Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01.31.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:37 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm, Newton ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Connn. Brown, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 1984, with the following corrections: Page 10, Paragraph 7, Sentence 3: ''R,-3 • is medium density" should read "R-3 is high density." Page 20, Paragraph 15, Sentence 1: "Hermosa Valley" should read "Hermosa View." Page 27, Paragraph 13, Sentence 4: "devalue" should read "D value," APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Smith noted that his name should be added to the AYE votes. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve P,C. 84-2. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Continued from January 17, 1984) Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She asked that the Planning Commission address the scope of the proposed project, i.e., the zone changes, general plan changes, development agreement, coastal plan amendments, and thereby progress towards a timely reco1IIInendation to the City Council, Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission considered this project at their last regularly scheduled meeting. The Commission voiced concern over aspects of the accompanying draft EIR. These environmental conce .rns were addressed at the Planning Connnission workshop held on January 26, 1984. Ms. Sapetto continued the staff report. In light of the fact that the purpose of an EIR is simply to provide additional information that will allow the Commission to more clearly note the thrust of the proposed project, and to facilitate the Connnission in its effort to forward a recommendation to the City Council on a project that will be in the community's best interest both in the short and long term, staff recommends that the Connnission assess the attributes/characteristics of the general plan amendments, zone changes, develop­ ment agreement, and coastal plan amendments. A greater degree of review of the project itself, i.e., is the proposed project consistent with, and will it further the intent of the City's general plan? She asked the Commission to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 2 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) consider whether the development agreement meets the requirements of the locally adopted development agreement ordinance. Chmn, Izant noted the focal points of the Planning Commission: the zone change requests by the School District, the general plan changes, and the development agreement. He noted that the Planning Commission is free to accept any of the six alternatives presented by the School Board or to fashion its own as it sees fit,, He further stated that the Planning Commission's purpose at this meeting was to recommend a certain direction for the City Council to take. Chmn. Izant asked that citizens comment on why the Planning Commd.ssion should either accept or reject the alternatives that are listed in the EIR. He also asked for any other feasible alternatives from the standpoint of the zone changes. Public Hearing reopened at 7:50 P.M. Cathy Anderson, 1003 Broadway, Santa Monica, spoke on behalf of the School District. She noted that she has given a very thorough presentation in the past, and at this time she would like to make comments to the Commission and then return to rebut connnents given at the Public Hearing, Ms. Anderson reminded the Commission that the application is really summarized in the development agreement. It is a position that has already been substan­ tially negotiated down from what the School District had originally proposed. She noted that the sacrifices they feel they have made are in that development agreement. She stated that the only part of that agreement that they would be in favor of modifying is the contradiction between the R-3 and medium density. She stated that the School District would only be in favor of an R-3 high density . since the density is already restricted to 99 units. She felt that this is the most advantageous way to proceed, Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification of the School Board's position on the South School site. He asked whether it is relevant, if they get the 99 units, if it is R-2 or R-3. Ms. Anderson noted that the School Board feels that this is relevant. The R-3 would allow for a 35-foot height limit which they feel is very important to give the purchaser more design latitude in developing a good project on the site, Don Arwine, 830 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he felt the zone change is necessary. Francis Parker, 521 1/2 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, spoke on behalf of several of her neighbors. She stated that she lives directly behind South School. She and her neighbors felt that approximately four families will be affected by the change, She noted that a 35-foot height limit would completely block their ocean views, She questioned whether any building done directly in front of their houses could be R-2 and the others cou ld be R-3 or on the lower slope. She noted that one of the reasons for purchasing these homes was for the ocean ff view. She stated that, although they are basically in agreement with the changes, she questioned the possibility of this R-2 designation was realistic. She asked for opinions of her proposal, Chmn. Izant stated that the Zoning Commission needs to deal with that question PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 3 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) because R-3 zoning is incompatible with the density there, He noted that this is a question that the Commission will have to take a position on. Ms. Parker noted that her particular block happens to be all R-2, Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that none of the alternatives are really correct as they are written, She felt that it is a possibility that some of the alternatives could be modified to some degree, She felt that it is not possible to put four streets into the South School site from the lay of the land. She felt that this should be looked at more carefully, She felt that it is not right to sell land because it always gets ·more expensive. She felt that by selling this land, there could be a problem in twenty years if there is a turn around, She felt that the City should keep the school sites and develop only one site. She stated that some of the money should be used to tear down the old building at North School center. She felt that this might become a hang-out for people with no homes, She noted that this building should be torn down so that there would be a clear view of the children at play, This would be a safety measure, She felt that not all the money should be used just for Hermosa Valley. She felt that the City should not make it easy to d~velop more than one school site. She suggested that the development be individualized for each site as necessary. She suggested the possibility of renting Prospect Heights. She felt that it is necessary to look into the future. She again noted that Hermosa Valley should be developed, but that the other sites should be saved for the future, Pat Bibles, 626 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she leases property at North School. She noted that she runs the day care center there. She stated that much money has been spen.t to develop North School into an adequate day care center. She stated that she hopes to remain there for a long time. She even noted that there has been some talk of expansion of the day care center. She noted how little open space there is in Hermosa Beach. She felt that open space is very important to the children. Hailey Rogers, 125 34th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that she is a parent and a child welfare advocate, She felt that the School District has worked long and hard on this project. She stated that she hopes the plan will proceed with the zone changes. Seena Sharp, 1122 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that there is another way of looking at this project, She noted that few things remain the same. She felt that even a non-action is an action, She noted that property in Hermosa Beach either gets better and is improved, or it deteriorates and it does not serve the purpose for which it was intended, She noted that over the years, the needs and demographics of Hermosa Beach have changed, She felt that it is entirely appropriate for the zone changes in accordance with what has been discussed. She felt that the zone changes are responsible and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Robert Currey, 1509 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition to the plan as so stated at South School. He stated that he was opposed because there has been no real planning for the children in the area with the exception of adding a building to one school site. Mr. Currey noted that this is an interesting issue because people in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 4 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) community who are normally liberal have taken a conservative standpoint, and those who are normally conservative are taking the liberal standpoint. Mr. Currey felt that this proposal has not been argued out adequately. Mr. Currey noted that recently two written notes without signatures were dropped into his mailbox. He said that he read them, and they seem to have a unique interest. They are currently at the office of the Attorney General of the State of California. He noted that it explained the situation of one of the Planning Commissioners not having received his packet of information in a timely fashion. He stated that if the Planning Commission proceeded to take action in this matter, they knew where they would be going with it. He noted that this is a very large issue. He stressed that this is an issue which should go to the vote of the people, Comm. Smith asked for clatification of Mr. Currey's comments. He asked what the connection was between the Attorney General's Office and the Commissioner receiving his packet late. Mr. Currey stated that he felt all Planning Commissioners should receive their packets prior to the commencement of the meeting. Connn. Smith concurred. He asked when this incident took place and who the Commissioner was. He felt that just because this happened, it should not invalidate three or four meetings. Mr. Currey stated that it was Comm. Brown who received his packet late. He asked why this incident should not invalidate the other meetings. He questioned why then there should even be a rule that the Commissioners receive the packets in a timely manner. Comm. Smith noted that when a Commissioner does receive his packet late, it is a possibility that he could ask for a postponement of the meeting. Mr. Currey stated that maybe the Commissioner felt that he was being railroaded. He felt that it is important to have the opportunity to debate back and forth. He felt that it is necessary to have total preparation. Chmn. Izant noted that Comm, Brown would have a chance to address this issue at the close of the Public Hearing. Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Hermosa Beach,;noted that Hermosa Beach has a number of schools situated in different parts of the City, Youngsters who live in the east end have a place to go without crossing a major street. She noted the dangers in youngsters having to cross major thoroughfares. She noted that many parents probably purchased their homes because they were near schools that their children could attend. She stated that she hopes some open space would be saved, but she felt that this is doubtful. Ms. Peery suggested selling Middle School. She noted that it is situated in a dip. Three stories could be built. No one's view would be blocked. There would be plenty of open space. There would be plenty of parking, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 5 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Ms. Peery stated that instead of destroying the school system and having one school, the small schools should be saved and Middle School should be done away with. Patty Jacob, 2728 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she felt that there are choices for the education of the children in Hermosa Beach. She noted that she voluntarily sends her child to a school that is not in their neighborhood. She noted that the school offered things to fit her child's needs better than did the local elementary school. She stated that it is not necessarily true that all parents want their children to attend schools that are close to home. She noted that they want the best educations for their children. One way to ?chieve this is to promote the zone changes as reconnnended by the committee so that we can proceed with the sale of the surplus properties. She stated that she supports the recommendation and that she is in favor of the zone changes that are recommended in the development agreement. Pam Bryan, 1800 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, stated that she is the principal of the two K-4 schools. She stated that even though she is not a resident of Hermosa Beach, her in-laws have been residents for more than 40 years. She stated that education in the area is very important, but so is real estate. She stated that her in-laws are in real estate. Even though they could not attend the Public Hearing, they are in favor of doing something positive for education and something that is also positive for the co11l1;Ilunity. She felt that the development agreement takes all of this into account. Ms, Bryan felt that there has been more than adequate distribution of materials to the public on the issue. She felt that the School DiBtrict has done more than was required to disseminate information .to the community to get input. She noted that the School District has changed many of the plans so that the planning of the work would be commensurate with the needs of the community. Ms. Bryan stated that she has talked with many of the local parents. She noted that the parents are very excited about the fact that although Hermosa Beach has a good educational quality in the City, that's all it is is good. She noted that the education system can be imp~oved along with the open space site for the childcen to use as play area after ·school. She feels this will not hurt the community but will enhance the community at the same time. She noted that the parents are very excited and pleasedto see that happening, and they hope that the Planning Commission will also see the advantages of zoning that way. Karen Haynes, 339 South Broadway, Los Angeles, mentioned several things concerning the zoning. She noted concern over the zoning at South School. She was concerned over the R-3 zoning. She also noted concern over the fact that when the property is sold, the School Board will no longer have control over the property. She expressed concern over the density and the height, She opposed the zoning of that property to R-3. She also opposed the R-3 designation citing the problems of parking, parking for residents, density, traffic congestion, and noise. Ms. Haynes noted the parking problems that she has encountered recently in Hermosa Beach. She stated that parking is already inadequate, and to add more units would only add to the problem of parking. PLANNING COMM:ISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 6 AP PLICAT ION FOR Z'ONE CH.ANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Ms. Haynes noted concern over the dollar value determined for the open space. She also noted the aesthetic values of open space. Ms. Haynes felt that the EIR is very inadequate. She felt that it only brushed over areas that should be explored in depth. She felt that it does not consider the impacts ori the coast, beach use, traffic, parking, congestion, police requirements, noise, or impact on the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Haynes felt that there will be enough classroom space for future children if not every school is sold. Ms. Haynes stated that she opposed the zone changes. Connie Ridgeway, 1800 South Prospect, Hermosa Beach, stated that she is the principal of Hermosa Valley School. She noted that over the last year and a half she has written articles in her newsletter which goes home with the children on a monthly basis to 380 parents. She stated that she has not received even one negative comment about the whole situation of rezoning and putting the children all in one school. She stated that all the comments have been very positive, and staff and parents are very excited about moving to the one school. Dani Peirce, 2121 Power Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that she can see the need for having one school. She noted that there are not enough students to warrant having more than one school site. She noted that the School Board worked long and hard at public meetings to come to their conclusions. She stated that there w~re no clandestine or underhanded dealings involved at any time. Ms. Peirce agreed wholeheartedly with the plan as it stands. Ms. Anderson commented on some of the testimony given at the Public Hearing. She addressed the suggestion that only South School be developed and all the other school sites be left alone, She noted that that was the original intention of the School Board. The subcommittee and City Council, however, were most concerned with the acquisition of open space. It was through these discussions of open space that they came to the agreement that all sites should really be looked at at this time. She stated that it would be foolish and alIQ.ost negligent on the School District's part to enter into discussions of selling its 9pe~.space and playground portions without any concern or discussion as to what would be the land use on the remaining portion~ Ms. Anderson stated that to just sell it to the City and then leave it up to the whim of the City at a later date as to what possibly could or could not be developed would really be most inappropriate. The inclusion of all of these sites has really come about that the City is most interested in acquiring the open space and the playground portions. Ms. Anderson stated that at the present time it is only the intention of the School Board to sell South School, but the rezoning of the other sites must be taken into consideration at this time if the School District is going to consider selling off these open space areas. Ms. Anderson addressed the concerns over the maintenance of the vacant buildings. She noted that the School District has already started preparing the Notice of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 7 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont,) Sale, and South School will soon be coming down, The other school sites will certainly be maintained, and if not maintained in their present condition as occupied school buildings, will be maintained in a safe and uninhabitable nature. She noted that some of the sites will continue to be leased, and therefore the maintenance will be obvious. She noted that the School District certainly has plans that those sites will be maintained, Ms. Anderson addressed the concern that this issue has not received enough public scrutiny. She reminded the Commission that the School Board started this entire consideration of what to do with their surplus lands by a l3 member land use cormnittee started in February of 1982. She further noted that public meetings and public hearings on this proposal were commenced in August of 1983. She felt that there has been considerable public input on this issue. Ms. Anderson addressed the concerns as to the impacts of the additional developments in the area, i.e, the boatyard, the hotel, and the shopping center. She noted that these have all been cumulatively considered as to the impacts on the different aspects of the environment. She stated that this entire issue has certainly been discussed. Ms. Anderson addressed the concerns over the density at South School. She stated that there is a misconception that given an R-3 zoning that a developer could go in and develop to the maximum R-3 standards. She stated that that was the purpose of the development agreement. The purpose was to establish a particular density to restrict it to that particular density. A developer could not go in and develop more than the 99 units assuming the development agreement is also approved along with the zone changes and general plan amendments. She noted that the only way there could be more than 99 units was if the zone change was approved but the development agreement was not. She found that prospect very unlikely. Ms. Anderson addressed the concerns of parking, traffic, noise, and density, She noted that the Planning Department and the Building Department have studied the parking situation. She stated that the codes and requirements are very strict. She felt that the development would have far more parking for its owners and tenants than the surrounding neighborhood. Not only are there requirements that two spaces per unit be provided in addition to guest spaces, but also that these garage spaces be unobstructed and that they be used for parking. She empathized with property owners who must park on the street, but she felt that it is not the obligation of the City or of the property owners to provide parking for them. Ms. Anderson felt that it is necessary to look beyond the immediate concerns of what will upset the residents and try to see what will be of the broadest benefit to the children of the City and what will be the most benefit to the City. She stated that benefits to the City include the acquisition of a great number of acres of City-owned open space that can be and will be developed for active park recreational purposes which it is not now. The benefit to the School District will be a much improved School District and a much improved educational program for the children, She felt that everyone benefits. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 8 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Ms. Anderson did not feel that the issue of density was that significant. She stated that the increase in density was not that much. Mr. Currey stated that his main concern was a soccer field and baseball field on the South School site. He stated that there were concerns that the area was not large enough to accommodate an adequate soccer field. He noted that he would like to see a soccer field of adequate size at this location. He also stated that he would like to see the soccer field be able to be converted into a baseball field as opposed to having a smaller field or another park. Chmn. Izant noted that he would inquire of staff how much land it would take to provide a soccer field of the appropriate size. Ms. Anderson stated that she did not know how much land was necessary for a soccer field. They did not address that question, because they feel it is up to the City and public hearings and additional meetings to decide what to do with the 1.3 acres on South School. She did not feel that it was up to the School Board to address the question of a soccer field. Public Hearing closed at 8:34 P.M. Motion by Comm, Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to deny the entire project - the request for the five zone changes for the sites, the development agreement, and for any general plan changes. Comm. Shapiro stated that any issue boils down to the facts and any emotions that might go along with those facts. He noted that he based his motion on two major points, one being public support and the other being the effort of the School District to lease the properties. He noted that students are constantly bringing home information to attend these meetings to show support. He noted that there are approximately 800 students in the School District. He estimated that there are probably 1600 parents, and he has not seen even one-tenth of the parents come forward and speak in favor of this proposal. He noted that he has seen petitions showing a number of people against the proposal, but unfortunately these petitions were , addressed to the City Council. He noted that in talking to many parents, there is concern for the children at the schools. He noted that any public display of opposition might affect the way their children are treated at school. Comm. Shapiro noted that he visited the St. Clare's school located at the South School site. He noted in one day that that private school was able to obtain 161 signatures of people who are in opposition to development of the school site, He noted that the petition contained signatures, addresses, and dates. It was originally intended for the City Council, and he felt that by the time it does reach the City Council, the number of signatures will increase. He noted that 20 signatures were obtained in just a single day. Comm. Shapiro also addressed the issue of the leasing ability. He noted that the director of St, Clare's indicated to him that she was interested in the expansion of that school through the sixth grade, ffe also noted that she has a doctor who is willing to provide funds to care for unwed mothers at this location. Comm. Shapiro noted that he asked the director of St. Clare's to attend the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 9 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Planning Commission meeting and to bring originals of letters that she has received, but she refused to attend. Her reasons for not attending are that she has problems with the School Board and with the superintendent. She felt very uncomfortable about being in the presence of these people. He noted that she has had problems with the premises she has been renting. Some of these problems include leak~ng r6of, bathrooms that don't work, vagrants living on the premises. He noted that she has written of her problems to the School Board and to the superintendent. He was appalled that the response she received was a rent increase. Comm. Strohecker questioned the relevancy of this issue, Comm. Shapiro noted that no one sells land unless it is necessary. He noted that Manhattan .Beach is experiencing the same problems with their vacant school sites. He noted that he has not seen any "For Rent" signs on any of the properties. He questioned what happens when phone calls :inquiring of the property are received. Comm. Shapiro noted the :great expense in preparing the draft EIR. He noted that he felt that there has not been any money spent in trying to lease the properties. Comm. Shapiro felt that the figure of 105 units does not in any way represent a figure that is appropriate in the School's arguments. Comm. Shapiro noted that he has on three different occasions asked for an appraisal of the $3.37 value, and he has still not received an answer. He also noted that he asked for the original terms of the negotiation, and he has not received an answer to that, Comm. Soulakis spoke in favor of the motion. He noted that he feels the School District should be able to build a school. On the other hand, the City wants to maintain open space and retain low density. Comm. Soulakis outlined the problems that he has with the project. He fe .lt that the approach to the project has been in the wrong direction. He felt that what should be discussed is the general plan , and how the zone changes fit that. He felt that other issues are subordinate to the general plan. Comm. Soulakis noted that the open space would be reduced by these zone changes. He felt that the project as a whole does not serve the community at large. Comm. Soulakis stated that he has found the School Board's proposal misleading on several aspects, particularly to the public. He noted that their intent is to sell off the other school sites. Comm. Soulakis noted the issue of density. He stated that the School District indicates that it is going to reduce density by 18 units based on the existing versus the p:r:oposal.~--But in fact, they are going to increase it by one hundred. He noted that the potential now is 151.With the R-3 at South School, it will go to 251. Comm. Soulakis commented on the alternatives. He felt that they have not been addressed adequately. Re felt that nothing has been done insofar as looking PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 10 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) into school bonds, leasing, or putting the issue on the ballot. He felt that economic issues have not been addressed. Funding and the City's ability to provide the necessary resources are other areas which have not been addressed. Comm. Soulakis felt that there are some severe significant problems with the EIR. Traffic, air quality, safety, flooding, sewage are all areas that he felt were not adequately addressed in the EIR. Re also felt that the alternatives are not adequate. Comm. Soulakis also found problems with the development agreement. Some of these areas include mineral rights, re-entry, right to termination which goes against state law, and permitted uses. Comm, Strohecker also felt that there were a number of problems with the proposed project. He noted that one area he has concern over is that of the deficiency in the green space public parks in the City. He noted concern over the proposal of "parkettes '." He felt that a parkette is not really usable for baseball and soccer. He noted that he would rather see one large park instead of several smaller parkettes. Comm. Strohecker expressed concern over the future if there is a change in birth rates. Re felt that as a planning function, the Commission should be prepared for that possibility. Comm. Strohecker also stated that he felt there are a large number of students in the City who attend private schools. He felt that if the quality of educa­ tion were improved in the City and also if there were another recession, these factors would return children attending private schools to the public schools. He also noted that with all the other projects going on in the City, this could bring in more students and families. He felt that it is necessary to prepare for these changes by having the full school sites available. Comm. Strohecker felt that to rezone some of the properties as residential would be unwise for future use. Comm. Smith spoke in opposition to the motion. He did state that he did share some of the concerns raised by Comm. Soulakis, but he felt that it was improper to deny the entire project and stop negotiations. Comm. Smith felt that the problem with this particular !D,Otion ·;is that it does not make any attempt to resolve the general plan versus the zoning compatibility; that it denies the City any acquisition of open space which would give it some control over open space for a particular period of time. Comm. Smith noted that it is true that there would be less zoned open space in the City if the School Board's proposal goes through. Comm. Smith felt that the motion did not adequately treat the efforts that the community has made over the last several years to arrive at a solvable problem. He felt that it is an insult to a large number of people in the community who support the proposal. Comm. Smith noted that he did not attend the public meetings, but he does live on Prospect, so he is well aware of the traffic problems in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE ll APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Connn. Smith felt that the motion would actually tie the City's hands in terms of judging or controlling any developments that go on any of the currently zoned sites which are buildable. Therefore, he felt that it is a definite hindrance to the City in that regard, He felt it does not speak to the issue of long-term planning for the City. He felt it is a resolution that will leave a slightly higher density any way that it is manipulated. Comm. Smith felt that the resolution reduces the City's ability to negotiate by denying the School Board's proposal. Comm. Smith stated that he did not care for the density configurations at South School nor did he care for the amount of land that the subcommittee and the School Board have agreed to dedicate to the City. He would like to see this changed and also have it include some provision for parking. Comm. Smith felt that the School Board has been candid throughout their presentation. He felt that the first presentation was more of a public relations activity, and he did not care for this. Connn. Smith stated that he would definitely vote against this resolution because it does not take even one small step in attempting to solve what is a serious problem in the community. Comm. Brown spoke in favor of the motion. He noted that there are probably other alternatives available to the Commission; but unfortunately, the issue is so complicated, that he felt it would be difficult to reach a consensus on any other alternatives, He felt that it is necessary to pursue the general plan changes that Ralph Casteneda has underway in the land use element. He stated that he would like to see the Commission submit a letter or memorandum to the City Counsel with a consensus on other recommendations such as senior citizens housing, which was not addressed. Another possibility would be the R-2 planning, perhaps on the South School site which would allow them to negotiate the height and still allow the R-2 density as well as residential planning development zone on perhaps other sites. Comm. Brown stated that he is in favor of the no-project alternative. Comm. Newton spoke in favor of the motion. She noted that in the beginning, she was prepared to support the proposal. However, in the ensuing · weeks she has listened very carefully to what has been said here and to other people in the community. She noted that she has carefully read all of the materials that have been provided. She is now convinced that the proposal and zone changes and general plan amendments are not in the best interest of the City. She noted that she is particularly concerned with the exacerbation of the density problem in the south end of the City. She felt the people who live in the south portion of the City have been unfairly burdened with dense development. She felt that the south portion is the area that needs a park, not some of the other areas mentioned, Comm. Newton noted that in talking with other citizens of the community, she has come to the conclusion that if this issue were put to the public for a vote, the issue would fail. She felt that the issue is important enough to be voted on by the public. Comm. Newton stated that she is opposed in general to the closure of school sites. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 12 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Comm. Newton stated that it is a possibility that the schools may be needed sometime in the future. Comm. Newton stated that she is in favor of the no proposal alternative. Chmn. Izant noted that what the Commission would essentially be doing is recommending to the City Council that none of the zone changes or general plan changes be accepted. He noted that the School Board has\.ight to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, as do all others who wish to appeal. Chmn. Izant questioned whether a no-project alternative would limit' the City Council on how they can deal with the project. Ms. Sapetto stated that a no-project alternative would not limit the City Council's decision in the matter. The City Council is free to accept the denial or accept a reconnnendation or override any recommendation. They may accept any alternative of their own choosing, Comm. Shapiro commented on the remarks made by Comm. Smith. He stated that if the school sites were all leased as they are in Manhattan Beach, that this proposal would not even be before the Commission. He noted that it is critical to realize that the effort by the School Board to lease the property has been practically nil. Comm. Smith felt that this had no relationship to the general plan. Chmn. Izant noted that the Commission has faced an extremely complex issue. He noted the frustrations in trying to grasp the issue. He felt that the problem has been that this has not been a straight zoning change, such as the Commission normally deals with. Chmn. Izant noted that he is general agreement with Comm. Smith, in that if the Commission votes a no-project alternative, they will not be sending forth to the City Council any recommendations. He felt that it is the obligation of the Planning Commission to recognize the realities of the situation of what is going to happen at the City Council level. He felt the Commission should send forth their observations. If a no-project alternative is approved, then the recommendations of the Commission will not go forward to the City Council. He felt that to send no recommendation would not be in the best interest in terms of land use planning. (Vote on motion by Comm. Shapiro to deny the entire project.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Strohecker asked whether this would now preclude the Commission from the other alternatives. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. Comm. Strohecker questioned how a vote to deny the entire project would preclude any other alternatives. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 13 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Chmn. Izant noted that the Connnission has, in effect, denied all the zone change applications as proposed. Chmn. Izant asked whether there could be motion to accept one zone change. Ms. Saµtto stated that if the Commission could come to some agreement on that, they could then embark on it. Connn. Brown suggested drafting a letter to lay out a project if the Commission could come to a consensus. Comm. Newton questioned whether it is within the province of the Planning Commissioner to revise an applicant's proposal. She felt that actually one can really only deny or approve it. Ms. Sapetto stated that this is incorrect. She stated that the project can be discussed. Conditions can be placed on the approval of the project to mitigate what is being requested. Ms. Sapetto noted that the only way to reconsider the project would to how:1 make a motion to reconsider the proposal. Comm. Smith stated that he would be in favor of such a motion, if only to discuss the issues that the meeting was about tonight, i.e., the full scope of the project application. He noted that there was no real discussion about the full scope of the project application. Chmn. Izant requested that Ms. Sapetto draw up a resolution to support this motion. Ms. Sap et to noted that she had made notes during the meeting ., and that she could go through those notes in preparation for making the resolutions. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would need input from the Commission on their reasons for denial to enable her to prepare a draft resolution. Ms. Sapetto briefly outlined possible WHEREASs: All si~es should be leased and not developed; The maximum amount of open space in the community is desirable and no further density should be allowed to develop; The school sites should be kept as open space; Nocompromise can be reached on the Commission as to proposed alternatives for the project. Comm. Soulakis added several WHEREASs: There are significant negative impacts of the EIR, some of which have :not '..been addressed. He also noted the economic issues that impact this project, He further stated that land use element had not been discussed in depth prior to this project. Comm. Strohecker wanted a WHEREAS as to the future land use needs. Comm. Newton suggested adding something to the effect of putting the issue r on the ballot. j Comm. Soulakis suggested having wording to the effect that.the proposal is not in the best interests of the City and does not promote tbe general plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 PAGE 14 APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND DRAFT EIR FOR THE SCHOOL SITES (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto reiterated the possible WHEREASs: There are significant negative impacts indicated by the EIR; The development agreement is not in conformance with the general plan; Comm. Soulakis raised the issues of mineral rights, the zoning, re-entry, and reversionary rights. Comm. Brown noted that the 1.3 acre parcel was not adequately described. Comm. Smith noted that most WHEREASs are of a more general nature. Ms. Sapetto felt that these were really terms of negotiation that the Planning Commission is not in agreement with, and not flaws in the development agreement. Comm. Newton felt that it would be a good idea to have a memorandum to present to the City Council outlining all of the areas that the Commission had problems with. She felt that this should be completely separate from the resolution. CoIIlIIl, Soulakis concurred with Comm. Newton. He felt that since the Commission denied the proposal, they should make comments as to why they denied it. Comm. Smith noted that all notes and minutes of the Planning Commission would go to the City Council. Ms. Sapetto noted that the purpose of the resolution is to indicate to the City Council why the proposal was denied. Ms. Sap et to suggested other. wo11dirig . :f of . the WHEREASs: WHEREAS, the development agreement's .proposals are not in the best interest of the City and the public and does not promote the general plan; WHEREAS, economic impacts unfavorable to the City are created; WHEREAS, the proposal does not address future land use needs. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to accept the resolutions as presented by staff. AYES: NOES -: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker Comm. Smith, Chmn. Izant None Ms. Sapetto noted that this would be Resolution 84-3. CHmn. Izaiit noted that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed in writing to the City Council within ten days. STAFF ITEMS Ms. Sapetto noted that the City's mid-year budget review will begin on February 7.• .. Ms. Sapetto also stated that she aas included for the infonnation of the Commission a notice of an environmental impact prepared in the City of Redondo Beach with respect to development at the South Bay Genter in Redondo Beach, Ms. Sapetto stated for the benefit of those Commissioners who plan to attend PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 31, 1984 STAFF ITEMS (Cont.) PAGE 15 the Planning Institute that she has included the necessary information for the Commissioners with respect to the reservations and the conference, Comm. Smith referred .to the letter of January 26, 1984, addressed to Gregory Meyer, City Manager, from Marilyn Harris Corey, District Superintendent. He noted for the record that it is a part of the public process of the Planning Commission to get any and all information that it requires in order to make a decision. He felt that the superintendent's letter implied somehow that there is an issue of training of staff and the corrnnission involved here. He noted that it is not unusual for a commission to require every single hit of infor­ mation that they need to make a decision, regardless of the cost to the developer. He felt that the Commission did try to take this into account, though, and they did schedule a workshop session very quickly so that there would not be a delay in the decision on this project. He felt that it is very unfortunate that there was an implication that somehow there was reason to think that the workshop was unnecessary. He felt that it was absolutely within the purview of the Commission to try to obtain all the information possible to aid in making a final decision. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Brown suggested wigorous pursuit of the general plan change and the land use element that Ralph Casteneda has been working on, He felt that it is important to pursue these areas. Ms. Sapetto noted that a workshop of the Planniµg Commission and the City Council has been scheduled for February 16, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the land use element. Chmn. Izant noted that the next Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 15, 1984. Ms. Sapetto noted that there will be another item coming up for review by the Planning Commission. Comm. Brown suggested the possibility of the Planning Commission discussing the events that took place at this meeting of the P.C. on an informal basis. Ms. Sapetto stated that that would be out of order. She noted that that type of discussion would have had to take place during the public portion of the meeting. Comm. Soulakis asked what the status was of the Planning Commission minutes of December 17, 1983. He noted that those minutes were to be revised. Ms. Sapetto thanked Comm. Soulakis for the reminder. Motion to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. No objections. So ordered. f 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 31, 1984. Joel Shapiro, Secretary Date I I