MacDade,
Comm. Soulakis asked Mr. Broiles whether it would be possible for him to obtain
more information on the topic of the non-use clause. He wanted more specific
information on possible uses of the school sites short of selling them to
avoid the loss of funds.
Mr. Broiles said that he could try to obtain more information from some of
the agencies.
Motion to adjourn at 12:09 A.M.
r CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record
of the action ta.ken by the Planning ColllIIl.i.ssion of Hermosa Beach at their
regularly scheduled meeting of January 17, 1984.
Joel Shapiro, Secretary
Date , I