Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09.18.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chrnn. Izant at 7:33 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Corn~. Peirce ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Cornms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chrnn. Izant. None. Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve the minutes of August 27, 1984, with the following correction: Page 6, paragraph 1: "and that the others done work at all," should read, "and that the others don't work at all." APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION P.C. 84-24 Motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-24 as written. AYES: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chrnn. Izant. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Comm. Shapiro. MERGED LOTS Ms. Sapetto gave the staff report. She indicated that the staff has two recommendations. One, to declare that the project has no negative impact on the environment pursuant to the preliminary Environmental Impact Report and that a negative declaration be filed with the County Clerk; two, if the Commission does so decide to take an action, that the Commission review and adopt the attached Resolution which sets forth the recommendation on the merging of substandard contiguous lots having common ownership. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City has had a combined lot ordinance over the years which declared lots built over the lot line were to be considered one lot. This ordinance was rendered invalid by AB8 Set 94. On June 12 the City Council adopted a 45 day emergency moritorium to prevent these lots from being developed. This moritoriurn expired on July 24. Ms. Sapetto indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 31, and on August 21 recommended that the Lot Merger Ordinance end. She stated that the problem with the dissolution of the Combined Lot Ordinance is that lots previously merged can now be developed separately and thereby increase density within the community. The count of the potential increase in developable lots is as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS R-1 lots 313 lots effected. R-2 lots -120 lots effected. R-3 lots -no change. page 2 Ms. Sapetto stated that the attached Resolution suggests a merger ordinance that conforms to the State regulations and takes into account the Planning Commission's concerns as reflected in the previous meetings. The Planning Commission recommended the following criteria when considering the merger of lots: 1. Each of the contiguous lots having common ownership comprises less than 3,000 square feet in area and has an average lot width of less than 30 feet. 2. A residential structure(s) is located over the lot line, or the residential structure is located on one lot and an accessory structure(s) is located on the contiguous lot. 3. R-3 properties are exempted. Chmn. Izant asked Ms. Sapetto when the first combined lot ordinance was enacted in Hermosa Beach. Ms. Sapetto replied July 6, 1965. Chmn. Izant asked if it was correct that it was declared invalid in roughly 1980. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Sheldon asked why the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report was germane to tonight's meeting. Ms. Sapetto replied that she supplied that report to remind the Commission that when it takes an action tonight, it has already reviewed this and discussed it, and that that document is the document on which the Commission follows the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Comm. Sheldon stated that he did not recognize the document. Ms. Sapetto stated that it was part of the original staff report regarding this issue. Comm. Shapiro asked what the definition was of a standard lot. Ms. Sapetto replied that the present zoning states anything under the minimum of 4,000 square feet and a minimum lot width 0£ 40 feet. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Lance Whitman, 1015 Fourth Street, stated he lives in an R-1 area which is east of the highway just off Prospect. This area has several lots which have a structure built across a common lot line. He indicated two instances in his neighborhood where residences have r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Co n t.) page 3 been razed and two structures built in their place. He stated that the new stru~tures built are a credit to the neighborhood and have excellent architechture but that several problems have arisen just by the fact that once there were only two homes and now there are four. Mr.Widman stated that State law regarding combined lots and merged lots has changed at least two to three different times, allowing, not allowing, and then allowing under certain conditions the merger of lots. He is glad to see the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission getting back on tract and taking action on this matter. Mr. Widman recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the most stringent ordinance possible and allowable under State law that would provide for the merger of substandard lots which have common ownership. He recommended that in this ordinance the Commission consider some discretion when considering the merger of certain lots by zone and to take into consideration the lot size of the surrounding area perhaps through a planned development process. Mr. Widman suggested that the Commission look very carefully at any exemptions to a particular zone, whether it be R-1, R-2, or R-3. He felt this issue is a very basic quality-of-life issue. He expressed concern over the increase of curb cuts and density. Steve LaGree, 941 Duncan Place, Manhattan Beach, asked how many lots that are standard in Hermosa Beach are zoned R-1. Chmn. Izant stated that they did not have that information but stated that if he called the office by Friday, the staff would have that information. Comm. Sheldon asked what the point of his question .was. Mr. LaGree stated that the Commission's so called "standard lot" is actually a substandard lot in the City. He stated that 90 percent of the lots are substandard. He felt that "standard size lot" should be equated to mean the most common lot size in Hermosa Beach. Comms. Shapiro understood Mr. LaGree's point but stated that what the Planning Commission was trying to do is adopt a new standard which is not based on what the majority of the lots are in the City. Comm. Compton stated that a standard lot for California is 5,000 square feet. Hermosa Beach is accepting a standard of leniency in that they are willing to accept a 30 foot wide lot and 3,000 square feet rather than a 40 foot wide lot and 4,000 square feet, the latter of which is considered standard in Hermosa Beach. He restated the Commission's aversion to 25 foot lots which result in many curb cuts and take ·away parking. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, stated that she sympathizes with the members of the Planning Commission who have to deal with a very emotional issue. As a real estate women, she stated she hears PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 4 complaints that people have saved to buy lots and are now being penalized. She said she would love to see a new city developed with 5,000 square foot lots, but that the City of Hermosa Beach is already developed, and if the Commission tries to change what already is, it is going to bump heads. Ms. Ryan stated that when most people purchased multiple lots, 25 foot lot~ were considered fine in the City. She stated that up to this time some people have enjoyed the ability to unmerge their lots, but because of a matter of time, this ability won't be enjoyed by people who want to do it now. Comm. Sheldon asked Ms. Ryan if she felt a majority of people who own 50 foot lots in this City would like to, at some future date, subdivide them into two 25 foot lots. He stated that the reason he asked this question is that he wanted to know whether she was talking about some, most, or all of the merged lots as being a problem. Ms. Ryan replied that some people don't believe they have merged lots. They have been paying on two lots and their tax bills reflect this. In answer to Comm. Sheldon's question, she replied that since she has lived in Hermosa Beach, which has been since 1965, she has only personally known of seven people who wanted to split their lots. She stated she has a 120xl33 foot lot. If asked whether at some point in time she would split her lot, she stated that if she could, she would. The comments she has heard from other people is, "We own it, and we would like to enjoy the same privileges that others have enjoyed." She felt the people ought to have the option to do with their land what they choose. Wilma Burt stated that State law says that the Planning Commission sets the standard of "substandard." She also quoted from Section 66451 which states that you can merge by planning ordinance if it was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation. She stated that Hermosa Beach does not have a law in effect at the present time that allows the combining of lots. Mrs. Burt also quoted the following: "is inconsistant with applicable general plan and of applicable specific plan other than the minimum lot size or density standards." She stated that that meant you cannot do it because of density. Mrs. Burt stated that if they wanted to decrease density, they should look at R-3 and cut down the size of apartments and condominiums. This is where the density is, not single family residences. Mrs. Burt also stated that most people did not understand the notice that went out regarding this matter. Mrs. Burt felt that the Commission should change the planned unit density and the R-3 density. She stated that the ordinance says that you can't do this to any lot which is within 2,000 square feet of an oil drilling site. She also stated that merging does not mean combining. You cannot merge something you already own. You can combine it, but you can~ merge it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Co n t .) page 5 Comm. Compton told Mrs. Burt that density was not paramount in his mind in regards to this resolution. He stated the problem is the look that you get when you develop 25 foot lots. rt.t Mrs. Burt stated that this has nothing to do with whether no not she approves of 25 foot lots. It is strictly the rights of a person in the United States to own property and to do with that property what they wish, within reason. Calvin Emery, 2060 Hillcrest, stated he opposed this ordinance for many of the same reasons that have already been voiced. He stated that next door to him are two lots that were recently developed into four units. He stated that the development decreased the density because originally there were eight people living in the single house and now there are four people living in the two units. Mr. Emery felt that the citizens who own these properties are being asked to pay the price for someone else's idea of "standard." He felt the City should continue to be zoned as it is. He felt there was no loss of parking because of curb cuts because the new developments have double-car garages and driveways. Mr. Emery stated that he has a run-down house over the lot line. If he keeps the property as he has it and fixes it up, it would cost him approximately $45,000. He stated that he does not have the money to do so. He stated his other alternative was to build a house on another small lot he 0wns and rent this property out. If he rents this property, the density will increase. He felt the City would benefit from having three nice homes of the type that are being build there. Mr. Emery states that he pays the lowest tax rate. If this land is developed, the City would be getting three units paying the highest tax rate. He felt the standard of living would be improved by upgrading. Martha Lemon, 262 27th Street, stated that she has lived at this residence for the last 16 years. She owns two 30x82.5 lots. She felt that she was in a catch 22. She states that she stands to lose a lot of property value. She doesn't intend to sell the lot or build on the lot, but she has young people in her family who may need money. And she feels her borrowing power would be considerably less. If some life-threatening situation were to befall her, she would be forced to sell the entire parcel. Ms. Lemon stated that in her area, from 26th Street up to 28th Street, all the lots are the same size as hers. She didn't feel that a house built on her second lot would give the appearance of a long, skinny house. Her house is located on one of her lots, and she has a small accessory building on the other lot. Unmerging the lots would not result in the situation where two skinny houses were developed where once there was only one. Therefore, she felt there should be an exception for people who wanted to build on their second lot when that development would conform to the neigh­ borhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 6 Chmn. Izant asked Ms. Lemon when she purchased her property. Ms. Lemon responded 1968. Chmn. Izant asked her if she was aware that an ordinance was passed in 1965 that had already merged her lots. Ms. Lemon replied that, as the woman before her stated, she has been paying taxes on two separate lots. And she has been approached by many people to sell her lot with the smaller structure on it, but that she is an ecologist and likes open space. Comm. Sheldon asked Ms. Lemon if her main concern was that if her lot was merged, she would lose substantial market value. Ms. Lemon felt it would downgrade her property. Comm. Sheldon stated that that was not a certainty. Ms. Lemon responded, though, that if she needed money desperately, she would be forced to move in order to get it. She couldn't sell one lot and live on the other. Margaret Boatright, 1211 21st Street, stated that she has two 25 foot lots which each have houses on them and a pie-shaped lot, 44 feet in the front and 25 feet in the back. She stated she did not understand the situation at hand because it wouldn't change any of her property. Chmn~ Izant replied that if she has homes on each lot already, that that is a different situation than the person who has two contiguous lots with a house right in the middle. He stated that her lots would have to be specifically looked at to see if they would be effected. Ms. Boatright stated that she would like to be informed in the future regarding the merged lot ordinance. Chmn. Izant told Ms. Boatright that if she called the City staff during business hours that they would tell her specifically how her lots would be effected. Dorothy Schmidt, 1549 Golden Avenue, asked how many R-1 lots would be effected by this ordinance. Chmn. Izant replied that 313 lots are potentially effected. Ms. Schmidt stated that she has two R-2 lots which are 3,000 square feet which she purchased in 1952. She didn't feel it was fair that where once she could build four units on the two properties, now she can only build one unit. She stated that she is surrounded by 25 foot lots, one of which has two structures on it. Comm. Newton told Ms. Schmidt that the ordinance only covered lots that were less than 3,000 square feet each. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont .) page 7 William Searnas, 1214 Tenth Street, stated he has lived in Hermosa Beach since 1943. His property consists of three 25 foot lots. He states that he pays taxes on three separate lots. He stated that the Planning Commission is again trying to down zone his property. It is not merging because you can't merge something that you already zone. You can only combine them. Mr. Seamas, in regards to the notice he received, said that State law requires that the notices be delivered at least ten days before a public hearing and that they should be certified. He states that was not done here. Mr. Seamas stated that several years ago the value of his property was decreased immediately when they changed its zoning from R-2 to R-1. He stated that around the corner from him they tore one single family dwelling down because they wouldn't let the owner add one room to his house. They said he did not have enough property. But now three condominiums stand on that very same lot. They got their variance. Mr. Searnas felt that the notice he received should have told him whether or not his three properties were effected. Charles Haig, 1133 Seventh Place, stated he has three 25 foot lots with one residential structure. He asked if his three 25 foot lots would become one single lot. Chrnn. Izant replied that if the ordinance was adopted, he could probably split his property into two lots as opposed to three, should he decide to do so. Mr. Haig asked what the rational for this ordinance was. He asked if he tore down his house and sold his three lots to three individuals, could those individuals then build three separate houses on the three lots. Chmn. Izant replied that it depended on when he did it. If the City Council decides to enact this ordinance and start holding hearings, he could raze his house and sell those three lots provided his property had not been heard and a decision made either to leave it merged or unmerged. After that time he would be precluded from splitting into three lots. He could raze his house and split it into two lots, though. Mr. Haig could not understand why the Commission would want to do that to him. He felt the Commission was depriving him of his profit. Chmn. Izant replied that communities are a balance of rights of individuals versus the laws made by the community as a wh0le. In 1965 Hermosa Beach made a decision that it was ot value to have larger lots in the City. This decision stood until 1980 when it was declare~ by a technicality in State law, to be invalid. The question now faced by the Planning Commission is do they hold those same values --the size of lots and allowing the City to become more dense. Mr. Haig asked where the pressure was corning from to merge or combine lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 8 Chmn. Izant replied that other citizens in the City requested that the City officials take a look at this situation. The Commission has determined that it's an issue that should b~ looked at from a planning standpoint. Comm. Sheldon asked if Mr. Haig thought the sale of his property in two lots would be worth less than the sale of his property as three lots. Mr. Haig felt that, naturally, you would get more return from three houses than you would from two. Comm. Sheldon felt that that was not at all a certainty. Mr. Haig recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they maintain the status quo as it is for people with multiple contiguous lots. Comm. Compton wished to address Mr. Haig's question on where the pressure came from to enact this merged lot ordinance. He stated that the State is mandating that the Planning Commission either enact or not enact this merged lot ordinance by a certain date. That date is January 1, 1986. The other pressure is the development style that 25 foot lots promote relating to environmental quality. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, questioned what the Commission is doing tonight legally. She has lived in this City since 1942. She states that she never received an official notice from the City or the County that the zoning had been changed on any of her properties. She stated that Assembly Bill 984 talks about certified mails and that things have to be done up front, honorably, and she felt those things have not been done. Chmn. Izant responded that the certified mail is a procedure yet to come in this process. Ms. Isgreen stated that in 1965 they received nothing by mail indicating that their property had been down zoned. She indicated that she owns a 25 foot lot and that if it burned down, it could not be replaced. The square footage is 2,999 square feet, but it is not 30 feet wide in front. She asked if the Commission was telling her that her property was no longer any good. Chmn. Izant replied that this ordinance does not effect her property because her property is a single lot. Ms. Isgreen stated that she has five pieces of property. She stated that it is the low density people that brought the planned unit development. On Fifth Street alone they took down three houses and were permitted to build eight units. She felt the merged lot ordinance was the same type of thing. The person that lives adjacent to a lot that is no longer valid to the owner will sell the property to a developer. The developer will raze the buildings and go for a pu/d. Instead of having two or three units, he can have eight units. Comm. Shapiro, in response to Mr. Haig's question on who is bringing PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 9 the pressure for the merged lot ordinance, he read the following: "The State law does not mandate that the City have a merged lot ordinance. It merely requires that if a City wishes to have a valid merged lot ordinance, it must follow certain criteria." Dan Johnson, 925 Third Street, responded to Comm. Sheldon that it has been a fact in the past that by taking a single house off a double lot and selling the lots separately, most of these owners have made a profit. He asked Comm. Sheldon if he agreed that that was the case. Comm. Sheldon replied that he did not believe it was at all a certainty that two 25xl00 foot lots are worth more than one 50xl00 foot lot. Mr. Johnson replied that he did believe it was a certainty. He felt the situation on Third Street would bear him out because people there have been selling their multiple lots separately and the developer has made more on each split lot than the original property sold for. Mr. Johnson stated that he thought he was sitting on two lots and upon that assumption felt that in the future he could get a good loan. Comm. Compton stated that each one of the lots that is going to be merged is going to have a separate public hearing. He also stated that the Commission is trying to deliberate and look at different area~ and they have had a lot of testimony from areas where most of the lots are single family houses on 50 foot lots. And these people are adamantly opposed to their lots being split. Mr. Johnson felt that they would have to do it on a tract-by-tract basis. Comm. Compton stated that part of the Planning Commission's requirement is to look at the environmental quality. He asked Mr. Johnson if he felt that 25 foot lots were a good development for a City. Mr. Johnson replied that he felt it was better than the multiple developments they are ~utting up at the south end of town. Comm. Compton replied that they were talking about R-1 property. Mr. Johnson stated he understood that, but that some how they got R-3 that went three high and he watched his view of the ocean disappear. He didn't understand how that happened. Jim Tonder, 1219 20th Street, asked what percentage of the R-1 properties would be ef.f.ected. Ms. Sapetto stated that there are 9,000 parcels in the City, The exact number of R-1 Parcels she didn't have, but she estimated it could be approximately 4,000. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 10 Chmn. Izant stated that that question was asked earlier, and that they didn't have the answer to that. Mr. Tonder stated that what he was trying to establish was how much the City would be effected by allowing S0xl00 foot lots to be developed as two 25xl00 foot lots and where the location of these lots are. He stated that he did not like density, and if all these types of lots were located in one small area, he would agree that that is a problem. But if they are scattered throughout the City, then maybe it isn't a problem. Chmn. Izant replied that most of the things they deal with have to do with density. And it is always a question of a little bit more and a little bit more, and when do you make a decision that that much is too much. He said it was not easy to give a quick, pat answer because there isn't one. Mr. Tonder summarized that it is a question of density and that the City is asking owners of 313 R-1 dwellings to shore up the Hermosa Beach community as far as density. Chmn. Izant replied that the City in this particular situation may be doing tha½ just as they have in the past asked other residents and as they will ask others to do in the future. He stated that it is a burden that all of us may or may not have to share depending upon what the City Council has to do. Mr. Tonder stated that he does own a 50xl00 foot lot with a single dwelling on it and would be opposed to the Commission recommending to the City Council that they enact this new ordinance. Charles Abraham, 830 18th Street, stated he owns a S0xl00 foot lot with a single family dwelling on it. He stated he had no plans to tear down his house and divide the lot into two 25 foot lots and build on them. But he felt that if he did, it should be his choice to do so. He felt they should be able to vote on this matter. Mr. Rado, 720 24th Place, asked if each homeowner effected would have a public hearing and would have a choice of either combining their lots or leaving them separate. Chmn. Izant stated that the procedure would be that if the Commission recommends to the City Council that there be a combined lot ordinance, the City Council then will hold hearings on whether there should be a combined lot ordinance. If the City Council passes the ordinance, all homeowners who are effected will be sent a registered, certified letter notifying them that their lots are potentially subject to merger and would ask them if they wish to come down and testify whether their lots should or should not be merged. A specific hearing date will be set up for each person to be heard either before the Planning Commission or the Board of Zoning Adjustments. That body would then make a decision on each lot. If the homeowner did not like the decision, he could then appeal it to the City Council who would then make the final decision. Steve LaGree, in response to Comm. Sheldon, stated that as a developer, he would pay, today, $50,000 more for two 25xl00 foot lots PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) than one S0xl00 foot lot. The public hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M. page 11 Comm. Peirce stated that he was not present for the meeting where the Commission decided on less than 3,000 square feet. He asked how many lots were in the catagory of between 2,500 and 2,999 square feet. He asked how that decision was arrived at. Chmn. Izant responded that in considering the State number of 5,000 square feet and the City number of 4,000 square feet, the Commission felt that a reasonable number for a lot would be 3,000 square feet for Hermosa Beach. Comm. Sheldon stated that it was a compromise. The Commission felt that 4,000 square feet was too onerous a size to merge. What they were trying to do was to preclude the 19-foot row house on 25 foot lots. It was also recognized that a substantial number of lots in the City were 30 foot lots. Comm. Peirce asked how many 30xl00 foot lots there are. Ms. Sapetto stated that she did not have the breakdown with her. She stated that there are 313 lots that are 3,000 square feet or less. Comm. Shapiro stated that he didn't feel everybody was going to run down and immediately subdivide their lots. He stated that when the City wanted to down zone and rezone a few years ago but then decided to leave it alone, there was no big rush to the Building Department to take out permits. He felt that many of the Commissioners were expressing to the people in the audience tonight that maybe they didn't have to worry bacause maybe their lots won't be effected or maybe the value wouldn't go down if the lots were merged. Comm. Shapiro felt that the Commission should take no action. He did not feel that just because something was done in 1965 and has been in existance for 15 years doesn't mean that it was a good decision in 1965. He didn't feel they should rubber-stamp something that was put into effect in 1965 and taken out because of a techni­ cality in 1980, especially when they are not mandated to reenact it. Comm. Shapiro believed that the idea to do it this way came from a meeting two weeks ago from particular residents on 24th and 25th Streets. He felt that if this ordinance could be enacted for just an area, that would be fine. But he didn't feel they should make an entire City suffer for what one section of one block of people want. Motion by Comm. Shapiro that there be no merger of substandard lots. The motion died for the lack of a second. Comm. Compton asked that if the motion just made had passed, would the matter die or would it go back to the City Council. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Commission is reviewing this because the City Council has asked it to. If the motion had passed, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 12 that recommendation would have gone to the City Council. Chnm. Izant stated that he believed the values expressed by the community in 1965 are still valid today. He felt it was a density decision. He stated it was a decision between the rights of the community versus the rights of the individual. Society is constantly founded on the balance between these two things. He felt that the Commission must work wherever it can to slow down the increasing density of the City. Chmn. Izant stated that Hermosa Beach has roughly 12,400 people per square mile. The most densely populated place in the entire United States if roughly 14,900 per square mile. He stated that if this ordinance did not pass, it would theoretically mean an increase in density of 10 percent. Therefore, Chmn. Izant would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they consider a combined lot ordinance. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to recommend to the City Council that the City Council consider a combined lot ordinance. Comm. Compton stated that he was not as concerned about density as Chmn. Izant was. His main concern was the development of 19-foot row houses on 25 foot lots. He did not feel this was condusive to a neighborhood atmosphere and would create parking congestion. Comm. Compton also wished to express, in regards to the women who had a 30x82.5 lot, that he feels more strongly about a minimum requirement of a 30 foot frontage than he does about a minimum requirement of 3,000 square feet. He stated that he would personally feel predisposed to not enclude lots that are perhaps 30x70 feet. He stated he had not thought about it enough to come up with a figure and would like to look at the actual conditions that exist and how many lots would be included in this. Comm. Newton concurred with Comm. Compton that the issue is the frontage of the lot more than the overall square footage. She stated that she would support the motion but would be open to a suggestion of changing the 3,000 square foot requirement. She also wished to point out that most of the speakers who spoke tonight had purchased their lot during the time that the combined lot ordinance was in effect. She did not feel that this ordinance was patently unfair. Mrs. Burt responded that none of the homeowners were notified of the merger of the lots and the County Assessor was not notified about the merger of the lots. Comm. Newton expressed the importance of the interim city attorney reviewing this ordinance carefully and the procedure that should be followed when the ordinance is adopted. Ms. Sapetto replied that they have reviewed this with Mr. Post and will have the City Attorney look at it again if this goes to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 13 Comm. Shapiro stated that he shared Comm. Compton's dislike towards rows and rows of 19 foot houses. But he felt that if these 313 lots are scattered throughout the City, the anology for the row houses was inappropriate at this meeting. Comm. Sheldon felt that this was a planning issue. Therefore, he did not feel it was significant what happened in 1965 or 1980. He felt it was the Planning Commission's and the City Council's responsibility to evaluate what they felt was the best vision for Hermosa Beach. He felt that this is also a density issue. He did not feel this ordinance would result in a downgrade of property value. He did not feel this was a property-rights issue. For these reasons, he supported the motion. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to call for the question. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Newton, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comms. Compton, Shapiro, and Schulte. None. None. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission must first vote on whether to declare a negative declaration should be filed on the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report. Chmn. Izant withdrew his original motion. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to approve the Environmental Impact Report as written. Comm. Shapiro wished to point out item No. 8 in the EIR --"will prevent the situation whereby growth and density will increase." He stated that they had testimony tonight to the fact that by not implementing this ordinance, they would be getting rid of houses that had many tenants with many automobiles, and that it would actually decrease density. Therefore, he did not agree 100 percent with item No. 8 that it will positively control density. Comm. Schulte pointed out that item No. 8 did not say that. He read the following: "The project will not induce growth in the City. However, it will prevent a situation whereby growth may proliferate and density be exacerbated." Comm. Schulte did not feel they could make any motion that would guarantee that the people moving into the City or moving out of the City will be more or less responsible. Comm. Shapiro asked for clarafication on item No. 6, Section V, where it states, "Even if the City wished to do this on a discovery basis, an ordinance would have to be adopted." Ms. Sapetto replied that that meant that in order to merge lots, you must adopt an ordinance that tells you how you are going to do it --how you are going to notice it and how you are going to proceed. Comm. Schulte stated that there was a law on the books that said that lots were merged and could not be d~vided under a certain PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MER GED LOTS (Co n t.) page 14 amount of square footage. The Commission is in a position where that law has been eliminated and the Commission must decide whether to continue to have that law eliminated or do something to halt the division of lots. If the ordinance is adopted, every owner whose lot is effected still has a right to ask for a public hearing on their specific lot. Ms. Sapetto stated that that was correct. And she stated that their lots could not be merged unless they have been notified and given the opportunity for a public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro. None. None. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they hold public hearings on the merging of contiguous lots which have less than 3,000 square feet and have less than a 30 foot frontage. Comm. Schulte stated that he concurred with Comm. Compton that the real issue was 30 foot frontages and not about 3,000 square feet. He stated that he would entertain an amendment to the motion to that effect. Chmn. Izant stated that unless he heard some very good reasons, he would like to stick with the 3,000 foot stipulation. He felt that 3,000 was a fair number. Substitute motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to recommend to the City Council that they hold public hearings on the merging of contiguous lots which have an average lot width of less than 30 feet. Comm. Peirce stated that they first must either dispose of the original motion or amend the original motion. Chmn. Izant accepted the substitute motion. He then asked Comm. Compton how much square footage his motion would include. t Comm. Schulte stated that Comm. Compton did not give a square footage which meant that the lot could conceivably be only one foot deep. He did not believe that that was the intent of the motion. Comm. Compton stated that he did not wish to consider lots 30x80 as substandard. Ms. Sapetto recommended that Comm. Compton include the dimension of 30x80 feet in his motion because there are very few 30 foot lots which are less than 80 feet in depth. Comm. Compton restated that his problem was with 19 foot houses on 25 foot lots. He did not see any difference between the look of a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.), page 15 30x70 foot lot as opposed to a 30xl00 foot lot. He stated that you couldn't put more buildings on a 30x70 foot lot than is allowed by the zoning code. Comm. Compton amended his motion to read that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they hold public hearings on the merger of contiguous lots that have less than 30 foot frontages and are less than 2,100 square feet. The amendment was approved by the seconder. Comm. Peirce asked what would happen to the motion made by Chmn. Izant if the one made by Comm. Compton passed. Chmn. Izant replied that it would mean that the first motion by him would fail. Comm. Peirce stated that the rules of running a meeting would not allow that. Chmn. Izant stated that they were going to do it in this manner this time. Chmn. Izant stated that the motion on the floor was whether or not to vote on the substitute motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cornms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro. Comms. Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. None. None. Chmn. Izant stated that the motion to vote on the substitute motion fails and the original motion made by him is now on the floor, which is to recommend to the City Council to adopt an ordinance which merges contiguous lots which have less than a 30 foot frontage and 3,000 square feet. Comm. Sheldon stated that he was persuaded by Comm. Compton's argument that they were not trying to preclude the ability to build on 30 foot lots in the Shakespeare Track, as an example, where all the lots are 82 feet deep. Motion by Comm. Schulte, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to amend the original motion made by Chmn. Izant from, "less than a 30 foot frontage and 3,000 square feet," to, "less than 30 feet at the front and an average lot width of 30 fee 4 and less than 2,400 square feet." ' Chmn. Izant spoke against this amendment. He felt the ultimate effect of this amendment is to increase the density of the City. Comm. Sheldon asked that if the Commission passed a merged lot ordinance which spelled out 3,000 square feet, and during the public hearing which followed a property owner had a lot that was less than the 3,000 square feet but did have the 30 foot frontage, would it be within the Commission's authority to make exceptions to the rule regarding the amount of square footage on a case-by-case basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 16 Ms. Sapetto replied that the purpose of the ordinance is to look at it on a case-by-case basis, but unless they implemented it consistantly pursuant to what is worded in the ordinance, they would not be operating in a legal fashion. Whatever criteria the Commission decides upon tonight is the one they would be using to gauge by. She stated that they could loosen up the criteria if they so choose. Comm. Sheldon asked if they could open up the criteria to include a consideration of the square footage of lots in the particular area. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. The ordinance could be fashioned in such a way as to require a minimum frontage of 30 feet and that the lot must conform to at least the minimum size of the lots in the neighborhood. Comm. Sheldon wished to let the amendment stand as it is. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, and Schulte. Comms. Shapiro, Newton, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. None. None. Chmn. Izant stated that the motion now on the floor is that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they adopt an ordinance for the merging of contiguous lots which have less than a 30 foot frontage and less than 3,000 square feet. Comm. Schulte called for the question. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comm. Sheldon, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comms. Compton and Shapiro. None. None. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-25 as written. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Newton, Schulte, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Compton and Shapiro. None. None. A recess was taken at 10:05 P.M. Comm. Schulte left at this time. The meeting was resumed at 10:20 P.M. LOT COVERAGE Ms. Sapetto recommended that the Commission review the attached Preliminary Environmental Impact Report and find that this project would not have a significant effect on the environment and ask that a negative declaration be prepared. She stated that the staff also recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution adding Section 229.1 Lot Coverage to the zoning code. This Section would define lot coverage and allow architechtural projections and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 LOT COVERAGE (Cont.) page 17 open and unenclosed balconies that project from the face of the building, not exceeding five feet, to be excluded when calculating lot coverage. Ms. Sapetto stated that at the City Council's regular meeting of September 11, 1984, they adopted a resolution of intension directing the Planning Commission to examine the sections of the Zoning Code that pertain to lot coverage to determine whether or not it was the intent to include square footage of second story balconies in calculations of lot ooverage. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Zonging Code does not currently contain a definition of lot coverage. Under each zone --R-1, R-2, R-2B, R-3, and RP --there is a Section that defines permissible lot coverage. For zones R-1, R-2, R-2B, and R-3, the maximum lot coverage permissible is 65 percent of the area of the lot. For the zone RP, the maximum lot coverage permissible is 70 percent of the area of the lot. Currently, the unofficial interpretation has been to include cantilevers and balconies in the 65 percent and 70 percent figures. The 65 percent figures, with no exceptions, has encouraged the building of box-shaped houses with little architechtural relief. Ms. Sapetto stated that an alternative to this project includes adding Section 229.1, Lot Coverage definition. However, the exclusion will differ. The option is to allow an additional 5 percent of lot coverage for balconies. Staff does not recommend this because it allows for too much flexibility. Allowing a balcony not exceeding five feet instead of a balcony 5 percent of the lot size would result in more uniformity. Comm. Compton felt that there has not been enough study of this issue for a resolution. Ms. Sapetto replied that Comm. Compton could recommend some other alternatives. The public hearing was opened at 10:30 P.M. Wilma Burt, 1125 Seventh Street, felt that if balconies are at the second or third floor level and can be used as open space, they should be considered as open space and not lot coverage. She did not feel that balconies should extend into three foot side yard setbacks, but she did not see why they couldn't extend to the front or to the back of a building. Steve LaGree, 941 Duncan Place, Manhattan Beach, asked if it was true that in order to get 400 square feet minimum requirement of open space and setbacks, you have to build a deck ten feet wide upstairs. Ms. Sapetto stated that what whey were trying to do was to liberate the law so that those second story balconies not be included in the lot coverage. The public hearing was closed at 10:35 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 LOT COVERAGE (Cont.) page 18 -Comm. Peirce felt that adding this section would do nothing but increase the bulk of buildings. He did not feel that this was an improvement to the City of Hermosa Beach. He felt that more examples of the environmental impact should have been given in the report. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council brought up this item at their 9-11 meeting and have asked the Planning Commission to look at it. Comm. Peirce asked what the City Council's rational was for this. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was to determine whether or not the intent was to include square footage of second story balconies in the calculation of lot coverage. The Staff felt that by allowing the exemption, it would break the facade of a building as opposed to building in a straight box style in order to maximize the use of the 65 percent. Comm. Peirce stated that he would be against it until someone could show him how it would benefit the City. He recommended that: the public hearing be postponed until they had more information regarding how this can be used to the advantage of the City of Hermosa Beach architectfirally without increasing the bulk of the building. Comm. Compton stated that in Manhattan Beach they allow 72 percent lot coverage and include no overhangs so that you can cover the entire lower level of the property with volume. Therefore, he felt you could come up with a much more pleasing architectural scheme. In Hermosa Beach you can get the same square footage but because you cannot build as much on the lower level, you have to put more on top which creates a bulky, box-structure look. He didn't feel the planning before them addressed the issue of architectural design. Therefore he felt there should be more study on this matter. Comm. Sheldon felt that this ordinance is a result of a large amount of time being taken up by the BZA to allow a deck to be put on an existing structure by the use of a variance. He felt that the consensus of a number of people is that it is not harmful to either the neighborhood or the structure to allow outdoor living space in the form of decks to be added to structures. He did not feel it added bulk. Comm. Sheldon felt that the other issue the Commission should discuss is whether or not they want to increase the allowable lot coverage. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to find that the project does not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and ask that a negative declaration be declared. Comm. Peirce felt that the additional bulk to 5 percent of the lot coverage decreases the amount of light and air movement between buildings and causes substantial damage to the property owners adjacent to these decks in regards to view and their enjoyment of their property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 LOT COVERAGE (Cont.) page 19 Comm. Sheldon and Comm. Compton did not feel decks added bulk to buildings. Comm. Compton stated that the 65 percent lot coverage in Hermosa Beach is absolutely the most restrictive he has ever seen. Other cities require 65 percent but they include building footprint only not cantilevers; not projected decks; and not areas that are used for carports, which he felt exacerbated the parking problem in Hermosa Beach. Comm. Sheldon called for the question. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, Newton, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Peirce. ComI11.. Schulte None. Comm. Sheldon asked that if they chose not to consider decks as lot coverage, would it follow that they would not necessarily want to restrict the size of the decks assuming that they did not violate the setbacks and side yards. Ms. Sapetto replied that that was a possibility. If they wished to entertain that, the Staff would need to take that back and address that idea. Comm. Compton felt that Comm. Sheldon's idea would require a lot of information gathering relating to exactly how it would effect the building environment. He did feel that if you allowed decks to extend more than five feet, you would be creating a situation where you don't have usable open space underneath the deck. Comm. Compton stated that in regards to the Staff report, page 2 paragraph 2, "Staff does not consider this to be the best alternative because it allows too much flexibility," Comm. Compton felt that the more flexibility you have the more creative you can be. Motion by Comm. Sheldon to recommend to the City Council that they change Section 229.1 to allow an additional 5 percent of lot coverage for balconies. The motion died for lack of a second. Comm. Compton felt that the 5 percent was less liberal than five feet because a five foot deck on all sides of the building would probably exceed the 5 percent. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve adding Section 229.1 Lot Coverage to the Zoning Code which would define lot coverage and allow architectural projections and open and unenclosed balconies that project from the face of the building, not exceeding five feet, to be excluded when calculating lot coverage. Comm. Peirce spoke out against the motion stating that it would allow a structure to be built.which would allow more lot coverage than is presently allowed and would increase the side profile of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 LOT COVERAGE (Cont.) page 20 building and decrease the view and light of neighbors on either side. He felt it would also increase the clutter and density of the City. Chmn. Izant asked if there was another section other than 229.l that would automatically preclude decks from intruding into front, side, and rear setbacks. Comm. Compton stated that the zoning requirements would still be in effect in relationship to what you could project into front, side, and rear yards. Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a section that tells you how far you can protrude into setbacks. She then read the following: "Placement of buildings cannot be closer to the rear property line than a distance of five feet.· However, when it abuts an alley, it can be three feet from the rear property line on the first floor and one foot from the property line on the second floor. The distance between any building shall not be less than six feet. The distance between a main building shall not be less than six feet." Ms. Sapetto stated that this would prevail. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, Newton. Comm. Peirce and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Schulte. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Newton, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P.C. 84-26 recommending to the City Council to add to the Zoning Code Section 229.1 Lot Coverage. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, and Newton. Comm. Peirce and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Schulte. DOWNTOWN WORK PROGRAM Mr. Fergus referred the Commissioners to a flow chart presented by himself. This flow chart was prepared in response to the Planning Commission's request at the meeting of August 21, 1984, that a revised work program be prepared. Mr. Fergus then went over each step indicated on the flow chart. Comm. Peirce noted on the chart where it said, "funding improvements." He asked if that money would come from the Costa! Conservency. Mr. Fergus replied in the affirmative. Comm. Peirce asked whether this money would be a grant or a loan and what the amount of the money would be. Mr. Fergus replied that the Costa! Conservency works on a revolving fund basis where they do expect to get paid back at some point in time. He stated that the terms of payment and interest rates are negotiable but that it is not a free grant. Comm. Peirce asked what Mr. Fergus intended to bring into the process PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK PROGRAM (Cont.) page 21 to make Tasks Two and Three more interesting and viable to interest more people in doing something about the downtown area. What did he intend to produce that has not already been done in the last five years. Mr. Fergus stated that the issue of urban design has not been addressed in any great detail. That is one of the issues that has to be dealt with at the City level. Mr. Fergus described urban design as improvements to streets, median lines, planters, a single architectural design that is desired in the downtown area, and signing aesthetics. Comm. Peirce felt that the City already had a lot of these types of designs on the shelf. Ms. Sapetto stated that they did not. She stated that the plans that have been produced to date have been piecemeal, and there has been no consensus behind them. Their ultimate goal now would be to develop a zoning regulation and a specific plan to govern devel opm ent in the downtown area as well as getting funding for street improve ments and any other type of improvements that would be generated in t hi s plan through the Costal Conservency. She felt it was important for the Planning Commission to address how they wou ld guide the downtown development in the way they wanted to, such as preserving the village character as opposed to development to the max imum zoning standard. Comm. Peirce asked if they would be making specific recommendations for rezoning whole areas. He didn't feel he was hearing any specific results or actions that will be coming out of this plan. Mr. Fergus disagreed. He referred to the first product which is the land use plan. He stated that that product specifically deals with the Biltmore Hotel site. Comm. Peirce felt that they should first define what the land use is and make the recommendation based on that and then move on to the next issue. He was opposed to getting a report which doesn't have hard recommendations as far as what to do in specific areas. Mr. Fergus indicated that he was also opposed to doing a report like that. He stated that in addition to land use, he would be providing a shopping list of improvements that are necessary to make, and those costs will be prioritized. Comm. Sheldon stated that he was void of an appreciable sense of urgency among a variety cf constituencies --the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the citizens of the community. He was afraid that without that sense of urgency, this stuay would go nowhere. Chmn. Izant felt that the citizens wouldn't come to them until the structures start to go up, and then the citizens will come to the Commission and complain. The downtown land owners wouldn't come to them because less regulation is better regulation as far as they are concerned. He pointed out that the City Council has returned this to the Planning Commission saying that, "Yes, we think it's a good idea." ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK PROGRAM (Cont.) page 22 Chmn. Izant stated that this process will probably take at least ten months to a year to do. If they don't go through with this plan and a year from now a big land owner wants to put up his big building, then it will be too late. Then the citizens and the City Council will be asking why the Planning Commission didn't do something to protect the downtown area. Chmn. Izant stated that he would like to see the study go foward in a slightly different order. He would like Task One to be done first. He would then label Task Two as land use recommendations where specific recommendations are presented to the Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission shares those recommendations with the land owners in the work shops. Then he would come back and do Task Three which includes the pictures and signs and graphs. Comm. Compton concurred with Chmn. Izant. He then asked Mr. Fergus what he meantby, 'tJrban design studies are studies relating to massing that they would want to allow light and ventilation." Mr. Fergus replied that they would not be getting into a great deal of detailing regarding that. He stated that they would be trying to address the basic heighth issue. Comm. Compton stated that he would be adamant about getting as much public testimony early in the procedure as possible. Comm. Peirce stated that they needed to get data collection and land use recommendation plans before they move on to urban design. He also felt that the money should be put into Task One and Two. Chmn. Izant stated that he would rather spend the whole $20,000 on Tasks One and Two and Three and let the Planning Commission and the City Council carry everything else further on. Comm. Peirce concurred that the money should be spent up front. Mr. Fergus agreed with the Commissioners. He felt that he would be most useful to the Commission in establishing a foundation for land use and establishing a program that the City can carry forward in the future. Comm. Sheldon asked, in regards to the chart presented, if Mr. Fergus would be able to expand on the products that they would be receiving if they were to put all $20,000 in to Tasks One, Two, and Three. Mr. Fergus replied that they would get serious about land use and the mixture of land use and the statistics behind them. They could also get more seriously into marketing. He stated that if the Commission wanted to go ahead with this idea, he would need to come back to the Planning Commission with an expanded work program. Comm. Compton stated that in Mr. Fergus's earlier outline there seemed to be a lot of worthwhile items in Tasks Four through Eight. He wanted to see if there were things in Four through Eight that should be included in Tasks One through Three. He did agree that Tasks One through Three were the most important. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK PROGRAM (Cont.) page 23 Comm. Compton also stated that in regards to the application process for the Costal Conservency, some cities win and some cities lose. And if Hermosa Beach is going to win in the application process, the City should get some input from these consultants. Comm. Peirce felt that that decision should be made later on, perhaps six months to a year from now. Comm. Compton asked whether the elimination of items four through eight also meant the elimination of the policy plan. Mr. Fergus replied that a policy plan is in the eyes of the beholder. Ms. Sapetto felt that they needed four through eight. She felt that what they were talking about eliminating was after nu~ber eight. Comm. Compton felt that what they needed was the basic data input and Mr. Fergus's recommendation as to what should be done to the downtown area. Comm. Sheldon told Mr. Fergus that they wanted most of the money put into Tasks One, Two, and Three and a sprinkling of money to take them from there with specific recommendations on land use for the Commission to deal with. Comm. Peirce felt that the Commission needed recommendations from the consultants as to what they think the best configuration for the downtown area is. Comm. Compton asked if that would be the action program. Mr. Fergus replied that Tasks Six through Eight --improvement costs, implementation, and policy plans --is basically considered the action program. This is where they would be looking forward to the City telling what it wants in terms of land use. After that, a shopping list of public improvements necessary to make that plan happen would be formulated. He felt that the Commission was now stating, "Let's emphasize the first part and deemphasize the second part." He stated that they would take part of the $6,500 originally to be used for the latter half and put it in the first half. Comm. Compton felt that the recommendations on implementation are very important and that that is where they needed the consultants. Comm. Newton asked Mr. Peirce if it was correct that he did not want the consultants spending time participating in the work shops. Comm. Peirce stated that that was correct. He felt that the consultants should be involved in the initial data collection which will evolve into several plans. The Commission should then take those plans through the public hearing process themselves. After the public hearings are over, the Commission will give those plans back to the consultants to redo their master plan. After that, the consultants will then help to implement those plans. Comm. Newton asked how much money was allocated to attendance at public hearings and workshops. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK PROGRAM (Cont.) Mr. Fergus replied that $3,000 is allocated for that. page 24 Comm. Peirce felt that they would have to convince the City Council that this is a good plan. Mr. Fergus stated that he has a fairly clear direction on what the Planning Commission wants and that he would get together with Ms. Sapetto to work out the details of reassigning the money. Comm. Peirce didn't feel that Mr. Fergus should have to come back to another meeting with the revised plan. He felt a writtn presentation would be suffiGient. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to recommend to the City Council that the firm of PBR be employed to work on the downtown program with the majority of the money being spent up front on data collection and plans, and with some money being spent on implementation of the plan. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Peirce, and Chmn. Izant. None. Comrns. Shapiro and Schulte. None. Chmn. Izant noted for the record that Comm. Shapiro left the meeting at 11:10 P.M. Comm. Peirce asked about the finance subcommittee meeting for C-Potential. Ms. Sapetto replied that the City Council is not meeting until October 9. She said that she will need to firm up some dates with the City Council subcommittee and that she will notify the Planning Commission subcommittee of that meeting. Comm. Peirce asked what happened to the land use element. Ms. Sapetto stated that she included a memo in the Commissioner's packet about that and she thought that the Commissioners might like to schedule a special meeting to discuss only the land use element. She stated that the Commission could direct staff to have the October 2 meeting focus only on the land use element. Chmn. Izant asked that it be scheduled for October 2. Comm. Compton stated that at an earlier work session in regards to this, they had talked about having a work session to plan the plan and come up with some schedule of items that were going to be addressed. He thought this d~scussion would be included at the October 2 meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that she did give the Commissioners a list of priorities at their orientation session. She stated that if the Commissioners had any other ideas, they were welcome to expand on that list. Chmn. Izant felt that the Commissioners should look at that list and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 page 25 see if they agree with it. He felt that it would not hurt if the Commissioners talked about what they wanted to bring up next under "Commissioners' Items" on the agenda. Comm. Sheldon asked if Ms. Sapetto could put the priority question on the agenda and give the Commissioners her thoughts on it at the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto informed the Commissioners that she has accepted a position elsewhere and she is leaving the City of Hermosa Beach and probably would not be at the next meeting. She felt that a lot of these things would probably have to be put on hold because there will be no public works director, no planning director, and no city attorney at the next meeting. Comm. Compton remarked on a complaint made by one of the audience participants about the notices that went out. He stated that they had talked about adding a "plain language" version to the advertising. Ms. Sapetto replied that that staff d :id try to do this. Comm. Compton stated that he would like to see a copy of it in their next package and then maybe they can make suggestions that would help. Motion to adjourn at 12:05 P.M. No objections. So ordered. 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 regu arly scheduled meeting of Sept mber 18, 1984. Date