Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Lutheran High topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves interim license for former Lutheran High School recreational fields amid community questions

La Verne City Council · January 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council approved a one‑year license allowing the city to continue programming the gym, fields and parking at the former Lutheran High School site while development discussions continue; residents pressed for guarantees that parkland and memorial features would be permanent.

The La Verne City Council approved a one‑year license agreement with Lewis Land Developers to allow the city to continue recreational programming at the former Lutheran High School site while the property owner advances a separate development application.

Several community members urged the council to delay or modify the agreement and voiced concern that a change in the project's developer and the language of the proposed license could leave open the possibility that land set aside for recreation might later be sold or redeveloped. Speaking to the council, Denita Boke said the community had been promised parkland and facility improvements by earlier proponents and asked, “what are the citizens of La Verne truly getting in return for this change?”

City Manager Ken Domer apologized that the item had been placed on the consent calendar without more public notice and described the license as an interim, limited‑scope agreement to "set up the city's ability to program the athletic field and the gym and then utilize the parking lot" rather than a lease or permanent conveyance of parkland. Domer told the council the city would "leave base talking to the developer" during the year so recreational services for youth groups could continue.

Neighbors asked for clarity on several points: who the current developer representatives are, how park development fees would be used, whether gym refurbishment is the city's responsibility, and whether the agreement would include explicit protections to prevent future sale of the recreation area. City staff said they would provide the additional communications and documentation residents requested and that the license is not intended to alter the separate development review process.

The council approved the item after public comment; the council vote was reported as passing with the required majority and with at least one recusal noted for a council member on the item.