HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1961MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, held at the City Hall, n~rm.osa Beach, California, January 9, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present -Comm. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Absent -Comm. Locken and Edgerton. Present -Bud M, Trott, Chief Building Inspector John E. Stevens, City Engineer The meeting was called to order by Chairman Viault, and minutes of the December 12, 1960, regular meeting were unanimously approved. DOYLE H. BOREN Review of application for zone variance of Doyle H. Boren to permit 8-story apartment house at 1500 Strand, originally approved by P. C. 154-302, the City Council,hearing the petition on appeal from the Comm::i.ssiOll~s decision., referring the matter back to the Commission, asking for recommendation on land floor area ratios and bulk control stipulations,. The sum of $500 · was appropriated to hire outside technical assis.tance in arriving at such recommendation. Comm, Fredricks made the following statement: ''I think we sh,ould be aware of the fact and indicate in the record that we are aware that there is a general plan in the offing and that we are going toward that direction, but from the best informatia we have, we would not be able to obtain any aasistance f'rom that general plan for this_ problem before one and a half to two years. This problem must be resolved before that. As a justification that we are intere.sted in the general plans, we know it will not be inexpensive and consequently we are aware of the fact that we do not want out-of-hand to spend the city's money on these different studies unless necessary, but as long as this is a pressing problem and has created so much intereat from the citizens and in light of the fact that it would be one and a half to two years before we have an answer in ,our general plan, it is justified that we go ahead and ask the City Manager that we make use of this help." On motion by Co1m11.. Fredricks, seconded by Comm. Johnson, it was unanimously voted that a letter be directed to the City Manager requesting outside technical assi&tance in answer to the particular questions. referred to the Commission by the City Council's letter of December 22. Chairman Viault then moved that action on this petition be held over, the date to be established later. Conun. Black seconded the motion,which carried unanimously. Mr. Lou J. Kaufman, 1937 Bay View Drive, asked to comment on the petitions presented to the Council approving and opposing this application, stating that the petition he had sponsored opposing this_ 8-~tory building contained 160 names of property owners in Hermosa, representing a cross .... section of the city, only seven f'.avori.ng the structure. He stated that another petitio~ favoring the building,., contained many names of out-of-town addresses.
Planning Comnis.sion 2 January 9, 1961 COAST ENGINEml!NG-COMPANY Public hearing on application for conditional u_se permi. t of Coast Engineering Company to permit a production laboratory at 58-llth Street, Lot 14 (except the N.E .. 33'), Block 11, Hermosa aeach Tract. A letter from the owner of the property, zoned C-2, giving permission for this use by his tenant accompanied the file and was read by the secretary. Mr. Edward Hawkins, 16-14th Street, represented the company, stating that their business had been conducted on 14th Street for s:everal years and wished to expand into larger quarters. While he anticipated no pari:ing difficulties, there ia parking available on the property, At no time would production employees be more than five persons. Mr. and Mrs. Mellanders, owners of property in the neighborhood, questioned parking problems that might a.rise from such a business. Mr. Hawkins. explained the nature of his business, stating there -were no odors or fumes. from the processing, the raw material is delivered once every ninety days, and the product is usually shipped Yi.a parcel post or United Parcels. Chairman Viault commented that though light manufacturing, the business appeared basically manufacturing. Comm. Fredricka moved that the petition be granted. Connn. Johns.on seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote-: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comn. Hales, Black, Fredricks and Johnson. Chairman Viault. Camm. Locken and Edgerton, Thereupon, Resolution P. C. 154-310, on mc,tion by Comm. Fredricks, seconded by Comm. Johnson, was adopted granting:-the,;,petitiOll -fer~ __ phe_reas.eL1ihat::the type of laboratory work that will be performed at said location is not covered specifically by the zoning ordinance, and it is 0£ such a nature that it falls within Section 800-B (36) of the ordinance, the vote being as follows.: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: conm. Hales, Black, Fredricks and Johnson. Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Edgerton. It was unanimously agreed to postpone discus.sion of Item 4 on the agenda, propos,ed turning radii standards for garage and open parking, until Item. 6 (Davis Karl pat"ki.ng determination) and Item 7 (LDS, Inc., parking determination) were considered. MRo DAVIS KARL presented plan& for· 28 units to be constructed at 1741 Pacific Coas_t Highway0 n.orth 64' of Lot 161 Block Bl., Second. Addition to Her50sa Beach, showing a 90 turn into garages with a 26' -curning radius and a 180 turn into. garages w.i. th a 26' radius. After hearing Mr. Karl's proposal, action was postponed until after hearing representativea o£ LDS, Inc. L D s Inc. was repre«ented by Mr. John B. Scbmolle. They proposed a 10-unit structure oft Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 3, Montmarie Tract, 743-24th Place, having a 23' driveway with a 90° turn into garages. Mr. Schmolle argued that the 22' turning radius specified in the zoning ordinance should govern.
Planning Commission 3 January 9, 1961 Mr. Stevens explained how he arrived at the s.tandards proposed i.n the exhibits presented by the Building Inapector. It was. felt that there should be more study of these exhibits before acceptance by the Conmrl.ssion, and on motion by Comm. Fredricks., seconded by Comm. Hales, it was. unanimously voted to postpone action thereon until the regular meeting of February 13, for further study. Comm. Black moved the approval of the Davis Karl plan as submitted. The motion was seconded by Comm. Fredricks, carrying by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Hales, Black and Chairman Viault, Comm. Fredricks. and Johnson. Comm.. Edgerton and Locken. Comm. Fredricks moved the approval of the L. D S, Inc., plan as submitted, the motion being s.econded by Connn. Black and carrying unanimously. HERMOSA BEACH BOWL Parking determination for the proposed bowling alley on L.ot 2, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach. Mr. Mike Roy advised the Commission that the new venture would be known as the Hermosa Beach Bowl, Jointly owned by San Rafael-Van N:uys. Ventur~ Inc., and Van Nuys Bowling, Inc. He introduced Mr. Rex Link who is responsible for the parking layout. The Coomri.ssion was told that there would be 250 stalls wbi.ch included some used jointly with the Lucky Market. Ohairman Viault moved that a letter be written to the Building Department . J ( instructing them that for the Beach Bowl the parking requirement be established (}/ a:t a total joint figure for the bowling alley and supermarket at 250 stalls t~· minimum, and that the parking layout be submitted to the Building Department o ,.,..,. for review by the Department and· the City Engineer for final acceptance. 1i :I/ COHDD.. Black seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. r R. A. WATT CONS'1RUOTION 00. Letter from Building Inspector advising that data relative to the R. A. Watt Construction Company's application for zone amendment will be available to the Commission on Monday, January 16, 1961. 0OOIJD.. Fredricks moved that this matter be continued to January 16, at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Viault seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT at 10:45 p.m. to Monday, January 16, 1961, at 7:30 pm. r
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING·OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1961, AT 7:30 P.M. Present: Absent: Comm. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Edgerton. Present: Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector John E. Stevens, City Engineer R. A. WATT CONSTRUCTION CO. Continuation of hearing on R. A. Watt Construction Company application for zone change from R-1 (R-3 potential) to R-3 of the westerly 135' of Lot 33, Hiss Addition, review of proposed lot division, and approval of precise plan showing proposed 64 units. At the December l2 continued hearing, the Conmrission had voted to request the City Manager to make certain studies involving the development of this plan. At the regular meeting of January 9 the matter was postponed until January 16 at which time a report on these studies would be available to the Commission. The Commission was presented with cppies of a report from Mr. Trott and Mr. Stevens, which incorporated the cOlIDllents and recommendations of the professional pJanning consultant employed to investigate the matters referred to. Questions were directed to Mr. George Foutts, representing the applicant, pertaining to items in the report. Mr. Foutts stated that the fire department and water company would have to be contacted to see what could be worked out for hydrants and fire protection. Relative to the suggestion that access to the property be made through the trailer park to Valley, Mr. Foutts informed the Conmrission that Mr. Watt had already purchased the westerly 135' and would have no control over the easterly section, and that the property could na longer be considered one parcel. Conm. Black expressed his views that Valley Drive was already too congested, suggesting that access might be made over to 16th Street and over to Monterey Boulevard. Comm. Hales suggested that the applicant study the staff report, the Planning Coumission·having no particular objections to any of the features contained therein, that the Commis.sion s.et up parking to be considered reasonable, and that Mr. Foutts return with a counter proposal. Comn. Johnson said that it was obvious. that the nwnber of units wcu1d have to be reduced and felt that the number of units and access thereto would have to be worked out by Mr. Watt based on the report. CollDll.. Fredricks did not feel it the duty of the Commission to predetermine:i:arking for any plan not yet submitted to the Commission. Chairman Viault expressed his opinion that this entire area should be considered as raw land, drainage, utilities, etc., being developed for the total area, the present plan being the first step ltoward development of the whole area. Discussing the access to garages, it was agreed that it would be better for the applicant to study the report and come up with a new plan.,. rather than t.o lave· certain standards laid down by the Commission for nim to follow. A motion by Comm. Fredricks., seconded by Connn. Black, that this matter be continued until applicant requests that it be set back on the agenda, a new plan to be presented based on the recommendations of the staff report of January 16, carried unanimously.
Planning Commission 2 1/16/61 EISNm PROPOSAL FOR GENERAL PLAN Mr. Simon Eisner presented a formal proposal for-developing a general plan for Hermosa Beach. As he read the proposal, he invited questions and discussion of the various proposed studies, maps and plans, and explained the need for each of the proposed items. On completion of his presentation, there was considerable discussion as to the procedure to be followed for the acceptance <Yf such a proposal by the Oi ty Council. Since the Commission had had the opportunity to hear several professional consultants discuss the importance of· a general plan to be used as a goal toward which the city could develop, and since the Commission had met with Mr, Eisner on several occasions, it was felt that the Comn:ission should have a joint meeting with the Council to study Mr. Eisner's proposal and to pass on imormation which the Council had not had the benefit of. Asked if the members felt they could answer any questions proposed by the Council, the Chairman answered possibly not on a technical basis but they should be able to convince the Council of the need for this program. Comm, Fredricks moved that Mr. Trott be authorized to present this report of Mr. Eisner's to each of the City Councilmen and that he be authorized to inquire about setting a date for a joint workshop meeting between the Commission and Council to discuss. this report. Comm. Johnson seconded the motio:n.,which carried Ullanimously. PRorosED PURCHASE OF BEACH PROPF.RTY At this point, City Manager Harris asked to be heard. He stated that the Citizens Advisory Committee had suggested that the eity consider ~quisition of the privately-owned property, 3101 of the beach property being controlled by the Sherman Trust Company. The Beach Improvement Committee in s0D2 of their studies met with representatives of the company. At that time., they said they would withhold any plans for residential development.on that property; and that the City had until March 31, 1961, to acquire their property, else they would consider the City bad no interest in the acquisition of their property. Before the City Countil, questions were raised as to how thia property could be acquired. the tideland funds were considered, and immediately there came the proposal for the development of a pier. The Council found no objection in pursuing this development of a pier and obtained an architect to do a drawing showing the use of the adjacent lands and how this property might lend itself in adjunct with a pier. If the Council adopts the policy they propose for the development of a pier and acquisition of the beach properties, they can proceed with the negotiations with the State to use the tide land funds and begin acquisition of the properties to develop the pier. The use of the ~unds is permissible for the pier, and the State can be shown that the acquisition of these lands would be a logical adjunct to a pier. The purpose of the plan must be approved by the State, not the details. He asked the Commission if they saw problems associated with this plan and for their reaction to this proposal. Comm.. Johnson's opinion-was that if this is the only way the property can be acquired by the City, then he would go along with the idea; however, he is opposed to a pier and parking on the beach. Chairman Viault questioned the number of stalls shown on the sketch presented, expressing the view that the number shown was apparently greater than would be required for the pier development. He felt every other avenue should be explored for acquiring the land and its use, rather than settling for the pier and parking on the beach.
Planning Commission 3 1/16/61 Proposed Purchase of Beach Pr~perty Contd Mr. Harris said the issue is whether parking and the pier would be a compatible develo~ment, and if there are other developments, then certainly the Commission should come up with someo comm. Johnson interjected the statement that the City c~Jld not maintain the former pier. Mr. John Armer, representing the Citizens Advisory Comittee, said that the committee had primarily recommended that this property be acquired by the City and had secondarily recommended that there would be no pier in Hermosa Beach. The committee's study emphatically pointed out that nobody wanted a pier, and it is felt that the City is obligated to find some other alternative to acquire this property. If the citizens want the City to acquire this beach property, it can be done. The pier was outvoted by the committee unanimously. Chairman Viault asked then why has only a pier been proposed. Mr. Harris answered that he was present to carry forth an attitude of the City Council; this property is available to the City; tideland funds vs. bonds has been studied by the Council, and they feel by using the tideland funds, this is one way of acquiring this property. The Chairman said there must be other solutions, and Mr. Harris stated that the City Council has agreed this is what they would like the COillll.ission to study, they want their attitudes and are now asking about this one plan, adding that he felt:this matter to be of enough significance to this community to warrant a joint meeting of the Council and Comnission for thorough discussion. Chairman Viault asked if the Council authorized a continual study until a determination was made. The employment of a person to draw a sketch, a conceptive drawing that would serve as a portrayal of the kind of thing that could be done in keeping with the use of the tideland oil money so that a petition could be made to the State, had been authorized by the Council; in this way it could be determined if the money could be used as proposed and would not necessarily mean that it would be used this way. Connnission members expressed their opposition to private capital or county funds being used in acquiring this property. On motion by Comm. Fredricks, seconded by COIIBn, Hales, it was unanimously agreed that this matter should be considered in a joint workshop meeting with the City Council at the same time as the Eisner proposal. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:20 p.m. r
-MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; held. at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California, February 14, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL. CAIL: "Present -Comm. Black, Fredricks, Hales, and Johnson. Absent -Comm. LQCken, Noble and Chairman Viaul t. Present -Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector John E. Stevens, City Engineer Vice-Chairman Fredricks, in the absen~e of the Cb.a.irman, called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the minutes of the January 9 regular meeting and January 16 adjourned meeting, together with 8!11:ndm.ent to the latter meeting as·follows: Insert "subcommittee on Beach Improveirent of the"· after "that the", pa.ge 2, first line, "Proposed Purchase of Beach Pro_perty"; and insert ''Mr. John Armer said in reference to the Beach subcommittee~ in·lieu of "Mr. John Armer, representing the Citizens Advisory Committee, said~, page 3, third paragraph, first line. Motion by Comm. Black, secOJ;lded by Comm. Johnson, approving the minutes and amendment carried unanimously. comm. L.ocken and Noble took their s.eats at this time. DOYLE H. BOREN Continuation of review of application for zooe variance of Doyle H. Boren to permit 8-story apartment house·at 1500 Strand. Mr. Boren was present. Mr .. Chester ·Wi.tt, • 437-28th Street 1 expressed his approval of the variance. Mrs. Louise Kline, 1900 Monterey Boulevard, spoke in oppositiono Comm. Black stated that he could anticipate in the future high-rise buildings along the Strand and that if the structure were to be erected on a block along the Strand r~ther than on three lots, he .might consider the application favorably, but in view of the density requested and in light of the report of the expert planning consultant, he would feel compelled to change bis vote from the original action approving the variance. Other members. concurred in this opinion, and on motion by Comm. Black, seconded by Connn. Locken, it was unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council the denial of this variance. Comm. Black thereupon moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-311 rec01mnending to the City Council the denial o.f this variance o,n the basis of the report .made available to·the Pla.mti.lig Commission by expert advice. Comm. Hales seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES.: ABSEN'r: Comm. L.ocken, Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, ao.d Noble. None. Chairman Viault . BEN W. AND CHARLOTTE L. 1RUMP Public hearing on application fQr variance to permit less than a 3o%, addition maintaining a nonconforming 2'9" sideyard in lieu of 3', existing garage having a turning radius of 14'6'' in lieu of 22', at 2234 Strand, Lot 6, Block 23, Hermosa Beach Tract, for Ben W. and Charlotte L. Trump. Applicants were present, stating they had nothing further to add to their letter accompanying their petition which was read by the secretary.
Planning Commission 2 February 14, 1961 Trump Contd Comm. Johns.on moved that the variance be granted. The motion, seconded by Comm. Nqble, carried unanimously. Col1Dll. J abnson then .moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-312, granting the variance for the reasons that it· is not practical to move the garage to conform to the required turning radius, and 'the 311 encroachment into the sideyard is relatively mi.nor. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows_: AYES: N:OE,S: ABSENT: Comm. Locken, Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Noble. None. Chairman Viault. IR. LUTHER BUSBY -Lot Division Revi_ew of propo~ed lot division for Dr. LJ].ther Bu.aby of Lot 38, Tract 1868,. the easterly 13' Qf this 401 lot to be added to Lot 39, thereby making·L_ot 39 a 53' lot. The remaining 2..7t of L.ot 38, together with Lots 35, 36, 37, 57, 58, 59 and 60, is the site of the Busby residence at 550-2lst Street. Petitioner was present as was Mr. George Thomas, owner of Lot 39. Mr. Thomas explained that if the request were granted, he planned to erect a dwelling for hims.elf within a short time. Motion that a letter be directed· to the Building Inspector approving the lot split was made by Comm. Black, seconded by Comm. Johnson, and carried unanimously. • ***** Comm. Hales inquired as to the proper disposition of the report on high-rise structures by Mr. Arthur Shatz, planning consultant. A motion by Comin.. Black to receive anci file the report for further study was seconded by Comm. Noble and carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:15 P.M. T. Hales, Secretary r
MINUTE.S OF THE IU)}ULAR MEETING-OF THE PLANNDG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California, March 13, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL -Present~ Commo Locken. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault. Absent -None. Present .,. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspect~. Chairman Viault called the meeting to. order, and minutes of-the February 14, 1961, meeting were unanimously approved, on motion by Comm. Black, seconded by Cormn.. Locken. JOHN E. HAWORTH Public-hearing on application for zone ~ndment to change from.R ... l (C potential) to C-3, Lots 7 and 9, Mission Tract, and adoption of precise plan to develop these lots for parking lot, of John E. Haworth. Mr. Haworth was present and stated that at this time the lots would be leased to the u.S.Royal Tire Company for use as parking for their business at 3,0 Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Charles Wiley, 819-3rd .Street, stated that his property adjoined the lots in question and asked concerning some protection from cars driving on his property. Mr. Haworth said there would be a 4x6 bumper at least 6' away, and a 6 t high board fence. Comn. Fredricks moved that the petition be granted. The motion was seconded by Comm... Noble and carried unanimously. Comm. Fredricks then moved the adoption of Re solution P. C. 154-313 granting the request-to change the zoning from.R-1 (C potention) to C-3, to be used for parking, for the reasons that the property is C potential, that the area around it is c-3, that offstreet parking in that area is greatly needed, and that this is the only property that lends itself to a parking lo.t at that particular place. Comm. Hales seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Mo AND GRACE BINGHAM Public hearing on application for zone variance of c. M. and Grace Bingham to permit construction of a 720 sq. ft. dwelling having .42' westerly sideyard ~~ 2. 25 t~aryard -over existing 3.c.car garage, existing structure having 1. 751 westerly sideyard, 2.25' rearyard and less than 22' turning radius into garages { second unit to be attached to garage apart111ent in the near future) at l23-34th Street, Lot 7, Block 101, Shakespeare Tract. Mr. Bingham. was present to speak in behalf of his petition. He was accompanied by a Mr. Gides who stated th~t his son was purchasing the property and that a duplex would be constructed on the property if the variance were granted. Chairman Viault moved that the variance be granted. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion, which carri~d by t~e following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm, Locken, Black, Fredricks., Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Hales. None.
Planning Commission Bingham. Contd 2 March 13, 1961 Thereupon, Chairman Viault moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-,314 granting the zone variance with the provision that the northerly setback be granted at 2.25' instead of the required 51; the westerly sideyard to be in line with the now nonconforming front wall of the existing garage; that the 22' turning radius into the gal'.age requirement be waived for the development of ·tms property, and tha.t all other requirements of the zoning ordinance be met, for the reason that it w.i.11 not create a hardship with these requirements being met. Thisnmotion was s_econded by Comm. Fredricks and carried by tre following vote: AYES: NO~: AEENT: Connn. Locken, Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viaul t. NQD.eo. None. CHAN A~ 'CHANDLER Public hearing on application for zone variance of Chan A. Chandler to permit division of Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 3, Hermosa View Tract #2, into two lots having widths of 35' and 40'; existing garage on 40' parcel having 1.6' side,,.. ya.rd in lieu of 3', at 635-24th Place. Mr. Chandler was present, speaking in behalf of his petition. The Commission was concerned over the proximity of the existing garage to the side line proposed, suggesting that it would be inadvisable to place a garage for any new dwelling on the vacant parcel near the existing garage. On motion By Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Noble, the request was granted, the vote being unanimous. Comm. Jobnson moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 15,4.;,315 granting this zone variance, provided that the garage wall on the easterly side be made a one-hour, fire wall, for the reason that it is more.desirable to have two larger lots rather than substandard lots. Comm. No.ble seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. HERBERT E. SWITZER Public hearing on application for zone amendment to change from R~3·to C-1 Lots 13· and 15, Block 108, Shakespeare Tract, 2719 Manhattan Avenue, of Herbert E. Switzer.Protesting letters from Dorothea and Hubert W. Jordan and Thomas D0 Crockett were read by the secretary. Mro Switzer presented his reasons for desiring this zone change, stating that this corner property was unfit for residential because of the buses and cars coming to a sht,p there. He proposed a commercial. business on the ground floor with apartments above and introduced a prospective tenant who planned an automatic laundry there. Mr. William Buckland, local contractor, and Mr. Mike Bigo also splke in favor of the petition. ~peaking in opposition were Mro Clarence Hines, .230-28th Street, who did not believe parking facilities could be a,dequate, and a Mrs. Wagner who asked that opposition be registered from the owner of 120-28th Street. There was considerable discussion as to possible ingress and egress and street congestion in that area. Comm. Fredricks moved that the petition be
Planning Commission 3 March 13, 1961 Switzer Contd granted. AYES.: NOES: ABSENT: Seconded by Comm. Black, tbe motion failed to carry as follows: Comm. Locken. Comm. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johns-0n, Noble and Chairman Viault. None. Comm.. Fredricks then moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-316 denying this request for zone amendment for the reason that the area does not lend itself to commercial development, even in a C-1 zone, and the traffic patterns are already overcrowded in relation to the accessible streets. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES:· Comm. Locken. Hal.es, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault, • NOES: None. ABSENT: None. RAYS. AND MARTHA Eo BASSETT Public hearing on application for zone variance of Ray So and Martha E. Bassett to permit relocation of existing fence 101 back from curb in lieu of required 12' at a height of 5' in lieu .of 31, at 223 Manhattan Avenue, Lot 25, Tract 1076. A letter in oppositi,on from Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Guest was read by the secretary. Mr. Bassett s_tated that he had assumed his fence contractor had built the fence on his own property rather than 2' into the city parkway. Since most of the dwellings and fences were out to the property line or over in that area, and since his home with glass front faced the street, he asked that he be permitted to have the 5' fence moved back 2' to the front property line rather than 4' t~ the frcnt setback. Comm. Johnson moved that the petition be granted to set the 51 high fence on the front property line in lieu of 3' high fence. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: AB.SENT: Comm. Locken, Hales, Johnson., Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Black and Fredricks. None. Comm. Johnson then moved adoption of Resolution 154-317 to grant this zone variance to permit a St high fence on the front property line, for the reasons that it w;i...11 not be detrimental if it is relocated to the required front line and will help maintain the privacy necessary in a location of this nature. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: AYES: NO~: ABSENT: Comm. Locken, Hales, Fredricks, Jo.hnson, Noble and Chairman Viaulto Comm. Black. None.
Planning Commission 4 March 13, 1961 ROY M. ROBERTS Public hearing on application for zone variance of Roy M. Roberts to permit over 3o% addition at 1734 Strand, Lot 6, Block 18., Hermsa Beach Tract, maintaining the nonconforming 316" front setback in lieu of required 5'; existing structure having southerly sideyard of 2'1" in lieu of required 31; addition to have 31 southerly sideyard. Mr. Roberts spoke in behalf o£ his request, stating that he intended to cut back the existing eaves on the southerly side of the dwelling and remove the fence on the south side. His architect, Morry Denn, assured Mr. Short., owner of property immediately to the north and who expressed concern over the front setback, that the addition would be no. farther into the front setback than the existing structure,; Mr. Charles Lombardo, 1908 Strand, stated that in his opinion this would be an improvement for Strand property. Mr. Rampi, owner of property to the sou.th questioned the southerly sideyard, and was told that the addition would be set back the required Jt. Comm. Fredricks moved that the variance be granted. Comm. Black seconded t~tion, which carried unanimously. Comm. Fredricks then moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 15-4-e,,318 granting this z.one variance for the reasons that it will upgrade the property_ to improve it and will be an advantage to the surrounding property to have this improvement; the property is presently zoned R-3, and this use is not in any violation in any way of this zoning. COlllDl. Noble seconded this motion, wbi ch carried unanimously. BACON SAL.ES COMP ANY ... Sign .Structure Letter from the Building Inspector, dated February 23, 1961, concerning a sign structure for Bacon Sales Company, llOO Pacific Coast Highway., to consist of an automobile mounted on a large Edison pole,-maximum height 571; this letter carrying signatures of four commissioners approving erection of the sign. Mr. Roger Bacon was present and stated that the actual height of the sign was approximately 45'. Comm. Black moved that the structure be approved. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AlES: NOES: PASS .ABSENT: Comm. Locken, Hales, Black, Fredricks, and Noble. Comm. Johnson. Chai.rm.an Viaul t None. PAMPERED POODIE DOG GROOMING SHOP ""' Training Classes in C--2 Zone Letter from Building Inspector asking determination of use in C,.;.2 zone for. dog..:.training classes, requested by the Pampered Poodle Dog Gro.oming Shop, 426 Pier Avenue. Miss Diane E. Sharp, proprietor, was present and stated that there would be one class weekly from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m..., to be conducted on the property to the rear of her store. Comm. Fredricks-moved that the request be grantedQ The motion, seconded by Comm.. Johnson, carried unanimously.
Planning Commission 5 March 13, 1961 CYR.IL BROOKES .., Parking Determination Letter from the Building Inspector asking parking determination for proposed 3000·square foot commercial building to be erected at 430 Pacific Coast Highway, Lot 21, Garden View, by Cyril Brookes, to be used for electrical contracting business, parking for four spaces being provided in the rear, access being from the 12' alley on the rear of the lot. Comm. Fredricks moved that the plan presented, showing a minimum of four parking spaces, be approved and that the parking area be paved. The motion, seconded by Comm.. Black, carried unanimously. 12t ALLEY EAST OF 430 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY In connection with the foregoing request of Mr. G:yril Brookes, Chairman Viault moved that a letter be directed to the City Manager pointing out the fact that the alleyway to th.e rear of 430 .Pacific Coast Highway is unpaved, and it is the opinion 0£ the Planning Commission that action should be taken to extend the alleyway as a through street, to widen its areaway and to pave this alley. Seconded by Co.mm. Fredricks, this motion carried unanimously. HotiiOJ:l, .lfDlsemad.e-,--to adjourn. However, Mr. Trott asked that the Commission give a ruling on the pro.cedure to be followed in the future regarding emergency matters that come up, creating a hardship by awaiting a decision at the next regular meeting. Comm. Black moved that a letter be written to the Building Inspector instructing him to place all items on the agenda for the regular business meetings except those which, in the estimation of the chairman, warrant a special meeting·to cover a particular hardship. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Chairman Viault a.nnoun~ed that the City Council had asked him and Comm. Noble (who was not present at planning consultant interviews) to accompany them to Pasadena for a meeting with Mr. Simon Eisner relative to a proposed master plan on March 16. Other members were also invited to go if they desired, he said. ADJOURNMENT at 10 :25 p.,m., r
MI.NUfE,S OF THE. REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEA.CH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California, April 10, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL~ Present -CollDD.. Hales, Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Vianlt. Absent •Comm.Locken. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, and on motion by • Conun. Black, seconded by Comm. HaJ.es, minutes of the March 13, 196],,meeting w:ere unanimQusly approved. . . ' MR. AND MR.So LELAND MOSER Public hearing on application for zine variance of Mr. and Mrs. Leland Moser to perm.it 3' rear yard in lieu of 5' and encroachment of a planter 5' into the required 5, northerly sideyard, planter to vary in height from 2½' to 5', at 130-lOth Street, Lots 1 and 2, Tract 1564. Applicants were present. Their architect, Mr. L. A. Young, spoke in their behalf. Plans for a proposed apartment house to b·e erected at this address were submitted and studied by the Commissioners. Motion by Comm. Johnson to grant the variance, seconded by CQilllll. Fredricks, carried as follows: ms: NOES.: ABSENT: Comm.Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Hales and Johnson. Co.mm.o Locken. Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-319, granting this petition for the reasons that the encroachment presents no difficulty; any future development in that area will be taken care of by the builder as far as the sidewalk is concerned, and the turning radius will be. of a substantial nature to indicate to the Commission that it will be of negligible importance to deny this request; any problem necessitated by the variance for the planter would be compensated by the development and placement of a sidewalk in that area; the planter itself does n.Qt encro.ach past the 5' and will aid in beautifying the area; the major reason for maintaining a clear 51 sideyard is for accessibility by the fire department around the building, and this is guaranteed by the roadway, so the main reason for accessibility is n9t impaired. COJDn1.Fredricks seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOE.S: ABSENT: Comm. Bla<:k, Fredricks, Noble and Chai.rman. Viau.It. Comm, Ha1es and Johnson. Comm.. Locken. It was unanimously agreed at this point to consider Item 3 on the.agenda after other items had been disposed of.
Planning Commission 2 April 10, 1961 MAURICE BENATOR -Front Setback on Pacific Coast Highway Letter from Mark Wood, Attorney at Law, relative. to request of Mr. Maurice Benator, 2455-2463 Pacific Coast Highway, that Commission review and study front setback on Pacific Coast Highway in that area. Mr. Wood and his client were present. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Benator had complied with the request for a setback on the highway when he had erected the commercial. building there; he understood that·under the present zoning, no front setback would be required, which, in his opinion, would be detrimental to bis property; therefore_, his reqt1est that the Commission study this matter with regard to a possible traffic hazard which might be created if structures· were permitted to the front property line south of Mr. Benator' s building, asking the Commission for advice as to whether or not any action should be taken at this ti.meo He said that the attitude of neighboring property owners was being explored and that Mr. Benator would like to know the feelings of the Planning Commission. Commo Johnson expressed his approval of the setback on Mr~ Benator's property and his wish that adjoining property owners would meet approximately the same setback that is existing. Comm. Noble said in his opinion Mr. Benator had established a very good precedent in that area, and he would go along in maintaining that in case anything came before the Commission in the future. CoDDn. Fredricks stated that he felt there was merit in Mr. Benator' s position but before expressing his opinion, he would want to hear any arguments in opposition. Comm. Black said there would probably be an urgent appeal to move to the property line but that he would like to. see the setback that has been established be carried out in that area. Comm. Hales felt the traffic situation to be hazardous and Mr. Benator's thought to be very reasonable. Chairman Viault moved that Mr. Wood's letter be received and filed. Comm. Fredricks seconded the motion,which carried unanimously. HERBmT E. SWIT.z.ER Application for zone amendment of Herbert E. Switzer to change Lots 13 and 15, Block 108, Shakespeare Tract, 2719 Makattan Avenue, from R-3 to C-1, referred back to Commission from City Council for full hearing, without recommendation. Petition was denied by Commission March 13, 1961, by Resolution No. P. C. 154-316, and heard by the Council on appeal April 4, 1961. Mr. Switzer produced a proposed parking plan eliminating the necessity of going down Palm Drive. Twenty-eighth Place is not heavily traveled, he said, and this plan would eliminate a broken curb at 2.7th and 28th Place; the two garages now there would be demolished and an unbroken curb would run along Manhattan Avenue between 27th and 28th Place. Hi.s contractor, William Buckland, said that he had recently built a duplex for Mr. Switzer on the lot to the west of the subject property and that his trucks parked on 27th Street had to be seldom moved because of traffic conditions there. The prospective tenant for the proposed coll!llercial building, Mr. Hall, stated that his automatic laundry business would require no deliveries or commercial vehicles, and that there would not at any time be a great number of cars parked there. Comm. Fredricks noted at this point that if the area were rezoned to C-1, any use permitted in that classifipation would be acceptable, and that consequently the fact that a laundromat was proposed there would not determine the decision.
Planning Commission Switz.er Contd 3 April 10, 1961 There was further discussion as to possible changes in the plan submitted to accommodate a building and parking, Comm. Black expressing his view that this property probably should be ~ommercial but that a definite plan for offstreet parking that would not increase any traffic on Manhattan Avenue or 28th Place should be worked out. He suggested changing the plan to throw all traffic onto 27th Street. However, Mr. Switzer answ_ered that this would not provide enough building. Chairman-Viault explained the ordinance prohibiting the rezoning of any one lot, adding that there should be the proper study to determine whether a two or three block area should be granted such a privilege. In view of the fact that there is already so much commercial in the area, Mr. Switzer said, he had asked for this zone change. Comm. Noble noted the additional offstreet parking that would b~ provided, including a two,,;.car garage and 5 parking spaces, the laundromat proposed probably not requiring all these spaces, since the clientele will be walking people to a large degree. He also called attention to the collllllercial already in the area. Comm. Fredricks moved that the petition be granted. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black and Noble. • Comm. Hales, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm.. Loe keno Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution Po C. 154,..320, recommending to the City Council the. denial of this petition for the reasons that this comes very close, if not within, the understanding of spot zoning, which is pre>-hibited by the ordinance; the area is not constituted by size, location or traffic patterns, in light of the surrounding area, for commercial develop,.-ment, and unless the COJlllnission is prepared to grant C (commercial) to all the property up and down Manhattan Avenue from 27th Street to Longfellow, the change to commercial should not be granted in this instance; and the Commission should be concerned :;with the fact that this is a request for C-1 (commercial), and mu.st be considered in the light of any of the classifications that are allowed in the C-1 development. Comm. Johnson seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NO~S: ABSENT: Comm.. Hales, Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm,. Black and Noble. Comm. Locken. c. DIMAS~ Lot Division Review of proposed lot division by Mr. c. Dimas, 720-2lst Street, of the southlffilt 135' of Lot 22 and northwest 21.88' of the southwest 135' of Lot 21, Block 81, Second. Addition to Hermosa Beach, into two parcels, each having more than 40' width and 100' depth, and a review of proposed offstreet parking for a six-unit apartment house to be erected on the westerly parcel,. Andy Dimas, son of petitioner, and con.tractor, Bill Daniel, spoke on behalf of the request. There ensued a discussion on the need for a parking ordinance which would set up standards and eliminate the necessity of each builder coming before the Commission.
Planning Commission 4 April 10 Comm. Fredricks moved that a letter be directed to-the Building Department approving the di vision of the lot into two parcels, each having more than a 40' width and 100' depth, providing that all other requirements of the ordinance be met, and also approving the offstreet parking proposed for the six units to be erected on the west parcel, which is zoned R!e"3, C011DD.. Noble seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ConJJn. Hales, Black, Fredricks and Noble. Comm. Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm.. Locken. (Comm. Johnson, in casting his vote, stated that he would have approved the lot division but could not vote yes for the proposed parking.) CONVENIENCE STATIONS ON BEACH Letter from Bonnie Bright, Clerk of the City Council, advising of Council's action on March 21 and 2_8 relative to beach convenience facilities, requesting Planning Commission to make a study and hold public hearings. Chairman Viault suggested that a committee be appointed to study this matter and report back to the Commission, at which time a date could be set for a public hearing. This committee could meet with Mr. James O. Clements (appointed by the Council to head a committee composed of residents) and his committee. Comm.. Black asked for clarification concerning hi!'! understanding that the Council had turned down the idea of public facilities except at Pier Avenue. The Chairman explained that it was his understanding that in the City Engineer's report there ~re certain condemnation insinuations and that the Council had attempted to clear this up·by it was not their intent to go into this action, this was a study report, and now the Commission has been asked to study and make the necessary reconunendations since this is a planning function. City Manager Harris said there are two separate matters, one,the study plan and program on tonight's agenda, and secondly, construction of a temporary place at the pier. He added that the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the City Council have both come to the determination that some type of facility is necessary for the public at the beach -how mu.ch, where, when are matters to be further studied and determined by the Conunission. He suggested that the Commission set up a committee to meet with Mr. Clements' committee and give him an opportunity to present any ideas they might have~ The Planning Commission recognizes that one of the responsibilities it has, he said, is planning and proposing new facilities for this con:mruni.ty, and in meeting with the public, can determine if there is a need and.,if so, present a plan to meet the needl;-involving parking, showers, drinking fountains and possibly other things the Commission may think necessary. It was suggested that the Connnission act as a whole, discuss the question amongst themselves before meeting with Mr, Clements' committee or the Citizens'Advisory Committee, the view:s of the latter being reflected in the report submitted. Also the suggestion was made that the City Engineer be invited to meet with·tbe Commission to brief them on the reasons for this development, etc., prior to meeting with Qther bodies. Mr. Stevens, City Engineer, was present and said he would be glad to meet with the Commission at their convenience. It was a~reed to hold t~s m~tter op(;n until al~ other items on the agenda. were . disposed of, and if time permitted, :possibly hear Mr. Stevens at this meeting.
Planning Commission 5 April 10, 1961 REPORT ON L. A. COUNTY RIDIONAL PLA.NNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Viault announced that he and City Manager Harris had attended a public hearing of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on March 29. The purpose of the ,Jteeting was to ~onsider proposed amendments to the master plan for shore line improvement. There was no change proposed in the original plan for Hermosa or Manhattan Beach. The Chairman said that Mr. Harris explained at the meeting that Hermosa favored the intent of the general· plan for shore line improvement, which intent, in our interpretation, is that more provisions be provided to take care of the added people, and that we heartily endorse their acquisition of areas along the coast line to absorb· some of these people. Their attendance at this meeting, Mr. Viault said, was to insure their keeping fully informed as to_ any develQpments in the county's plan a£fecting Hermosa Beacho A copy of the countyJYs master plan is available in his office, Mr, Harris said. ••I o, o BERNICE ROBINSON Public hearing on application for zone variance of Bernice Robinson to add a single-,.family dwelling on Lot 13 and N. 1/2 of 12, Block 1, Hermosa Beach Tract, on which exists a single-family house w.i.th 31 southerly sideyard and balcony to property line, and a garage structure having three nonconforming garages and garage apartmnt, lot size being 45x80 in an R-3 zone, proposing that the.new.building be 4~wi.th a solid wall, from the existing dwelling, 31 from the north property line, six feet from the rear structure and roofed, open balcony to front property line. Applicant explained her request was to permit as wide as possible the proposed structure,to avoid a street-car type house, and agreed that it would be more beneficial to her property and to the neighborhood if the addition were made to the existing dwelling, adhering to the required 4½1 northerly sideyard, requiring substantial rehabilitation to the older building, which would have to b.e brought up to the present building co.de. The garage apartm.ent was occupied primarily by petitioner. Comm. Fredricks moved that a variance be granted to add more than 30% to the existing dwelling for an additional dwelling. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, John.son, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Hales. Comm. Locken., Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution P. Co 154-321, granting the varian~ for the construction of an addition of over 30% to the existing building with a nonconforming sideyard and front yard and nonconforming garages, with the proviso that the northerly sideyard of the new dwelling will conform to the ordinance:, that the distance between the existing garage and the addition conform to the ordinance, that a roofed, unenclosed balcony encroach to the property line in line with the existing balcony in lieu of 11 setback permitted for balcony projections, and with the further proviso that there be filed wi. th the Building Department a statement tba.t the lili:ng quarter a attached to the garage shall not be used for rental purposes, for the reasons
Planning 1Connn:ission I 6 April 10, 1961 that said property is zoned R-3; that all of the surrounding property.ilil used as R-2 or R-3; that the addition will tend to be the best use of t.he property and upgrade it; that the existing small unit attached to the garage does not lend itself to rental purposes; that the shortage of square footage is overcome to a great extent by the filing of the affidavit not to use the small unit attached to the garages for rental purposes. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Noble. Co~ Hales and Chairman Viaul to (For the record, Chairman Viaul t said he did not believe that an 1.Uµ'estricted balcony should be permitted to the property line at the front.) Comm. Locken. DATE SET FOR WORKSHOP MEETING ON BEACH FACILITIES Chairman Viault set Monday, April 17, 1961, at 7:30, as the time for the commission to meet with the City Engineer to learn of the background leading up to the report to the Council by the City Manager and City Engineer pertaining to beach facilities. Comm. Noble was designated to head a committee of the whole Commission for this purpose. The Chairman announced a meeting of the Southern California Planning Congress to be held April 20 at the Pen & Quill in Manhattan Beach, stating that he had made reservations for four membersG Election of officers for the Planning Commission for the year commencing July 1, 1961, would be held at the June meeting, Chairman Viault announced9 asking that members give some consideration to this. Discussed briefly was the present status of the proposed general plan. The City Manager advised that it would be up to the Council to bring up the subje,ct. ADJOURm@IT AT 10:45 p.m. r
REPORT OF A WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE PLANNIID-COMMISSION-OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH WELD AT THE CITY HALL ON MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1961, AT 7:30 PaM:o In the absence of Chairman Viault, Vice-Chairman Fredricks presided. He announced that this workshop meeting had been s.etby Chairman Via.ult at the last regular meeting of the Commission, April 10, 1961, to fulfill a request of the City Council that the Commission study the advisability and feasibility of certain beach convenience facilities and hold public hearings in regard to these matters. Mr. Fredricks welcomed the townspeople-present and explained that this was a workshop meeting, not a public hearing, but that the public was always entitled to attend any workshop or any other meeting of civic bodies. The Commission would attempt to be as objective as possible, he said, adding that they had been supplied with certain material in regard to the subject, which would be considered in their studies. On completion of their studies, the Commission would make certain recommendations to the City'Council. Mr. Fredricks emphasized that tonight's meeting, as set forth, was called for a specific purpose and would go no further than to have an oral report and statement of background of the actual written report, dated March 21, 1961, that was submitted to the City Council by the City Manager and the City ~ineer. For the information of those present, Mr. Fredricks continued, the Chairman of the Planning Commission had appointed Commissioner Joe B. :rtfoble as chairman. of a Planning Commission subcanmittee, hi~ function being to head a committee (which will be a committee of the whole Commission) to make studies of this problem and to meet with interested citizens and citizens' groups, to have meetings of this subcommittee and the interested groups. One of the interested groups is comprised of citizens living in the 2nd Street area., and there will be a meeting with that group. Also, there are groups that have studied this problem, the Beach Subcommittee of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the ma.in body of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and meetings will be held with them. With these introductory remarks concerning the purpose of tonight's meeting and again expressing appreciation to those present for their interest in attending, Mr. Fredricks asked City Manager Harris (for the Commission's record) to tell briefly how the matter of beach conveniences developed, and resulted in the presentation to the Council of the report heretofore mentioned. Mr. Harris explained that the Citizens Advisory Committee and Beach SubcQlllJili.ttee had worked on this subject matter for nearly a year. The subcommittee was representative of the nine geographical areas of the city. For study purposes, the beachfront was broken down into four zones. With reference to the point of facilities, pertaining to restrooms, Mr. Harris recited from the Beach Subcommittee's inspection report of May 25, 1960, as follows: At the north end, Area 1, from Neptune to 25th Street, ttreplace and reroute the walk at the end Qf the Strand and consider an area around the pumphouse as a possible location." Area 2 would comprise 25th Street to Pier Avenue. ''It i$ felt that restrooms would be a good addition to the enjoyment of the beach, particularly for those who come from the inland. There is a question of the best location, the present pier and 22nd Street being considered the most advantageous. An additional suggestion might be to place the facility off the beach on property acguired by the city --example, on Hermosa Avenue.n In Area 3, from Pier Avenue to 4th Street, nremove the old pier stub and build new lifeguard quarters and public restrooms."
Planning Commission 2 April 17, 1961 Area 4, 4th Street to Herondo Avenue, "provide public restrooms every ten blocks.n On December 5, 1960, the subcommittee on Beach Improvements made their final recommendations, and in addition to other recommendations, s\l§gested that 11 ••• a large utility building should· be erected in the· pier area which would contain extensive restroom facilities, showers, lockers, lifeguard facilities, etc. Adequate restroom facilities on 2nd Street, 22nd Street and near the north end 9f the Strand should be provided." Quoting from the section of this report entitled '~eneral Thinking", Mr. Harris read, 11The connnittee also feels that we should • attempt to proper],y accommodate the crowds who will elect to come to our beach, rather than to entice them here to once again overcrowd our facilities. A key point here is that offstreet parking must be coordinated in city planning so as to provide extra1parking facilities only at points of access where public facilities are ~vailable. The subject of the location of restroom facilities constituted the biggest single item of debate and discussion at our meetings. It was generally agreed that the restroom facilities should be placed where the peak crowds exist during the busy weekends of the swmner months.. It was pointed out that poorly located restrooms would stand virtually unused most of the winter months and would be met with rather violent opposition by the citizens of HerID0sa Beach. In analyzing the spots where restroom facilities are actually required, it appears that the restroom facilities at 2nd Street, facilities at the end of Pier Avenue, facilities somewhere in the vicinity of 22nd Street, and one other restroom near the north end of the Strand would undoubtedly take care of the situation. 11 . Mr. Harris indicated that this final report of the subcommittee was incorporated in the Citizens Advisory Committee's report to the City Council, approved by the general membership of the committee on February 23, 1961, and presented to the Council a week or two later. This latter report of the Advisory Committee, numbering 68 or 69 people representing the various areas of Hermosa, suggested that"·•· in addition to restrooms in conjunction with redevelopment of the old pier site, restroom facilities should al.so be located where peak crowds exist during busy weekends of the summer months, at or near 2nd Street, 22nd Btreet, and-at the north end of the Strand. At 2nd Street and 22nd, it is felt that off the sand lo.cations should be considered, and at the north end of the Strand, the facility should be placed at low grade to take advantage of the rise in elevation of the land behind the beach area, The 2nd and 22nd Street locations, being commercial zones, could include more complete facilities for toilets, showers, lockers and dressing rooms, but at the north end, the cOIIIIIlittee reconnnended only m.i.nimum toilet facilities to keep the size of the structure at a . . tt mm.mun. Mr. Harris went on to say that the City Council had instructed the City Manager and City Engineer to prepare a report on the feasibility of providing "beach conveniences" in conjunction with beach operation. This report, dated March 21, 1961, in effect portrayed the suggestions of the Beach Subcommittee and the Citizens ~vi,sory Committee. Mr. Fredricks stated that the Commission had wanted Mr. Stevens, City E;ngineer, to supplement orally information pertaining to the report and answer questions presented by members, but that it was agreeable for Mr. Harris to present the matter in any manner he wished. Feeling that it would be helpful
Planning Commission 3 April 17, 1961 to the people present to hear the report in its entirety, Mr. Harris asked Mr. Stevens to point out areas displayed on the composite map exhibit as he referred to them in the report. The sketches presented were to show the type of development in the suggested or similar locations and were not to be construed as recommendations. Mr. Harris then read the 6 ... page report prepared by himself and Mr. Stevens. At the conclusion; he stated that it was conceptual, an effort to portray what could be done, based on suggestions of the Citizens Advisory Committee and their Beach Subcommittee. He stated that a great deal of time had been spent by these groups in the study and preparation of their reports. He explained that th.ese committees bad felt there was a need for such facilities and that his and the engineer's rep-0rt could be used as a beginning for discussion by the Council, the Commission, and the public. The Citizens Advisory Conmti.ttee and its subcommittee reports represented more than a year ts intensive study. Mr. Harris said that his report was based solely upon these committee reports and their report to the Council. He reiterated that the report under consideration is an effort to portray one means of providing what the Advisory Committee thought was needed, and it was prepared at the direction of the City Council. Comm.. Locken asked the City Engineer, Mr. Stevens, if there had been any investigation of subterranean facilities under the Strand and their cost in relation to the cost as outlined in the report. Mr. Stevens answered that there had been some tal.k·of this, but the police department disliked the idea of an underground tunnel, which should be considered only as a last resort. Some thought had been given to locations where the sloping terrain cmld be cut into, either on the beach or Strand, he said, but below the Strand, a pumping station would have to be provided; no studies were made as to the ground water table, but it is assumed to be quite shallow. This is not impossible, Mr, Harris said, but more d:xpensiveo Mr. Stevens said many aspects were studied and that the drawings di.splayed were depictions drawn up as the whole total came into view, They considered· possible locations, on private property, underneath the ground, on the beach, narro'Wi.ng dow:n to the most feasible type of thing, the depictions presented possibly not being the most feasible from one point of view, but the most feasible from another, and that this is what must be resolved, by getting everyone concerned together and arriving at a decision. Whether or not the facilities were needed was not a part of his work, Mr. Stevens said, Comm. Lo.cken asked if the showers were in conjunction·with the restroomsa In this report, showers were recommended to be on the beach, Mr. Harris said; the Advisory Committee did e~ress the feeling that showers might be at Pier Avenue and not appropriate at the other locations. Asked by Connn. Fredricks as to the cost of a shower installation and drinking fountain, Mr. Stevens said somewhere around $300 for the shower I plus the plumbing hefJ.d, the pipe going out to the shower, and the slab. The drinking fountain head is somewhere around $SO, between $20 and $50, he said. Comm. Black questiQned the necessity for four comfort stations on the beach. Comm. Fredricks answered that the Commission had not ccme t.o that point
Planning Commission 4 April 17, 1961 in its study bttt was hearing Mr. Stevens and Mr. Harris, who were not instructed to consider whether the idea was good or not but, if provided, where the station-s should be. The Commission will go into the study, and the citizens will have an opportunity to express their views on :the need, but not tonight. Comm. Black expressed his opposition to the expenditure of this money. Being in the plumbing business, he said, he knew these facilities would be costly to construct and very expensive to maintain in a sanitary manner all along the beach. COJ11111.. Fredricks explained that the people on the Advisory Connnittee had spent many long hours making their report and that in fairness to them, the Commission should hear their suggestions, giving them the courtesy of considering theirs to be a sincere report by the Commission's honestly looking into it and giving it their be st judgment. Pertaining to cost, Coimn. Noble felt the Commission should have all available information. The restrooms will cost about $9,000 for structure, according to Mr. Stevens. Comm. Fredricks advised not going too far into the cost at this meeting, that Comm. Noble obtain such data at other meetings. Comm.. Hales called attention to the parking sites mentioned in the report and expressed concern at the parking suggestions incorporated in this particular proposal, feeling th.at tbis should be a separate study, related not only to \lse on the beach but to other coJI1mercial and zoning situation, -which if included in this study, might cause evaluating of other things besides beach facilities. Parking was one of the items enumerated·in the instructions for their report, Mr. Harris said. In some instances, they had increased from four to six stalls more than. the parking spa·ces· actually provided, and at the north end there is a considerable problem, where addi-tional parking can be provided. Comm. Hales thought if the parking problem were involved., it would be unfair to other areas in the city, citing the Pacific Coast Highway congestion; that parking problems shoul.d be considered first, expressing his feeling th.at parking should not be considered in the study of.this plan. Conunenting on parking, Mr. Stevens stated that it was one of the items he and Mr. Harris were required to look into, and their report had touched on it, mentioning the idea of pointing up First Street as a possibility of using a walk street for parking. They had looked for some area that might fall into a parking area th'lt could be utilized, and had given typical examples of what might be done. Comm~ Black asked what was proposed at Pier Avenue; if the pier head is demolished, what is proposed for that spot? Mr. ,Stevens answered that the Advisory Committee had felt that the rebuilding of the pier was not an adjunct to the required or necessary development of the beach, but had sug-gested some type of a development, a bandshell or some other type building. Comm. Fredricks said they recommended not having" a pier and this was as far as they went. As for the City Council, he said, he did not think any one idea had been more persuasive than any other -they were not ready economically or in any way to go ahead and get real studies., Mr. Harris said temporary restroom facilities on privately-owned property next to the acquarium were under consideration. Comm... Hales asked if the Council had backed off of the idea of a fishing
... Planning Comm.ission 5 April 17, 1961 pier and tying it in with certain state financial programs. • This is in a state of inaction until the end of the week, Mr. Harris said, adding that the Council had stated if funds are made available from the tideland oil money, they intended to acquire the remaining property and construct a pier; the two are tied together inasmuch as the use of the funds must be for some mari,i.a purpose. If the Council acquires this property, then this is a program they w.i.11 pursue; the details of this are awaiting the court decision on the permitted uses that could be made of the tideland moneyo Comm. Fredricks observed that this was not to be considered in the Commission's recommendationo Howe-,er, Comm. Hales felt this had some bearing, since it is an area under consideration. The beach facilities are to be considered at this time, Mr. Fredricks said. He addressed Comm. Noble, saying that inasmuch as Chairman Viault had appointed him to head a subcommittee, he imagined the Chairman would like to have a report at the next regular meeting (May 8), suggesting that Comm. Noble and his committee (which ls a committee of the whole) meet with the citizens, the groups headed by Mr. James Clemence and Mr. Tom Stevens of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and any other groups, and to get any detailed information possible from Mr. John Stevens, the City Engine~r, and notify the Commission members of dates for such meetings. Mr. David Wilkinson, 2140 Strand, asked that a study group representing the northern area be invited to meet with the other groups, and the Commiss.ion generally agreed Mr0 Wii.lkinson's suggestion was acceptable. In the absence of the Chairman, Comm. Fredricks said that he did not wish to set. any definite meeting date for a public hearing, and instructed Comm. Noble to gather his information, meet with the interested people, and rel}ort his findings at the next regular meeting of the Commission, at which time Chairman Viault wGuJd decide dates for ,Ublic hearings. He and Mr. Stevens were available at any time in any way, Mr. Harris told the Commission. Comm. Hales asked that a vote of thanks be given. to Mr. Harris and }fr. Stevens for their very comprehensive document, enabling the Commission to initiate some action and get the program under way. He commented that the report had been very thoughtfully done. Comm. Fredricks agreed, saying that even though there might be objections, the report would help in their study and aid in ge.tting to a point)where decisions could be made. Comm. Noble suggested that a group of individuals form a committee to represent residents in the city who do not live on the Strand, to formulate their opinions and suggest what comforts are needed when they visit the beach area, the committee to be composed of eff-the"'8trand residents representing themselves. The Beach Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee or Reverend Parker, ·,Chairman of the, main· group, might be in a position to suggest names for such a group, Mr. Harris said. help, Comm. Fredricks thanked Mr. Harris and Mr. Stevens for thei~ declaring the meeting adourn.ed at 8 :45 p.m. /) , ) / -· , -~ \ '.,,_ {...,(__ t\_,l. C ~ • ~ y-,_ Bernice Robinson, ecret~y
REPORT OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON MONDAY, MAY 1, 1961, AT 7:30 P.M. Comm. Noble presided as chairman of the committee 0£ the whole commission at a study session with citizens' committees on the subject of propoaeu facilities for restrooms on the beach. All members were present with the exception of Comm. Hales. A written proposal, copies of which had previously been submitted to Commissioners, was presented by Mr. James c. Clemence, 204 Strand, who had been asked by the Council to head a committee to investigate the possibilities for restrooms at the 2nd Street area. Mr. Clemence gave a brief resum~ of the proposal, recommending very strongly that facilities be placed out on the sand and preferably at the pier site only. Concurring with Mr. Clemence in that no private property shodd be acquired for thi. s purpose, Mr. Tom Stevens spoke of the work the beach subconunittee of the Citizens Advisory Committee had done, their deficiency report noting the congestion at 2nd Street, Pier Avenue, 22nd .Street and the north end of the Strand, recormnending facilities at these areas. They had felt it unwise to have faci~ities or parking in areas not now congested. Those opposing the 2nd Street location and suggesting that facilities be placed half way between the lifeguard station at the south end of town and the Pier -were Mrs. Patrick, 134 Strand, Mrs. Evelyn Burwell, 201 Hermosa Avenue, and Mrs. Chase, owner of two properties along the Strand. They argued that 2nd Street is within three blocks of the lifeguard station and would serve the area better if placed closer to Pier Avenue. Several people felt that a good, adequate facility at Pier· Avenue would be sufficient, since the lifeguard station is at the south end and one is proposed at the south end of Manhattan Beach. Mr. Mark Harding, 113.0 .Strand, was in accord w.i.th this, later adding that the crowds were to the north of the Pier and some facility might be provided in the northern end of the town~ He recommended "summer relief stations'' to be placed at the south and north ends of town during the peak season. Mr. Curt HarrisJ 236 Strand, asked the reasoning behind the suggestion that private property be acquired for public conveniences. City Manager explained that the report showing possible locations and presenting sketches of the type of development that might be made was not intended to be construed as a reconnnendation for the specific location or designe Mr. Blumenkamp of the Citizens Advisory 0.ommittee said there had been no intention whatever of setting down any iron~clad rule, but the canmittee had, in its deficiency report, noted that restrooms of some type could possibly be placed at the eongested areas, in and around the lifeguard posts. Actual counts of beach crowds had been made on peak days, and deficiencies were found to exist at the four areas stated abo.w. A suggestion was made by Mrs. Chase that the walk streets be opened up for parking. Representing citizens from the 22nd Street area, Mr. David Wilkinson, 2140 Strand, recommended having an adequate facility at the pier site and opposed the suggested construction of restrooms at 22nd Street and the S.trand. Because of the congestion already present at 2nd and 22nd Streets, he favored restrooms, if decided upon, be placed at other locations. A thorough
Planning Commission 2 May 1, 1961 study should be made before placing showers on the beach, he advised, due to the prevalent vandalism. Florence McCarthy, 134 Strand,mentioned the relocation of a Manhattan Beach £acility to an open area on the sand due to loitering, etc., when. on the street. If out on the sand, the facilities can be seen for a distance. The acquisition of private property suggested in the report met with much opposition, and it was Mr. Harding's opinion that if the Planning Commission felt such a suggestion improper and would so indicate to the people, much of the opposition to beach facilities would be overcome. Most of those present spoke against talcing private property for this purpose. Restrooms create problems for the police, Mr. Hugo Lizza, 2702 Strand, said, and advised that a thorough study be made. He • ·fav,ored adequate facilities at the pier. These should not be placed in al'eas already congestedo He referred to the problem now existing caused by the congregation of groups blocking the Strand. Mr. Carl Curtis, 212 Strand, stated that he had just recently purchased the property adjacent to that suggested for restrooms at the 2nd Street area and felt that such structures would.depreciate the value of residential pro.perty. Mr. John Armer, a member of the beach subcommittee of the Citizens Advisory Committee, said they had suggested on or off the Strand, that there were certain locations where it had been felt facilities might be needed. He added that he was glad to see the people get together in this study group to exchange ideas. Also favoring a good facility at the pier, alleviating many of the problems that would arise from the outlying locations, was Mrs. Fishman, 59-l9th Street, who suggested portable structures on the sand during the peak summer months. ' Police Chief Berlin had expressed no objections to restrooms out on the sand if they could be easily seen by the police, Mrs. N~ Pifer said. In his proposal, Mr. Clemence said, it had been recommended that lifeguards open and close the facilities when going o.n and off duty, and that there be definite times of the year for the opening and 'closing of these public facilities. ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. /I // ,~vVL-'~ \(~'~--nernice Robinson, Secretary
MINUTES OF THE RIDULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, Califorria, May 8, 1961, 7:30 PoMo ROIJ, CALL -Present ... Comm. Locken, Hales, Black, Fredrlfks, Johnson and • Chairman Viault. Absent ~ Comm. Nobleo Present -Bud M~ Trott, Chief Building Inspector. (Comm. Noble took his place at the beginning of the discussion on Item 2..) The Chairman called the meeting t0 order, and on motion by Comm.. Fredricks; seconded by Comm. Locken, minutes of the regular meeting of April 10, 1961, were unanimously approved. STEWART REALTY ... Review of Parking in R.;.P Zone Letter from Building·Inspector requesting review of proposed parking lot on R.;;J> property, L.ots 5, 6, 7 and a portion of 8, Walter Ransom Company's Redondo Home Tract, to be· constructed by Stewart Realty adjacent to their office at 1208 G-ould Avenue, situated on Lot Bo Mr. Greg Stewart was present to speak on behaJ..f of his request. An encroachment permit for ingress and egress from the lot to Gould Avenue has been procured from the State Highway Department., he said. The property is presently used for parking purposes in conjunction wi.1lh his business, but it is bis desire to grade and pave the land~ ·The sketch submitted did not include a detailed layout of the proposed parking •. Attention was called to Section 1115 of the zoning ordinance requiring review by the• Planning Commission and approval as to location of parking lots in R-3 or R~P zones. It was pointed out that this was not required parking, since the building now existed, and there was considerable discussion as to whether or not applicant should be asked to submit a detailed parking layout. Mr. Stewart insisted that the element of time was to be considered and that he was anxious to develop the property. Camm. Fredricks (prefacing his motion by the remark that citizens have a right to rely on the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and if the Commission does not agree, then it is the Commission's duty to amend the ordinance) moved that a pat'king lot be allowed at this particular address, J.208 Gould Avenue, that the review required by Section 1115 of the ordinance would indicate that the location is proper for a parking lot for this establishment, Comm. Black seconded this motion, which carried as fQllows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm, Locken, Hales, Black, Fredricks and Noble. Comm. JQhnson and Chairman Viault. None. Conun.. Fredricks then moved that a letter be directed to the Building Inspector advising that it is the official interpretation of the Planning Connnission of Section 1115 that hereafter such approYal. that the Commission gives in regard· to Section 1115 shal.l include not only location, landscaping, trees and shrubs, but also the layout for ingress and egress and turning radius with complete parking layout. Conm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
.Planning Commission 2 May a, 1961 F.H.ROBFBTSON ~ R-3 Status of Lot 182 Hiss Addition Letter from F. R.('ltobertson, owner of Lot 18, Hiss Addition, requesting use ·of this lot for multiple apartments, and advising that a survey showed this lot to be 39.95' wide in lieu of 40' shown on tract map. Mr. Robertson was present speaking on. behalf of his petition. The Building Inspector stated that there are three different surveys, possibly 6' of disputed area within the 18 lots of this tract on Loma Drive. Attention was cal.led to the recent professional survey of this area for planning purposes which determined that the area was already overcrowded. The feeling was expressed that if the Commissioners believed the R...3 use too heavy, the lots should be rezoned. Motion was made by Chairman Viault that a letter be directed to the Building Department stating that it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Lot 18, Hiss Addition, be considered as a· standard 40' wide lo:t., in lieu of the .05' shortage now shown by survey drawings, for the reason that for all intent and purposes, it is an R~3 lot, .it is 40' wide and 5/8" is not of a significant size to have ~-bearing on the discussion. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. REPORT ON BEACH F ACII.UTIES STUDY MEETINGS Comm. Noble, Chairman of the BeJ:Lch E~ciil ties /Committee, c~mprised of the whole Commission, reported on the May 1 meeting witnrepresentatives of interested groups of citizens; advising that it was the basic feeling of those present that, first.of all, private property should not be acquired for this use, and secondly, it was felt by the representatives of the citizens as a whole that if beach convenience facilities were promulgated in Hermosa Beach, they definitely should be in the sand west of the Strand. Comm. ·Noble said, in his opinion, another meeting should be held with these groups, the discussion had developed on possible sites, but nothing had been established as to whether there should be any facilities, and he furthermore believed same representatives from the local high schools should be invited to attend and be heard, since the teenagers form the beach crowds to a large extent. Mayor delroot was present and announced that a group of citizens at the 22nd Street location wished to :present a proposal., which could be submitted if another meeting with these groups were held, stating his belief that all of these items should be in the record. Any decision made should be based upon a full and complete study, including the financial aspects and the possibility of facilities being constructed at the south end of Manhattan Beach, eliminating the need for one at the north end of Hermosa Beach. He suggested minimal provisions rather than maxi.mum, with emphasis on the commercial district, in an attempt to keep people more centrally located. Asked by Comm. Black if tideland funds could be used, the Mayor said this would have to be· investigated. Hermosa Beach would have to maintain and police the facilities, he added, suggesting that the Commission might consider contacting the County to see what the County might do that would be acceptable to Hermosa Beach. Whether to hold more study meetings with citizens, to formulate definite opinions prior to holding public hearings, the time element involved in coming to a decision., the need at the present time, the advisability of investigating what other cities having similar problems have done, hiring a professional consultant were points considered, Mr. TomStevens of the Citizens Advisory Committee taking part in the discussion. It was Mr. Stevens suggestion that a citizens group similar to the Citizens Advisory Committee be established to aid in planning,
Planning Commission 3 May 8, 1961 Comm. Fredricks moved that the subcommittee continue to function as charged originally by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, under Mr. Noble, exploring other avenues to gather information including the possibility of getting expert help, the possibility of sending letters by the Building Department to other cities to inquire what they have done with regard to this problem, contacting j;he County to see what the aspects are there, and reporting the findings to the Chairmano Commo Black seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. . ' . . . . SE~TION 217 ... Interpretation of Single 2 Two-Family Dwelling The Chairman asked that Item 7 be considered prior to Items 5 and 6. The Building Inspector has requested an interpretation of the definition of a single., two-family dwelling, and whether two separate units connected by a roofed patio should be considered one structure for the purposes of zoning. On motion by Commo Locken, seconded by Comm. Fredricks, it was unanimously agreed that Section 217 shall be interpreted to mean a structure whose common wall separating the two units shall be at least SO% of the allowable width of the structure. It was agreed to postpone discussion on a general plan until May 15, 1961, at which time a special meeting is to be held for a public hearing on John T. Shaw and Philip G. Shaw application for zone change of south 50' of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, from M-zone to R-30 ADJOURNMENT AT 10:15 p.m. r
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL_ MEErING-OF THE PLcANNim-COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California., at 7:30 p.m.. on Monday, May 15, 1961. ROLL CALL. ... Present: COnDD.. Locken, Hales, Black, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viaul t. Absent: Chief Building Inspector Bud M. Trotta City Engineer John Stevens. COl!ID4 Fredricks. JOHN T. AND PHIIJP G. SHAW Public hearing on application for zone amendrrent of John T. Shaw and Philip G. Shaw, to change from M to R.-.3 the south 501-of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 81, Second .Addition to Hermosa Beach, 731.,,.lGth Street, to review proposed division of this property into three parcels having more than. 401 width and 4.,000 square· feet in each parcel., to deter.mine a front setback for parcel facing 16th Street, and to review proposed offstreet parking for development of apartment house on one parcel. The secretary read a letter from Guy T. Edgeomb who will develop the property if the zone change is approved, an.d a letter from the owners giving Mr. Edgcomb authority to represent them before the Commission. Mro Edgcan.b was present to answer questions presented by the Commissioners and to explain how he proposed to develop the land. The City Engineer was questioned as to future improvements on Ardmore Avenue, and he informed the Commission that there are plans to widen and improve Ardmore but that this is a long..,.range program;. There are no immediate plans for curbs and sidewalks o~ 16th Street; however, grades could be designed for developers to build to within a short time, if this were requested by the Commission. The Ardmore development will be a major project. Mr. Elmer Storm of the Conway Construction Company, 1301 s. Prairie, Hawthorne, said that the R~l (M~potential) property directly to the north of the subject property was now being sold contingent upon its being rezoned to R...J., .and it was his hope that something could be worked out with the developers of the subject property to provide good traffic circulation for the entire area. The owners of M property directly to the east of these parcels had not been cmtacted by either Mr. Edgcomb or Mr. Storm to determine wrether or not they would be interested in changing the zoning on their property. Mr. Edgcomb stated that any postponement or delay in a decision on his petition would hold up all bis plans for development of the land, since nothing could be done until zoning is determined, Chairman Viault moved that the zone change be approvede Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYE,S: NOES: ABSENT: Coom. Black. -Comm.. Locken, Hal.es, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault., Comm. Fredricks. Comm,. Johnson then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-322 denying this request for the reason that this would be spot zoning, this motion not being voted upon because of lack of a second. COlllll.. Noble moved to continue this hearing until such time as there is a
Planning Commission 2 May 15, 1961 Shaw Contd correlation of interests and submission thereof by the adjacent property o'W'll.ers of pro:perty to the north which is R.;.l (M potential) and the M property to the east. Com14 Hales seconded the motion, whi.ch carried unanimously. EVALUATION OF PLANNING CON~ULTANT.S' PROPOSALS FOR GENmAL, PLAN The Chairman announced that this was not a meeting to decide whether or not Hermosa Beach should have a general plan but to evaluate and compare proposals and to deter.mine whether certain or all items should be includecJlni.d to make recommendations back to the City Council. The ColDIDission had previously recommended the services of Simon Eisner & Associates to institute a program and develop a master plan for the city. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Conunission subsequently bid on this service at considerably less cost, and the Council had requested the .Commission to study the Co.unty' s proposal in relation to the Eisner pro.posa.1, evaluating what is offered in each, and report back to them. Chairman Viault felt that the Eisner proposal was definite and the County proposal general as to services to be rendered, and the Commission should determine whether there are items that could be omitted. Two important features of the Eisner proposal were the aerial topographical map and economic study, believed to be needed to do a proper planning job. The County did not offer these items, and it could be assumed that if added to their proposal, the price would increase accordingly. It is questionable whether the County would work from the individual municipality level or consider the ei ty as a portio.n of the eouilgr and fit Hermosa Beach into the 6oUimy picture. Comm. Locken noted that the County developed the El Monte plan which ties in with the County plan and is secondary to the County. Conun. Noble suggested that they get some expression from the Council as to the extent tm City budget could go for the development of a general plan before eliminating items from the proposal. Mr. Viault said the Connnission could re-affirm the need for the basic items, listing others felt to be important to the City but that could be eliminated. The public entered into the di.scussion at this po.int, Mr. Philip Madsen, 2422 Hermosa Avenue, arguing that the public should have !pl opportunity to express their views as to whether they wanted a master plan or noto Such meetings had been held, he v:as told. All cities are charged ldth providing a general plan, which the Conmission is attempting to do., the Chairman said. Mrso Burwell, 201 Second Street, asked why the plan could no.t be made by City officials. Mr. Viault explained that a great number of people had a mi.scon-~eption relative to a professional planner, and that any acceptable plan will be evolved and developed by the citizens, the Commission and Council, but that the planning consultants are the only professionals qualified to get the facts into a document which can be useful when the program is finished. Mr. James Clemence, 204 Strand, voiced the opinion that property owners are a:fraidltheir property will be affected if the City revamped the map. Mrs. Wilson, 302 Strand, felt that property o.wners should be notified of meetings and was told that the local papers had been used for this purpose. Mark Harding, 1132 S.trand, asked that action be delayed until the public could be educated, that very few people were aware of the contents of these proposals under consideration. Comm. Hales spoke at some length telling the people of the meetings the Commission had held with several consultants; the door was open to the public at all times; and at no time had there been said that anything was to be changedo He-spoke of .'·
Planning Conmission 3 May 15, 1961 the numerous. times lo.cal and out.,;.of.,..to:wn people have come before the Commission asking permission to develop certain areas of the City,_ a professional. opinion not always being available on l(bich to base decisions. lib.at is proposed here, he said, is some method of going about finding·out what the citizens would want to make Hermosa Beach a better-city five, ten or more years from now; as a property owner, Mr. Hales said, he is interested in seeing this city grow in a healthy way, having some direction, and these professional services will set up guide lines based on what the people want to see their city develop intoo Each consultant emphasized the importance of having public meetings of all the citizenry to get ideas and suggestions from the people. There must be a businesslike procedure on how this city can develop, he said. Mr. Gerald Smith said he had difficulty in getting the right information and asked where these proposals could be seen. Mr. Fairc.liff, 135 Monterey, questioned a rumor that property on his street was to be condemned. There is 11.0 intention or was there ever any intention of doing this, Mr. Viault saido City Manager Harris told the audience that the Planning ColllDission had made a recommendation to the City Council that a proposal of Simon Eisner & Associates be accepted, after consulting with three different firms. The Council had two meetings considering this proposal arul,feeling they needed more information., made arrangements to. meet with Mr. Eisner. This meeting was taped, and the public is invited to listen to this tape in the Clerk's office. After thi3 meeting with Mr. Eisner, it was learned that the County of Los Angeles participated in this field, and one of the Council members did ask them to submit a proposal. The Commission was asked to review the Countyt s proposal and report back to the Council whether it was felt the Eisner proposal was still considered the best for the cityJ }fr0 Madsen asked if either of the proposals under consideration contained sugges.tiolls to condemn private prQperty. He was told emphatically no. Mr. Harris explained the County people had presented a prospectus of a variety of services they do perform, and that probably Mra Madsen was referring to. the section pertaining to urban renewal. Mr. Eisner had said that he did not kn.ow whether Hermosa Beach had blighted areas., but i:f the City is interested in finding blighted areas, they could qualify. What is proposed is not urban renewal; the State law requires every city to have a general comprehensive plan. Mrs. Burwell thought· tbe main objection is urban renewal, that the City needs a general plan, and rec0111mended that the City develop a good plan and pay for it without outside aid. Mro Madsen asked if the Commission had any doubt that the people present did not want a ma.ster plan, in answer to which, the Chairman suggested tha. t Mr o Clemence and his committee could work up a meeting of the people prior to the Council meeting. Comm. Noble expressed his opim.on that it is important to establish a guide line and have a general plan, but he would like to see included a guarantee that urban renewal would never·· happen in Hermosa Beach. Basically, the primary objectivel of planning, since it is for people, is to encourage a physical environment in which a family may live with a maximum. of happiness.
PJanning Commission 4 May 15, 1961 Chairman Viault moved that the Planning Commission re...affirm its desire that a general comprehensive plan be contracted for for the City of Hermosa Beach. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, 'Which carried unanimously. A second motion was made by Chairman Viault that the general comprehensive plan,in the opinion of the Planning Commission, should include items listed below:as a minimum: Base maps Topographical plotting of Hermosa Beach Economic base study Land use inventory Circulation inventory Dwelling unit map General plan Precise plans for the business districts and shoreline A. zoning ordinance analysis Related meetings and reports to back up said comprehensive plan COlllllL, Noble seconded this motion, which carried unani..mouslyo Chairman Viault then made a third motion that the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 15, 1961, re...affirms its previous stand. that Simon Eisner & Associates are the proper pJanning consultant firm to do the general master plan for Hermosa Beach. Comm.. Johnson seccnded this motion, which carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:30 P.Mo Hales, .Secretary r
MINUTES OF THE RIDULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIID-COMMISSION OF. THE CITY OF· HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall, Hermosa Beach, California, June 12, 1961, at 7 :30 p.m. ROLL CALL -Present -Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault. Absent·-Comm. Locken and Hales. Present M Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. John Stevens, City Engineer. Chairman Viault called the meeting to order, and on motion by Connn. Fredricks, seconded by Comm. Jolmson, minutes of the May 8 regular meeting and May 15 special meeting were unanimously approved. It was unanimously agreed to postpone Item 2 (election of oMicers for 1961-62) until other matters.: on the agenda were acted upon. JOHN Tl. AND PHILIP G-. SHAW Continuation of hearing on application for zone amendment of Jolm T. and Philip Go Shaw, to change from M to R-3 the south 50' of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, 73l~th Street. Mr. Guy T. Edgeomb addressed the Commission, stating that he had contacted owners of the property to the·east of the subject property and the California Handprints property to the south, and that these people had no objection to the developmmt of the Shaw property as proposed but refused to submit anything in writing to that effect. The Commission had suggested that Mr. Edgcomb and owners of the property to the north on which....-----r rezoning to-R-3 had been proposed get together and work out some plan for traffic circulation, etc. Mr. Edgcomb stated that nothing definite had been accomplished and that these· owners had not yet filed for a zone antendment. Concerning his own petition, he submitted arguments that the property was already too valuable for R-1 development or for Muse and that the logical development would be R-3o Elmer Storm represented the Conway Construction Company, who propose rezoning the property to the north of the subject property. He displayed several sketches of possible traffic circulation between the two pieces of property. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the lack of sewage and drainage facilities and whethdr or not the present systems could handle this increase. The City Engineer said this would require considerable study of the entire area. Comm. Noble moved that the application for zone amendment be approved. Comrn.0 Black seconded the motion, which failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black and·Noble. Connn. Fredricks, Johnson and Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Hales. Comm. Johnson moved that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting of the Connnission or until such time as there is a full commission. Comm. Black seconded this motion. Conun. Fredricks asked to amend the motion by adding the proviso that the Commission have information from the City Engineer concerning whether, if the surrounding area is developed in·the same manner, the present sewer system is capable of handling the increase, and if not, what would have to be done and what the cost would bep Comm. Noble seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. The original motion, as amended, was then voted upon and carried unanimously.
Planning Connnission 2 June 12, 1961 RODERICK W. AND VIOLE'I' MacRAE Public hearing on application-for zone variance of Roderick w. and Violet MacRae to permit division of Lots 38, 39 and 40, Tract 1965, into two lots, the easterly 5, of Lot 39 to be added to Lot 38, the remaining 20' of Lot 39 to be added to Lot 40, at 944-2lst Street. Applicants were present to speak in behalf of their application. Comm. Fredricks moved that the petition be granted. Seconded by Corn.in. Noble, the motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Johnson. Comm. Locken and Hales. Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-322 granting this lot division for the reason that the present three lots are woefully substan-dard, and that even though the proposed division into two lots rather than three is still less than the minimum, this is more-desirable than three woefully substandard lots. Colllln. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Conun. Johnson. Comm. Locken and Hales. LORNA Lo HAAS Public hearing on application for zone variance of Lorna L. Haas to permit construction of a single residence·of approx:imately-1500 square feet on the Strand side at 2621 Hermosa Avenue, Lot 4, Block 27, Hermosa Beach Tract, zoned R-1; leaving the existing building on the Hermosa Avenue side to act as a noise buffer, to be used for storage only; the existing garage being substandard, measuring approx:imately 91 in width by 16' in depth. Mrs. Haas was present to speak on behalf of her petition. Mr. Paul Shumacher, 2630 Strand, also spoke in favor of the application. The possibility of the existing building being used again as living quarters received attention,-and on motion by Comm. Johnson to grant the.variance, seconded by Connn. Black, the request was denied by the following vote: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Conun. Black. Comm. Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Hales • More discussion followed, petitioner being questioned as to her attitude toward closing off windows and plumbing to insure the use for storage only in the old building, and on Motion by Comm. Fredricks, seconded by Comm. Noble, that the request be granted with the proviso that the existing garage be made to conform to the standard size,a.nd with the further proviso that the existing plumbing be removed from the old structure, and with the still further proviso that the windows be closed up subject to the Building Department's approval, the variance was unanimously approved. Comm. Fredricks moved the adoption of Resolu~ion P. c. 154--323 granting this -variance, allowing the existing building on the Hermosa Avenue side to remain, provided that the existing substandard garage be made conforming, with the further proviso that all the existing plumbing be removed from the old structure
Planning Commission Haas Contd 3 June 12, 1961 and that the windows be closed as required by the City Building Department, and with the proviso that the existing old structure be used for storage only. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble and Chairman Viaul t. None. Comm. Locken and Hales. ETHEL MONROE Public hearing on application for zone variance of Mrs. Ethel Monroe to permit construction of a seven-unit apartment house on an R-3 lot having 3932.39 square feet ;in lieu of required 4,ooo square feet at 18-lBth Street, Lot s, Block 18, Hermosa Beach Tract. • Robert Grimes, owner in escrow, represented the applicant and spoke on behalf of the petition. Howard Jackson, local realtor, spoke in favor of the petition. Speaking in opposition were Harold Patch, 71-17th Street,-verne Anderson, 39 ... lSth Street, James Peck, 42-18th Street, Evelyn Abston., 60-lSth Street, Mrs. w. H. Short, 3302 Hermosa Avenue, Laird Stabler, 1812 Strand, John Armer, 13-lBth Street, Richard Anderson, 500 Strand, Manhattan Beach, Karl Raife, 141 Lyndon Street, Mark Hardin, Marshall Rampe, 1728 Strand., • Comm. Fredricks moved that the petition be granted. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Noble; Connn. Black, Fredricks, Johnson. Chairman Viault. Corron. Locken and Hales. Comm. Fredricks moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-324 d~nying this application to permit construction of 7-units for the reason that the lot does not meet the zone requirements, there is no hardship shown within the meaning of the code, it would be granting to the owner a condition that is not given to the owners in the area, and that the streets in the area are not conducive to such density. The motion was seconded by Comm. Johnson and carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson, Noble. None. Chairman Viault. Comm. Locken and Hales.
Planning Commission 4 June 12, 1961 DONALD K0 AND LYNN Y. GUIDICE Public hearing on application for zone variance of Donald K. and Lynn Y.Guidice to permit the second story-of a proposed structure to encroach into the vision clearance area, the single, two-family structure to be tied together with a roof and connnon landing, extending the full·width of the structure in lieu of a common wall, at 123-34th Street, Lot 7, Block 101, Shakespeare Tract. Applicants were present speaking in behalf of their petition. On motion by Comm. Fredricks to grant the varipI1ce, seconded by Comm. Noble, the application was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COOllII.. Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Johnson. Comm.0 Locken and Hales. Comm. Fredricks then moved adoption of Resolution P. Co 154-325 granting this variance as indicated on the plans submitted for the reason that the plans do t'.ollow the intent of the ordinance in allowing clear vision at s:treet level, and the p1~oposed plans in regard to the roof and common landing are adequate in regard to the requirements of a conunon wall as set forth in rulings pre-viously by the l'lanning iCommission of a ~unit structure on a single lot having a commorfwall, and that an affidavit be filed and recorded by the owners that the structure be used for 2-unit occupancy only. Colillll. Johnson seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Johnson. Comm. Locken and Hales. TONY AND JEAN BARATTA Public hearing on application for zone variance of Tony and Jean Baratta to permit construction of a 4,-.unit apartment house having a 611 southerly sideyard in lieu of 4','e.xtending 21', the l~n:gth of the garages, at 1314 Loma Drive, Lot 4, Block 1, Hiss Second Addition. Applicants were present and were also represented by their contractor, Mr. King, who explained that the city maps showed the width of t:his lot to be 44' and that plans had been drawn accordingly. On surveying the property, the lot measured 40', he stated, and ~he original tract map shm-red the lot to be 40' although there is a 4' discre15ancy in the tract that is unaccounted for. The City Engineer had the tract maps available and stated that the original subdivision of the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach showed a certain total distance; when this area was subdivided, tms dimension was shown and it was a recorded measurement; the second-surveyor found this error and showed what was actual -so many feet recorded, so many feet measured; the property right behind the subject property was split off, taking that same connnon·back line; the 4' error was found and given to the lot directly behind the lot in question; officially, the dimension is 40' ··;for the subject property.. The Commissioners we1•e concerned over the proposed 6" sideyard, adjoining an unimproved loto
Planning Commission Baratta Contd 5 June 12, 1961 Comm. Jolmson mvved that the petition be granted. The motion was seconded by Comm. Noble and failed to carry by a unanimous 1'no" vote. Connn. Johnson then moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-326 denying this application for the reason that there has been no hardship shown, it would not be justified to approve a plan where there is a 611 sideyard extending 21' along the southerly portion of the property in the best interest of the public welfare from a police or fire standpoint. Comm. Black seconded the motio~which carried unanimously. HERONDO STREET -Regional Master Plan of Highways Letter from Regional Planning Conunission relating to proposed amendment to master plan of highways of Los Angeles County Regional Planning District., realigning Redondo Beach Boulevard, a major highway 1001 in width, between Pacific Coast Highway (Hermosa Avenue) and Pacific Avenue, affecting Herondo Street. The City Engineer explained that this was an amendment to the original master plan,and the Regional Planning Commission wanted approval from the Planning Commission before holding public hearingso Mr. Karl Raife, 141 Lyndon Street, asked what this proposal meant to the residents on Herondo Street0 :Mr. Stevens said that at the present time, it does not appear that property from Monterey to Herioosa Avenue would be taken; there is no guarantee private property in Hermusa would not be taken. Asked if thl.s proposed highway would end in Hermosa, Mr. Stevens said it was his belief that Redondo Beach will make a jog over into King Harbor. ·Mr. Mark Hardin asked, if plans changed proposing acquisition of property, would the matter be brought back for a hearing, and suggested that if accepted now, perhaps the resolution could contain a restriction that if changed, the Comndssion would like to restudy the plan. Mr. Stevens said that this is setting a set of lines on a map, not planning or building a roadway. Chairman Viault moved that the Connni.ssion accept the plan submitted by the Regional Planning Connnission as outlined by the City Engineer. Commo Black seconded the motion, wlu.ch carried unanimously. SAV.....ON CARS -Advertising Structure Letter from Building Inspector concerning sign over 16 square feet for Sav.....On Cars at 2605 Pacific Coast Highway. Motion by Comm. Johnson that the signr, be approved but that there be no flashing, blinking or any other type of rotating lights, seconded by Chairman Viault, carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Connn. Fredricks, Noble and Chairman Viault. Comm. Johnson. Comm. Black. Collll'n. Locken and Hales.
.• Planning Commission 6 June 12, 1961 ANIREW DIMAS -Setback to be Established At the April 10, 1961 meeting, the Commission had approved a lot division for Mr. c. Dimas, 720-2lst Street. However., no front setback for the westerly portion,owned by Andrew Dimas, was established. A 5' front setback on.21st Street was unanimously approved, on motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black. EARL SEAIS -Information on Rezoning Potential C-zone. Mr. Earl Seals submitted a plot layout including Lot 31, Tract 6054, presently zoned R~3 (C potential). Before filing a formal petition for rezone, Mr. SeaJ.s advised that he wished a preliminary discussion with the Commission to have their thinking on the rezoning of one lot measuring 25xl001• He would like to develop this property for use as a real estate office, he told the Commission. The C-potential zoning, Mr; SeaJ.s was informed, gives control to the Co1mnission for connnerciaJ. development, and that it is not the purpose of this zoning to permit development of small parcels.· CHARLES PIERCE -C-3 Use Ruling on C-3 occupancy for assembling and selling Christmas decorations at 10 81 Pi er Avenue, zoned C-3 for Char le s Pierce. Mr. Pierce s-ai:d ttlittl. his product would i~equire no machinery. Motion by Comm. Fredricks, seconqed by Comm. Black, that a letter be directed to the Building Inspector ruling that the decorations and the ma.king and selling of the Christmas decorations come within the C-3 classification in that there is no use of machinery at al,l, and it is the intention that the products produced and assembled at that location be sold and retailed there, carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Connne Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Noble. None. Chairman Viaul t. Comm. Locken and Hales. . . '. PATRICIA S. WHITE -Parking Determination Letter from Mrs. Patricia s. White requesting parking determination for conversion of 470 square feet of former residential use to conn~~rcial at 138 ;Ardmore, zoned manufacturing.w Mrs. White was present speaking on behalf of her petition. Comm. Fredricks moved that a letter be directed to the Building Department stating that the parking determination for the conversion of 470 square feet as submitted on the plan be approved. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Black, Fredricks, Johnson and Noble. None. Chairman Viaul t. Comm. Locken and Hales.
Planning Commission 7 June 12, 1961 Copy of letter to Rev., R. S. Parker from City Counc~l, dated May 17, _ and letter dated June 7 to Commission from the City Council relating to 701 funds were received and filed. SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY ANTENNA POLE.RIDULA.TIONS Acting upon request contained in Council's letter of June 7 for study of possible amendatory ordiqances relating to the er~ction of antenna poles in the city, it was unanimously agreed that-the Chairman appoint a subcommittee to look into the law~ to_ obtain a ruling from the City Attorney in regard to the suggestions contained in the Council's letter, and to report back to the Commission. Chairman Viault appointed Connn. Fredricks as chairman of such a subconmtittee, requesting him to select the subcommittee. ELECTION OF OFFrcms FOR YEAR 1961-1962 Co:mm. Black nominated Connn. Fredricks for Chairman of the Planning Commission for the ensuing year. Comm. Noble seconded this mo·tion..: Nominations were closed on motion by Chairman Viault; and Co;mm. Fredricks ·was unanimously c'liosen. Comm. Fredricks nominated Conun~ Hales for Vice-Chairman, Co1IDI1. Black seconding the motion. Chairman Viault ·nominated Comm~ Noble, which motion lacked a second, and Comm. Hales was unanimously chosen Vice-Chairman. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:40 p.m. r
}([NUTES OF THE RIDULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HEREMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall at 7 :30 p.m., Monday, July 10, 1961. ROLL CALl,: Present -Comm_. Nobie, Jolmson, Black, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Absent .;. Comm. Viault and Locken. Present -Bud M. Trott, Chief Bldg. Inspector; John Stevens, City Engineer. Connn. Locken took his place during the discussion on Shaw application. CHAIRMAN APPOINTMENTS Inter--Ci ty Highway -Comm. Hales; Southwest Planning Committee, Comm. Viaul t; Reading Secretary, Comm. Noble. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES of June 12, 1~61, regular meeting unanimouso JOHN T • AND PI-i::r.LIP G. SHAW Continuation of ·nearing on application for zone amendment from M to R-3 of the south SOt·of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10, Block 81, Second Addition·to Hermosa Beach, 73l-16th Street. Mr. John E. Stevens, City Engineer, had been requested at the previous meeting to make a study of the sewer capacity, etc., affecting this property. It was his opinion, after making such a ?ju~ '-ffflr:"Vey, that the existing system is adequate to take care ·of the present and . I all expected sewage. •H<:lwever, he said, there is one stretch of 8" .1ine on Ardmore showing the possibility of a surcharge at a maximum peak. Mr. Guy T. Edgcomb representing owners of the property reiterated his reasons for requesting the zone change, arguing that this property would be logically develope.d R-3. No one voiced opposition to the request, and the Chairman ordered the public hearing closed. Chairmah. Fredricks said, as a·matter of record, it was too bad there was not a full Commission present, since this type of action requires 5 "aye" votes for approval. Mr. Trott called attention to suggestions at earlier meetings on this matter that something be worked out with owners of the property directly to the north for a joint development, adding that the City Engineer had taken tim~ to lay out some possible streets for the area. Mr. Stevens presented a sketch showing 18th Street cut through from Pacific Coast Highway to Ardmore and Springfield continuing south to 16th Street, Mr. Stevens explaining that there is a 60' right-of-way for 18th Street east of the highway, and that it wouJ.d be a logical step to proceed down. on to Ardmore with a fairly good roadway, and if some of the deve.1opment on the area in question could be so laid out as to project the Springfield roadway through, it would give .ajf added circulation, and a service alley on the rear of the subject property might be beneficial. These are items wlu.ch should be planned ahead and fairly well kept in mind, since this area is beginning to develop, he said, and are points to consider in suggesting to developers how they could conform to certain ideas the city might have. The sketch at hand had been made qUJ.ckly to get something before the Commission to show how better circu.Lation might be accomplished and that if more time were spent on it; the pattern ~ be developed in a better way, Mr. Stevens said. U(ijnT
Planning Conunission 2 Juiy 10, 1961 SHAW CONTD Basically what is being suggested is a Jn?-nor master plan as far as the roadways are concerned, with an R-3 potential use governing what might be developed, it was Conun. Noblets opinion, and he added that he would much prefer seeing multiple development than manufacturing. Chairman Fredricks remarked that Mr. Priamos, owner of property to the east of the subject property zoned for manufacturing had been contacted by a member of the Commission and had no present plans for development of his property and was not interested at this time in joining in with other owners for development of the area. Comm. Hales was of the opinion that the application at hand would consist of spot zoning; the sketch submitted by the city engineer represented the whole area, and it would be difficult to grant a change for this one piece of property, feeling that there should be a general show b:· t:'.le majority of t:he owners bef or-~ 1.·c~oning the ;_trea. Comm~ Black felt the subject property and all adjacent property should be R-3 and not manufacturing. He explained, as he had at previous meetings, that this area was undeveloped at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted and it had been felt at that time, because of the close proximity of the railroad, that this property might develop"~toward manufacturing, but that the trend was very definitely toward residential. Because of the large area of the land asked to be rezoned by pe~itioners, Comm. Black believed this should not be classified as spot zoning. Conun. Hales granted the point that the trend seems to be toward residential development of the area and felt there should be a review of the areas :zoned manufacturing within the city to determine whether there is too much that does not have a manufacturing potential., adding that he would like to know just how much manufacturing-zoned property there should be in the city. Conun. Locken gave his view that manufacturing would go elsewhere because of the tax structure in the city and agreed with Mr. Hal.es' suggestion that there should be a special hearing with all owners of property in this area. ,Since Mr. Edgcomb had not been advised of the sketch on possible traffic circular,, 1:i,m subrni tted by Mr. Stevens, Chairman Fredricks re-opened the hearing to give Mr. Edgcomb an opportunity to comment on .this aspect~ His plans were flexible and would tie in fairly well with the suggestions outlined on the sketch of roadways, Mr~ Edgcomb told the Connnission. On motion by Conun. Johnson, seconded by Corum. Noble to grant this petition, 'the vote was as follows, denying the request: AYES; NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble and Black. Connn. Johnson, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Viault. Comm. Black moved that action be postponed until a full Connnission is P.resent. Corron. Locken seconded the motion. The Chairman asked Mr. Edgcomb if he would prefer to wait for a full Commission or have action at this time. Mr. Edgcomb answered that he would prefer action on the petition at this time and would appeal to the City Council if the petition were denied. The original rn~tion and second were thereupon withdrawn by Comm. Black and Locken respectively. Conun. Johnson then moved the adoption of P. C. 154-327 denying the request to ,rezone the subject property, for the reas~n that it had, not been shown under
Planning Commission SHAW CONTD 3 July 10, 1961 Article 15., Section 1500, of the zoning ordinance that this is required for public necessity, convenience or general welfare; this is a part of such a large area that a study should be made and an understanding of the full area be attained; and it is evident that a plan should be promulgated for that particular area, further study being needed to determine its best use. Oomm. H.ales seconded this motion., which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm.-Johnson, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm, Noble and Black. Comm. Viault. A motion was then made by C onun. Noble that a letter pe written to 1he City Council requesting that funds be dis~ursed to retain a competent planning consultant or engineering firm to analyze the entire area in question and to submit such plans to·the Commission for future use in its determination for changes in this area, including roadways, lighting and any other maintenance, and convenience facilities necessary for the proper city·residential planning, and an overall look at the M zone in the city in general, but with emphasis on the particular neighborhood in question to see what the potential is. This motion was seconded by Corrnn.· Black and carried unanimously·. ALLEN G. TATKIN Public hearing on application of Al.len_G. Tatkin & Associates to amend the conditional use permit granted by P. c. 154-39 to include both Lots 18 and 19, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, at 1835 Pacific Coast Highway; to increase the square footage of the existing hospital on Lot 18; and to amend Ordinance N. s. 191 by changing the precise plan, 'Which previously provided for a medical btri.lding, to now pro~de a heliport and parking area for the hospital, on Lot 19. A lette:J;>' ,was read from Fred D. Schwartz, architect, outlining the proposed exp:ansion of the. hospital. Mr. Schwartz was present to represent the applicant. Mrs. Etta Simpson, 651-25th Street, was in favor of a conditional approval for the heliport, provided the city could control the areas this helicopter could fly over the city. Mr. Phil Madson inquired if the hospital would take emergency cases under anycircumstances. Mr~ John Schmolle said the original conditional use permit called for 24--,.hour emergency service. In opposition to the heliport, letters from c. Dimas, 720~21st Street, and Andrew N. Dimas, 216~34th Street~ Manhattan Beach, were read by the secretary,· Speaking in opposition were c. B. Crow, 1850· Pa_cific Coast Highway, David Burt, 115~7th Street, c. A. Lockhart, 1835 Rhodes, G~ E. Andreasen, 1928 Ardmore, F. H. and Antoinette Alkire, 1810 Pacific Coast Highway, a Mr. Elkhard, and Charles Sundberg, 1830 Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Schwartz insisted that the heliport would be used only for the direst emergency cases. Flight patterns would be determined by the FAA. In answer to the objection that the zoning was not M-2, in which gelicopters were allowed to land, according to one of the objectors, Mr. Schwartz said this ruling did not govern emergency landings if a life must be saved. There followed further questioning as to the availability of heliports in neighboring hospitals and other pertinent points, resulting in the Commission's feeling that a thorough study should be made concerning this feature of the petition.
Planning Commission 4 July 10, 1961 Comm. Noble moved that the request be granted to amend the conditional use· permit to expand the hospital and to include both Lots 18 and 19, Block 81, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, and to amend the precise plan covering Lot 19 to now provide an additional parking area of 52 cars for the hospital, and to exclude the provision for a heliport until further study with the Coast Guard anthorities and the FAA is accomplished and submitted to the Commission for further consideration. Comm. Johnson seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Johnson, Black, Hales and Locken. Chairman Fredricks. Connn. Viault . Comm. Jolmson then moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 15+-328 granting this petition as set forth in the foregoing motion, for the reason that it would improve the hospital facilities for the city without bothering any of the adjacent property as far as the hospital service is concerned; the property is properly zoned for such; and it is deemed necessary to provi~e a study of the heliport because of the protest from the citizens of the surrounding area. Connn. Hales seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conun. Noble, Johnson, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. None. Connn. Viault. BERGER FAGENSTROM Public hearing on application for variance of Berger Fagenstrom to permit enlargement of existing porch to approximately 300 square feet on a nonconforming structure having four units without conforming garages, in an R-1 zone, at 34l43 Hermosa Avenue, Lots 7 and 8, Dale Tract. • A letter signed by Mrs. v. Del Bose and Walter J.Del Bose was read by the secretary approving the petition •. _.Applicant was present speaking in beha1f of his request. Following a short discussion, Comm. Johnson moved that the request be granted. The motion was seconded by Conm1.Noble and carried as folloWS":!( AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Connn. Noble, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson. Comm. Viault,. Conm. Noble moved the adoption of Resolution P. c .. 154---329 granting the application, as it is felt that there would be no detriment to the surrounding area or to the city to permit such use, and with the stipulation that the porch, either on top or underneath, shall not be later enclosed for living purposes adding more burden to the parking in the neighborhood. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson. Connn. Viault.
Planning Connnission NANCY G. CLARK 5 July 10, 1961 Public hearing on application for variance of Nancy G~ Clark to permit construction of an 8,;;.unit apartmen~ house having subterranean parking, encroaching to both side·property lines, exclusive of front and rear setbacks, at 1021 Manhattan Avenue, Lot 23, Block 35, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, and review of proposed offstreet parking. Robt. w. EdJnondson represented applicant, stating that the property was in escrow and submitting a three~dim.ensional study of his proposed structure. The Connnissioners complimented him on the model presented. Mr~ David Burt, J_l5.2,-,.7th Street, and Mr O Burton Chatham., 1035 Manhattan Avenue, opposed the plan. • On motion by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Noble,to grant the request, the vote was as follows, denying the petition: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None_. Comm. Noble, Johns on, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Viault. Comm. Johnson.moved that Resolution P. c. 154,,,.330 be adopted, denying this request for the reason that it has not been shown that there is any particular hardship., and it is not desirable that it be constructed to the property line. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. MAMIE, INC. Request of Marnie, Inc., 106 EmeraJdStreet, Redondo Beach, that there be created a new zone.to be designated as R-4, High,..,Rise, Hig~Density, for the specific purpose of rezoning the·eight acres located south of Second Street on the west side of Valley Drive, owned by the company, from manufacturing to R~. The secretary read letters from Mr. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector, to Mr. Collamer A. Bridge, City Attorney, and from Mr. Bridge in answer to Mr. Trottrs inquiry as to whether land can be rezoned into a new zone at the same time the ordinance is amended creating such a new zone~ It was Mr. Bridge's opinion that the new classification should be in effect before an application can be filed an4 considered by the Convn:ission to change certain property to the new zone. Mr-. Trott was asked to amplify this matter by Chairman Fredricks and stated that Mamie, Inc., bas filed an applicatioI)-3.sking that the matter be set for a hearing, and.the City Attorney's ruling, he believed., is that the application could not be filed, because there is no such zone at the present time. However, he added, if the fommission should see fit to go ahead and establish this new zon~, in bis opinion,at the same time any property that the Commission would choose to include i~ the new zone could be considered for rezoning at the hearings • . Mr. Ronald Moran, 25 Pacific Coast Highway, secretary to the corporation, said this specific request was made for the subject property because it was felt that this rezoning would not affect adversely any area in Hermosa Beach. A year's time bad been spent in developing the project, including top professional _ planning and architectural help0 He submitted a brochure depicting the proposed development.
Planning Commission 6 July 10, 1961 Comm. Black moved that a letter be written to the City Council requesting professional advice and aid in this matter., because at one time a professional planner,in rezoning the entire city, had zoned the subject property for manufacturing and there had not been any manufacturing developed., and· it was Conon. Black's feeling that it is very probable this property is adaptable to the zone requested., but he would like to have professional advice. Comm. Noble said he would favor a special study of the project submitted. There was no second to Comm. Black's motion, which was withdrawnD Comm. Noble moved that there be a workshop meeting to study and analyze in detail the material Mr. Moran has. Conun. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Chairman Fredricks then set Monday, July 17, 1961, at 7:30 p.m., for thie workshop meeting . . , J ROBERT W. WOODARD Letter fi;om Robert W; Woodard relative to expansion of Melo--Dees Dress and Yarn Shop, 837 ... 5th Street, the southwest 35' of the northeast 150' of Lot 9, Block 85, 2nd Addition to Hermosa Beach. This property is presently zoned R-3. Located on the site are a residence and a nonconforming business which has been in operation for_many yea.rs, the property having been zoned for commercial use pr~or to l9St when the present zoning ordinance was adopted. Mr. Woodard was before the Commission for advice and information concerning the possibility of constructing an l8x40' storeroom addition to the building used for commercial purposes. • Views expressed:;. by the Commissioners included the fact that the property is now in a residential. zone, and.though nonconforming, the business can remain, but if the business warrants expansion, it should be on property properly zoned for co111Jiercial use. If this property were in the C-potential area, some thought could be given to.rezoning. The new addition would be for storage purposes only, and would not increase the number of employees or commercial use. Mr. Woodard stated that previous to 1956 the property.was in a C....zone, the new zoning "going through faster than was anticipated." He felt that the area zoned R-3 was relatively small. It was Commo Halest suggestion that Mr. Woodard be informed of the views expressed by letter, and it was agreed that a copy of the minutes be sent to him. . . NELSON & STICKNEY City Clerk's memo referring to City Council action on July 6, 1961, concerning petition of Nelson & Stickney for temporary use of building at 67-13th Street, zoned C-2, for automobile repairingo This building had formerly been used for this purpose, which, though nonconforming, had continued after the zoning ordinance had been amended to exclude this use at that location. After this nonconforming use ceased, the building had been used for a short time as a ware-house. Temporary relief is sought by the petitioners due to the fact that this property is included in the area proposed for offstreet parking by the city. It was the feeling of the Commission-that no action could be taken unless there was a formal application before them, and it was unanimously agreed that a letter be written to the Council stating that when a formal application is filed with the Connnission with regard to the matter•contained in Nelson & Stickney's letter, the Commission would be happy to consider same, on motion by Conn. Black and seconded by Comm. Locken. Prior to the vote, Mr~ John Schmolle made a plea for
Planning Commission 7 July 10, 1961 NEI.SON & STICKNEY CONTD ,t, the Commission,. take action or indicate a favorable attitude because of the hardship involved. BEACH CONVENIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT CODDil. Joe B. Noble, chairman of the subcommittee on beach conveniences, read his report, and Chairman Fredricks suggested that the report, together with various committees' reconunendations and letters from neighboring cities, be received and filed by the Commission and that the matter b.e scheduled on the agenda so that the Connnission can take action to submit a report to the Council as had been requested. On motion by Comm. Black, seconded by Conon. Hales, it was unanimously voted that·the public hearing be held at the next regular meeting on August 14, 1961, and that it be advertised and given publicity in the local newspapers, notices being sent to chairmen of the local committees on beach conveniences. GOULD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT City Clerk's memo referring State Highway Department's contemplated improvement of Gould Avenue to Commission and requesting Commission and City Engineer to study the effect on Hermosa Beach and to prepare any recormnendations deemed advisable. , Mr. Stevens briefly discussed what was proposed, and on motion by comm. Black, seconded by Con:un. Hales, it was unanimously agreed to refer this item to the next regular meeting of the Conunission. Letter dated June IQ, 1961, from Simon Eisner & Associates, and letter dated June 23, 1961, from City Manager Harris to Mr. Eisner, were read by the secretary, received and filed by unanimous vote. Announcement of City Council's re-appointment of Comm. Johnson for four years from July 1, 1961, was made. The Commission was asked to consider proposed offstreet parking for Mro Ed Walker, Bay Cities Taxi, 1099 Pier Avenue, Lots 55 and 56, Hermosa Heights (Hiss) Tract, Mr. Walker proposing to roof over a 23x361 space presently used for parking and car repair. It was unanimously agreed to accept the plan as submitted with no additional parking required and that an affidavit be filed with the Building Department that there would be no garage doors l'i: 7din t be used solely for repairing and parking taxicabs. . lf'1 / ADJOURNMENT at 11:25 p.m. ~
7/10/61 BEACH CONVENIENCE FACILITIES COMMITTEE An analysis of reports from the Citizens Advisory Cormnittee, the James Clemence Committee and the David Wilkinson Connnittee shows a strong tendency toward the following points: 1. Toilet facilities are a definite need and urgency, but these facilities should be restricted gb the pier section of our beach. It is unanimously agreed that the south end of our beach can be taken care of by the available facilities at the lifeguard headquarters. The north end will be convenienced when the toilet facilities now planned are constructed in conjunction with Manhattan Beach. 2~· Drinking fountains along the beach are a needed facility and can be provided at a nominal expen~e to the city. The number of fountains needed was not brought out in the reports, but indications from other beach cities who have already provided such facilities show that one every 1000 feet is desirable. <l~t ~y s mitted, "fP-/iJ-e.... . No le, Chairman JBN:r
REPORT OF WORKSHOP MEETING-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Ha,l.l at 7:30 p.m., Monday, July 17, 1961. AlJ. members present except Comm. Johnson. . tMs Cliairman Fredricks announced to the packed council chambers that/was a workshop meeting and not a puoli.c hearing and explained that the purpose of this meeting was to give the Conmdssioners an opportunity to go more into detail than was • possible at· the regular meeting of July 10 of the proposition presented by Mamie, Inc., including a request for high-rise, highadensity units on their property at Second Street and Valley·Drive and a new zone to be created·for this use. He asked Mr. Ronald Moran, secretary of the corporation, to present the proposal in more detail, and Mr. Moran thereupon· read a prepared 3-page proposal outlining the area and what was considered its best use; the structures, including the number and size of the apartments, a motel, shopping center, and three levels of parking; ingress and egress to bounding streets; sewage facilities and utility lines; and fire.,,.protection facilities. Also broken down into various city, county, school, etc.,'taxes was the sum of $687,277.50. Mr. Moran added· that the city would benefit greatly from these taxes, and it was not believed -that there would be additional cost to the city. The Chief of Police, he said, had stated that he did not believe there would be any great additional cost in policing the new deve~opment. Qestioned by the Commissioners, Mr·. Moran said the apartments would all be above the Monterey Boulevard level. There would be access not only to Valley and Second Street, but also Monterey. The possibility of widening Herondo received considerable attention, Mr. Moran stating that Redondo Beach and Hem,sa Beach would probably make the necessary development and bis company would assist in the final completion of the project and would no doubt contribute sane of their property~ He said he had indicated bis w.i.llingness as far as the land is concerned but nothing toira.rd the development of the street since it is not known what is to be done. Mr. Jolm. Stevens was asked concerning the ·proposed Herondo Street widening and answered Edison has been contacted, both Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach engineering staffs have been worldng on a tentative· design for appr~tely 72' right of way, 25' an Redondo's side and 15' in Hermosa, but timew:i.se he could not say, Redondo Beach -wanting the road as soon as the harbor is opened. • Mr. Moran said he had not. given thought to any added traffic burden due to the proposed motel and shopping center if the Herondo Street project was not com:pieted and said Mr. Hopkins in Redondo Beach had thought the two projects ·might be completed within a reasondle length of time of each other~ The connnercial would not affect the traffic, he said, since these are shops to serve primarily the tenants, but it might create some problems as far as the motel is concerned,and it might be that they would delay this to wori,in with thcn:,rogram as :far as the street is concerned. . Available parking received considerable attention during the discussion, and Mr. Moran stated that 2000 garage spaces were being provided for the 890 units. It was the opinion of some of the Conmisrloners that if a new zone is to be created, requirements for parking would be spelled out, it being further pointed out that the proposal ~ould come close to meeting the requirements mentioned in a special study for high-rise units in Hermosa. Whether or not higb,-.rise, high-density structures in He~mosa Beach/is the question to decide, it was said. Fe wanted
Planning Conmission 2 July 17, 1961 The Conmi.ssion•s concern is unlimited-height and maximum density. If the density within the area is controlled, the height would nct make any particular difference, since once past the 3-6 stories, the view would be affected. It IIDl.St be decided whether this subject property should remain manufacturing or be developed for residential. It may not fit what is thought of as a residential. zone; however, thinking mu.st be broadened to understand this cooperative "1artment development. It is assumed that Redondo Beach will soon be thinking along these lines. Another point dilcus sed was whether the Mor~ property should be the only area considered for the proposed new zone, Mr. Moran emphasized that his plans had been developed for the 7½ acres owned by Mamie, Inc., and he believed the very nature of the project wcruld eliminate fears of the people, since granting this petition would be for a substantial amount of land which can stand on its own two feet, and other areas would have to come up to the same amount of" land to meet the requirements. He-would not like this to become a controversial thing in the city, he said:, and would not be attempting to i_nfluence the city's thinking for any other area. This would not be a senior-citizens' program, he said, believing there would be SOJIE! sort of subdivision, private funds being used for the developmento He was asked if people in the cooperative apartments would have title1 and he answered that this w.s their thinking at the moment -nothing definite. Additional burden on local schools was considered, Mr~ Moran stating that the most they would have wuld be 200 school children1 and· he did not think there would be that many. Doctor Glick had been contacted, one o{ the Commissioners saiqand had expressed his feeling that the school expansion could_keep ahead of this proposed developmento Apparently, there are no figures available for a ratio of school children to high.,.rise apartments; but, according to Doctor 'Glick, use is now1a study on this particular phase. d'oing · It was said that the school board people of our city are not alarmed1 which could be an indication that they have the proper planning background to anticipate these problems. Other Conmd.ssioners believed there should be some formal statement from the schools indicating their attitude. Mr·. Moran pointed out that his proposed density was not substantiaJly greater than what is already permitted in the R-3 zone and that the increase in taxes to be paid to the schools would more than off set any small increase that might be created in the number of children attending school. He was asked if-finances were available and if it was· his intention to pursue the project should he be given permission by the city. His answer was in the affirmative. Mr.Moran said that specific plans for the structures wuld not be drawn up prior to receiving a decision on his request because of the e:xpenS'e involm. The type of precise plan necessary to eliminate any deviation from the use permitted received attention, and Mra Moran asked that he b~ allowed to diminish the size if the subsurface proved inadequate, although he did not foresee any difficulties. Chairman Fredricks thanked Mr. Moran, and addressing the Comnission, he said one alternative to consider was Mr. Moran.ts request to restrict the proposed new zone to the property in question -another alternative would be to make t). it more general creating these zones any time people come up with lqnd mass for the partic;;i_ar use in certain locations in the city, meeting•otmr factors that mig~t be det!rmined.as bein~ proper for that type of development and not necessarily restricting it to this particular area. -
Planning Commission 3 July 17, 1961 If the Com:nission should decide to develop a new zone, there would be public hearings to discuss what should be required and n:iight be simultaneously run with.the adoption of a p~ecise plan for the new zQne at the subject property, but at any future time there would always be public hearings ta change other a.re-as to the new zone; the people could be protected by the fact that any time someone else wanted to do this, they would have to come before the Comnission and Council to have zoning changed -and a pre~• plazi adopted. It was suggested that various departments, street, building, engineering~ the city schools, city clerk and city attorney, police and fire chiefs, should be asked to submit in writing their opinions concerning the proposed zone and the area in question. Formal action would require a resolution of intention to-hold public hearing·s, spelling out what is proposed to go into the new zone, including whatever properties are desired. A new article to be added to the zoning ordinance would be written, giving permitted uses, density, lot area, lot coverage, building height, yard~1 front, side and rear, usable-outdoor yard· space, distance between .main buudings, parking, guest parking, conmercial development in relation to residential development -possibly some type of ratio~ It was suggested that some draft could be made from the high-rise study that had been made fc,r the city. The Chairman adjourned the mee~ing w.lth the statement that a special meeting would be called for Monday night, July 24, if there were anythlng concrete to go on "'." otherwise he would not call a special meeting. r
MINUTES OF THE REJULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 14, 1961. ROLL CALL: Present -Comm. Noble, Johnson, Viault, Hales and Locken Absent -Comm. Black and Chairman Fredricks Present w Bud M. Trott; Chief Bldg. Ins~ctor, and • John StevensJ City Engineer. ColIDll. Black took his place following approval of minuteso Vice Chairman Hales presided during the absence of Chairman Fredricks. Minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 1961, were unanimously approved. There followed a discussion amongst the Commissioners as to whether Items 2 and 3 on the agenda, public hearings on high-rise structures and beach conveniences respectively, should be held over until other matters on the agenda, particularly those previously brought before the Conmtission, should be considered. Comm. Noble moved that Items 2 and 3 be transferred to Items 10 and 11 respectively on the agenda. Comm. Locken seconded the motion which failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble and Locken Comm. Johnson, Viault, --Black and Hales Chairman Fredricks To accommodate the audience present for the public hearings, Vice Chairman Hales announced that the meeting would adjourn to Clark Stadium, reconvening there at 7:55 p.m. . . . HIGH-ID:SE, HIGH ... DENSITY STRUCTURES Public hearing to consider whether to proceed to amend Zoning Ordinance N. s. 154 by creating a new zone consisting of hig:O..rise, high-density, residential and limited commercial combined use, on the 7½ acre site bounded by Second Street, Valley Drive, Monterey Boulevard and south city limits. Vice Chairman Hales explained the reason for this hearing was to give the people an opportunity to express themselves on such structures, stating that Mamie, Inc., had requested the amendment and that at a workshop meeting on July 17, Mr. Ronald Moran, Secretary, had presented the proposal to the Commission. Mr. Moran was asked to briefly review the proposal for the lbenefit of those not present at the workshop meetingo A total of 890 apartments in three apartment buildings, having approximately one and one-half gar&g,s:'~1)er unit, a 449...room,high-rise motel, an auditorium for 1000 people, a restaurant and stores for the development, witqparking on 3 levels to provide space for·2000cars, recreation facilities consisting of swimming~pools, te~s courts, badminton,shuffleboard, etc.,, comprised the proposal, according to Mr. Moran. The three apartment buildings would cover approximately 30% of the land, having a land coverage of 177 units per acreo Land along Valley Drive would·be dedicated to provide a 100 foot entrance., There would be no·sewage, gas, water or electric problems. Taxes on the estimated $30,000,000 development were broken down by Mr. Moran as follows:
Planning Commission Hi.gh,..Rise Contd County Schools City Library Flood control Hospital District Metropolitan Water Sanitation District 2 $ 154.,470.00 387,405.00 57,750.00 9,907.50 30,292050 18;825.00 13.,500.00 15,127.50 $687,277.50 August 14, 1961 It is bis hope, Mr. Moran said, that the city would benefit tremendously from this proposed development and that the area, which is now virtually nothing but a dump, would be upgraded, benefiting everyone. The project is proposed for a specific location, he said, and the request is made only for this particular site. Speaking in favor of the proposed new zone: James Goff, 210 Pacific Coast Highway~ problems could be different in some other location in town. Proposed site is a-blight. In upgrading it, value of surrounding property would be increased, and valuation of city would be increased 50%. Chester Witt, 437-28th Street -would help tax situation; very little additional load on schools; can see nothing against it. Harris McGalliard, one of the owners of Mamie, Inc • .., Newport Beach has under consideration zoning in isolated areas under ''matter of right••• W. T. Smithers, 3009 Strand ... biggest worry of all people on Herm,osa Avenue has been whether their property would be rezoned and could be condemned for unlimited height buildingso As far as this proposition is concerned, it is the greatest thing that could happen; income to the city would be great. Mike Roy, manager of Beach Bowl, 2420 Pacific Coast Highway .... Only one way to go ... high-rise. Live under a delusion if it is thought height can be limited. would be an intelligent thing for any city to make decisions where the city can control in specific cases. There is no condemnation involved here. Sooner or later, the town will be engulfed; keep control through legislative body; no reason why this cannot be particularly zoned for this one spot if it is an engineering feasibility; private enterprise and an asset to the community. Mike Bi~o, 912 Monterey-believe Mamie, Inc., i~ntitled to consideration as propert owners an~hould get the best return on their property; present ordinance hinders them from best development of their property. Leroy Olsen, 330""30th Street-people would like to see old places removed or remodeled -would like to see a development of this type so that more people could enjoy the beaches and the general atmosphere of living at the beach. 60 Hermosa Ave. Jan Darian of Darian Studios/.,. has studio close to the subject property; has had many cases of molestation of teen-age girls and children along this blighted area. There is nothing to draw from in Hermosa Beach and have seriously
Planning Commission Hi.g~ise Contd 3 August 14, 1961 thihking of leaving Hermosa Beach on that account. Believe in progress and bringing new blood into the town. John Scbmolle, 931 Montgomery Drive ... speaking in dual capacity. As President of the Chamber of Commerce -directors f'eel this development would be of the greatest value to the city and that with something like this, business will return Hermosa Beach to its rightf'ul place. As an individual and a builder, trade·ma.gazines show similar projects all over the state, introducing new words, vertical subdivisions with individual grant deeds to people within this type of apartment dwelling, because of the limited amount of ground area available. Mrs. Etta Simpson ... Welcome and wish to encourage the creative thinking which has suggested this proposal. Do not follow logic that an R-4 will be spread all over the city if this request is granted. The underground garages can offer bomb shelter and an opportunity for civil defense preparation. Opposed to convention halL Should be strict control to encourage high income along with the high...r~se, shops -which would invite spending by high,,.income group which would be•1tlcome to the conmrunity. • . \ James Ambers --0fie of owners of property~ Have held property for six years; felt that harbor development would make wonderful future for Hermosa Beach; had no ulterior motives; here to develop thisJ,roperty; have paid $24,000 in taxes but have faith in Hermosa Beach; want to improve this blighted area. Opposed David Burt, ll52-7th Street -opposed to high-rise, high-density units. Wants to hold Hermosa Beach to residential community and would prefer to have more R-1 zoning and less multiple. Brought up sewage problem, stating that he had been told that White Point Sewage Plant had on occasion cut off industrial users because of the demand • .Other areas in the city wanting this zone might not be near the pumping station, creating new problems for the citye El Segundo and Redondo Beach fire departments stand ready for assistance if needed at the Biltmore Hotel, but they do not have ladders for 26 storie_s. The city will be pressed in the future to provide a ladder-truck to.take care of these high~rise structures. The police department and traffic situation will be tremendously affected by the increased number of people and cars. There would be additional demands on the schools and recreational. facilities of the city. Values of surrounding area might increase at first, but believe living near apartments is not as desirable as residential with less density and that property values would decrease. Professional study on high-rise structures recommended maximum of 15.0 units per acre, and this proposal far exceeds that. Has prepared an in:ila:tive ordinance to be published in tre Hermosa Beach Review on September 17 calling for a maximum height of buildings to be 3 stories or 45' (lesser heights to be established by Planning Conunission if desired); not more than a 75% coverage of land area (lesser if desired by Planning Commission); 650 square feet for each unit (greater land area if desired by Planning Conmri.ssion). The proponents of this ordinance wish to see this city remain single-family. Present zoning ordinance can be changed at any time by Council. --people's ordinance can be changed only by a vote of the people. Both the Conunission and Council are under increased pressure to approve the hiib.-rise structures.
Planning Commission High,..Rise Contd 4 August 14., 1961 Charles Sackett, 303-30th Street .... Object on same grounds as Mr. Burt. Do not believe statement by gentleman who felt tow wanted old placed reIJDved or remodeled applied to subject proposal and that gentleman who felt Jlr. Moran should have the right to develop bis property as he saw fit should add 11as long as it does not hurt the rest of uso 11 Tom Stevens, 1918 Strand .... Chairman of Citizens for Private Domain, about 300 members, dedicated to private enterprise, keeping the town a residential community. Mentioned Newburg, N.Y., in connection with sick type of tbinkmng that when certain services are desired and costs get high; cities entertain type of free enterprise that wil'.}{help to pay these costs,wbich incl~de gambling., honky":"tonks, ferris wheels,' high":"density, high,..rise build-ings. Believe the zoning should be changed fromM to perhaps R-3 but strongly opposed the proposed use. Mark.Hardint 1130 Strand -argued that property could have been developed but had bee allowed to remain in this deteriorated, blighted condition. Questioned parking requirements for auditorium. and shopping center. Strongly opposed to proposal. Marie Russeil, 3412 Manhattan Avenue ... inquired if city could enforce development as accepted. Vice Chairman Hales advised that the Coomdssion would decide whether to proceed and if it was decided to create the new zone, all technicalities wou?-d be taken up. Mrs. Dorothy Sterrett, 97 Hermosa Avenue ..... had made no decision but questioned the view for the proposed structures and the surrounding area and wondered if these units were not to be cheap, would the tenants be satisfied and what would be done to the ugliness that surrounds the property. Joel Edwards, 3030 Manhattan Avenue• connnended Commission for inviting the public to· give their views. Chance of reaching a point of saturation if high ... rise, hl,gh,.,density structures are permitted. Would not want to see this situation develop, making property so high, indinduils could not afford to own their land, and raising taxes because of the increased cost of operating the city. Marg8:I'et Clark, 833 Cypress~ object on the grounds that it is spot zoning. Lewis Glassburg, 1816 Hermosa Avenue-opposed any form of high-rise until there is an adequate master plan for-the city. Mr. Hardin,questione:d whether this was to be FHA financing. Vice Chairman Hales ruled that this was not a question pertinent to the zoning change under • discussion. Lee Peterson, 559~24th Street~ believe the property would build up very rapidly if rezoned to residential. Vice Chairman Hales then asked if any latecomers -,.. wished to be heard. Bob Farnsworth of Hermosa Realty Comp.any ... -argued in favor of the development, stating that from a·standpoint of economics, if someone in Hermosa Beach needs
Planning Commission Higb,-.Rise Contd 5 August 14, 1961 assistance who has the courage and conviction and ability to conceive of such a plan and there is capital available for the development, he should not be discouraged. Ren~ Chouinard, 245 Monterey~ lives in the area of the subject property and wants to keep Hermosa as it is. Mary B. Rawlings, 911 Pacific Coast Highway -read statistic.a from the Research Monograph compiled with the idea of giving people who are faced with problems a basis on which to evaluate a trend, expressing her approval of the proposal which would take care of some of the increased population in the Los Angeles area. Should consider this project is of great value since it is adjacent to Redondo Beach. The hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m., question period to be postponed un~il return to City Hall. BEACH CONVENIENCES Public hearing to consider whether beach facilities are needed, and if so, in what location~. Vice Chairman Hales explained that the Council had asked the Conanission to investigate this item and to make whatever recom-mendations were felt proper. Comm. Noble, chairman of the subcommittee on beach convenience~read the report submitted by him at the July lo regular meeting, whlch called attention to the reports from the James Clemence and Dav.id Wilkinson committees showing a strong tendency toward the need for· toilet facilities, to be restricted-to the pier sect~on of HeI'Jlllsa Beach, and the need for drinking fountains, other cities along the beach having provided these feeling that one every 1000 feet is desirable. The public hearing was opened, and since no one in the audience came forward to comment on the matter, by unanimous vote the hearing was closed, whereupon, at 10:10 p.m., the meeting adjourned to reconvene at the Council Chambers. HIGH.:aisE CONTD• After reconvening at the City Hall, Connnissioners questioned some of those who had commented.at some length and agreed to postpone action until they could study and weigh the points brought out. Vice Chairman Hales moved that the meeting be adjourned to August 21 for further consideration of this item. Comm. Noble seconded the motion,wbich carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: CoJIIDl., Noble, Johnson, Hales and Locken Comm. Viault and Black Chairman Fredricks BEA.CH CONVENIENCES CONTD Comm. Black moved to accept tjte recommendation of the subcommittee that the existing facilities at the end of Pier Avenue were adequate restroom requirements, water fountains to be installed probably every 1000', recommending nothing as to showers. Discussion folio-wed, members agreeing the--water fountains were not of sufficient importance to warrant recommending such installations if ther-e wee to be no other restrooms installed., anq Connn.. Black withdrew his motion, which had received no second.
Planning Cormnission Beach Conveniences Contd 6 August 14, 1961 Conun. Viault then moved that a letter be written to the City Council advising that the facilities on hand in Hermosa Beach have been determined to be adequate, further comm.ending the Council on the development of the facilities at Pier Avenue. Conun. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: J Comm. Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales and Locken Comm. Noble Chairman Fredricks JOHN L. MINECH Public hearing to consider application for zone variance of John L. Minech to permit s11n garage in lieu of 8'6" for one of the units in the 5"'"1.lnit • structure now under construction at 218 Manhattan Avenue, Lot 3, Block 44, First Addition to Hermosa Beach. Mr. Minech was present speaking in behalf of his petition. Mr. Mike Bigo also spoke favorably. Motion to grant the variance by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Viault, Black, Hales and Locken Comm. Johnson Chairman Fredricks Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-,,331 granting this variance for the reason that it will not materially.hinder the area in which the building is being constructedo Comm. Black seconded the motion, vm.ich· carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commu Noble, Viault, Black, Hales and Locken ColIDD.. Johnson Chairman Fredricks NELSON & STICKNEY Public hearing to consider application for temporary zone variance of Arthur Nelson and Howard Stickney to allow auto repairing in a C..2 zone until such time as the city acquires the property, located'in the proposed offstreet parking district, at 67..J.3th Street, Lots 24, 25, 26, Block 14, Hermosa Beach Tract. • Both petitioners were present, Mr. Stickney speaking for the petition. Mr. Mike Bigo also spoke in favor of the request. The City Engineer was questioned as to the present status of the offstree*arking district. It was his opinion that the property would be acquired within six months. Com. Viaul t moved that a temporary zone variance be approved for one year to allow auto repairing in the subject building. Comm. Johnson·seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Planning Commission 7 August 14, 1961 Nelson & Sticlmey Contd Comm. Noble moved adoption of Resolution P. c. 154w332 granting a temporary zone variance until such time as the city acquires the property or for a period of one-year, or whichever event occurs first,, with the right of rehearing by"the owners, for the reason that it is the feeling of the Commission that the owners of said property should have no further penalization or lack of income from this vacant building in question due to the desires of the city to take,over such property in the future for the proposed p.µ-king district. Comm. Viault seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. LAURENCE E. PETERSON Public hearing to consider application for zone variance of Laurence E. Peterson to permit over 30% addition to·e:xisting structure, which has a nonconforming 31 sideyard in lieu of 5', and an 81 front setback in-lieu of 10', the new garage to have a 4' sideyard in lieu of required 5•, in line with existing portico which has a 4' sideyard, at 1021-Sth Place, Lot 62, Tract 8386. • Petitioner was present speaking in behalf of his petition. co·mm. Viault moved that the variance be granted. Comm. Noble seconded the.motion, which carried as follows: -AIES: NOES: Comm. Noble, Jolmson, Viault, Black and Locken Comm. Hales "' ABSENT: Chairman Fredricks Connn. Noble moved adoption of Resolution P.c. 154-333 granting the variance for the reason that the structure is in apparent conformity with the neigh-borhood as far as the serback is concerned; the owner should not be penalized and not allowed to remodel his home; this would not be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: ms: NOES: ABSENT: Comm.. Noble, J obnson, Viaul t, Black and Locken 0 Comm. Hales Chairman Fredricks LUCILLE D. GUYER Public hearing to consider application for zone variance of Lucille D. Guyer ~o permit the construction of a Z-Car garage on an R-3 lot having a nonconforming use, and waiving Section 1300 ofZoning-Ordinance N. s. 154, at 329 Hermosa Avenue, Lot 13 and the northeast 9' of Lot 12, Block 4, Hermosa Beach Tract. Comm. Viault moved that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Conun. Noble and carried unanimously. adopt·Resolution P.C.154-334 and to Motion by Conun. Viault, _seconded by Comm. Black, to/grant the variance for the reason that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood to permit this garage construction and should not hinder any future development of the property in its proper method, carried unanimously
Planning Commission 8 August 14, 1961 CHARLES O. EWINS ..,. Parking Letter from Building Inspector requesting parking determination for proposed one,,,,story structure 30' wide by 47,4n long, to be used for repair of automobiles, on the northwest-corner of Bonnie Brae and Pier Avenue, 1017 Pier Avenue, Lot 1, Block z, G. G. Allen Tract, in a Cw3 zone, for Charles o. Ewins. Petitioner was present to speak in favor of his plan submitted to provide parking for four cars. On motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, it was unanimously agreed that a letter be written to the Building Department directing that four auto stalls should be provided for the contem,,, plated structure, the curb breaks on Pier Avenue and Bonnie Brae as shown on the plot plan submitted to conform to the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding distance from the street intersection. BEACH BOWL -Neon Sign Letter from Building Inspector requesting review of proposed 13tx16' double-faced sign, encroaching over public property Jf 9¼0 at-a height of 14', at tHe Beach Bowl, 2420 Pacifi(? Coast Highway. Mro Mike Roy, manager of the development,and R. M. Hogan of Electrical Products were present to discuss the proposed sign. . Motion by Co!IDll.o Viault, seconded by Conun. Locken to approve the sign as submitted with the restriction that there will be no beacon lights or rotating lamps that would be detrimental to automobile signals or traffic~ carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conuno Noble, Viault, Black, Hales and Locken Comm. Johnson Chairman Fredricks w. ·c. BLUEJACKET• Extension of Variance Re~uest ofW. Ce Bluejacket for extension of variance granted by Resolution P.'e. 154w295, September 13, 1960, on property at 1001 Hermosa Avenue. Motion·by Comm. Viault, seconded by Connn. Black,to extend the variance for six months, carried unanimouslyQ Comm. Viault moved adoption ofResolution P. C. 154-335 extending the variance for six months for the reason that it has not materially changed from the existing variance as granted and would rtot be any more detrimental to the area than it presently is. Comm. Black 'seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. GOULD AVENUE ... State Highway Improvement City Engineer Stevens stated that he had been unable to work on this since the July l01meeting and that he would soon be in contact with the design engineer from the state and would get some indication of their plans.. It was unanimously agreed~ to set this item on the agenda for the next regular meeting provided the City Engineer is ready to make bis report., ADJOURNMENT -Motion by Comm: Noble that mee • be,.....·djo ed to August 21~ to take up Item 2 (high,..rise,. bigh--densi ' Viault, carried unanimously. r . y
MINUTES OF AN·ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT~F HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 21, 1961. ROLL CALL: Present -Comm. Noble, Johnson; Viault, Black, Hales, and Locken; Bud M. Trott,Cbief Building Inspector. Absent ~ Chairman Fredricks. In the absence of Chairman Fredricks, Vice Chairman Hales presided. He explained the purpose-of this adjourned meeting was for the Co!Dlll.lssion to decide whether a m;~rise, high,.,density zone· shou.Ld be added to the zom.ng ordinance. A letter from Mr. Thomas L. Stevens, Chairman of the Citizens for Private Domain, was presented, and after some discussion on whether or not to open the public hearing, which had been closed at the August 14 meeting, it was decided that the ~etter should be read and a period of 30 minutes given over to hear those who had not been pres~nt at the earlier meeting or those who had new m.ateria:t. to present. Mr. John Schmo:Ue asked who would be allowed to speak, and i.t was agreed to hear only property owners within the city, whether business or residentia.1, and voting citizens. Thereu_pon, Mr. Stevens was asked to read the .1etter submitted by him, at the concJ.usion ot· which, at 8 :00 p.ni., the meeting wa~ open~d to the pubiic for a hru.r hour. By unanimous vote, on motion . by Comm~ Viault, seconded by Comm. Johnson, the letter was received and filed. Mrs0 David Burt, ll52-7th Street --no actual facts concerning cost· to taxpayers have came forth. Has been advised that taxes from the Mamie, Inc. J proposal. for schools is a misrepresentation. Also questioned cooperative-type buildings and operation of the motel, auditorium and shops. Felt this should be clearly stated for the benefit of the taxpayers. Connn. Viault answered that this was not pertinent, since the Commission was not considering the specific develop-ment of Mr. Moran but deciding whether or not to include a higlwrise zone in the ordinance. Mrs. Burt's argument was that it was the Moran request that started this investigation, a~d that it was his proposed development that was persuading the people, Mr. Karl Raife, 145 Lyndon, said that he lived in the shadow of the developmant and was interested in how the density is determined; It was explained that if the Commission decided to proceed with the study, they would spell out the details and decide how far up and what lana coverage, etc., following which they would follow the normal procedure and have the proper public hearingso Mrs . .Evangeiine Piuggj 1831 Hillcrest -approves developmenta Mr. Mark Harding -Questioned propriety of displaying proposed development of Mamie, Inc., if Commission is not considering this specific proposal. Great deal of money cir~ulating in widely separated areas in the city based upon the possibility of a high-,rise zone. There will be no stopping it and it will not be confined to one locality. Mr. ·Hayes, ll.7 Ardmore.-. approves high-rise, feeling trere is no other way but~!. up~ Mr. Kaufman, 1937 Bay View Drive• opposes proposal. Mentioned density'of population al.ready in Hermosa Beach; would like to keep city small_, residential town. Had circulated a petition opposing a proposed high-rise at 15th Street and the StrandJ and only seven people out of the 160 contacted had refused to sign his petition, and feels that matter should be put to a vote of tht!fPeopleo Mr. Glassburg, 1816 Hermosa Avenue -does not believe a single development should be approved without an adequate master plan and study;6f areas in the city; proposed plan is overbuilt; not necessarily in favor of single-family development, but believes adequate master plan should decide areas for high-rise.
Planning Commission 2 August 21, 1961 Roy Stennett, 45 Pacific Coast Highway -businessman and property owner in Herm:>sa Beach~ believes the city needs the income and approved the project. ~-J. Hoyer, 174 Lyndon Street -asked that letter he had previously written to Commission be read. In his letter he questioned the water runoff, the effect of smoke and fumes from the Edison plant on·the tenants3 the effect on TV reception for citizens west of the buildings, the ability of the area to support such structures, the possible sea infiltration into the underground parking, the usable and accessible garage space, the widening of Herondo Street, and the precedent set in allowing one such development, feeling that an R~P or R~3 would be better zoning for the Moran property. • Mr. Mike ·Raftis, 1232-3rd Street -asked to clarify ndsrepresentation regarding taxes for schools from the proposed development. Explained that schools receive part of their income from taxes, and the State has an equalization tax making up any difference. If the assessment tax is increased, the equaJ.ization tax goes down, so that the schools do not actually get any more money., The high.-rise development will cost the schools more if there are children in the buildings. _ . . out Mr, Jilil Goff, 210 Pacific Coast Highway -city cannot exist wi tly' income from businesses and cannot exist on private homes alone. Vice Chairman Hales closed the hearing at 8 :30 p·.m. He stated that the discussion at this meeting and the previous meeting at ClarkStadium was a voluntary action on the part of the Connnission and not required-public hearings, that·if any action is taken requiring public hearings, trny will be forthcoming, and everyone will have an opportunity to be heardo Comm. Viault moved that the Conunission continue to study the creatiol)Pf a new zone with the intent and purpose of coming up with thefequired technical data neceswary to advertise for a resolutiol}Of intention. The motion was seconded by Comm. Black. There followed a discussion amongst the Conmissioners per,., taining to the course of action to be pursued. The motion carried by the following vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Connn.. Noble, Viaul t., Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnson. Chairman Fredricks·. In voting "no", Collllll. Johnson stated that he did not know of any area in Hermosa Beach that would stand this ty-pe of development; some day it may come, but the only way he can see is by condemnation of a lot of property in order to provide adequate streets. Other things can be taken care of, but we must remember we are having a vdry favorable picture presented to us of all the money we are going to get. We have a specific area for which this zone is proposed, which consists of 7½ acres. However, the proposed population density is fantastic and out of line, adding that he did not know where this zone l'muld fit in Hermosa Beach at the present timeQ
Planning Commission 3 August 21, 1961 Vice Chairman Hales called attention to a letter submitted by Comm. Viault to each of the Commissioners covering a number of pt)ints discussed at the hearing, including a draft of what he feels is a reasonable R-4 zone. Studying the draft carefully and comparing it with recoIIDnendations previously made by a professional consultant, Vice Chairman Hales thought it quite an adequate proposition and recollllllended that it be considered a preliminary draft to be reviewed by the city staff and possibly by a planning consultant. He moved that the draft prepared by Commo Viault be sent to the City Manager with the direction that he discuss it with his technical staff to obtain their rec{)]lli,,( mendations and prepa.!'2 development standards, reporting back to the Commission at the next favorable timeo Further discussion. led ~i-0:e.Cmd:cman Hales to withdraw this motion. He then moved that Connn. Viault's letter of IAupst 17 be received and filed. Comm. Noble seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Johnson, Bl~ck, Locken and Vice Ch.airman Hales. None. CollDll. Viault. Chairman Fredricks. --A motion was then made by Vice Chairman Hales that Comm. Viault' s letter of August 17 with the enclosed proposed addition to Ordinan~e Nos. 154 regarding R-4 be submitted to the City Manager for bim and his technical staff to review, reporting their reconmendations back to the Comni.ssion. Comm. Black seconded the motion. There was considerable discussion following the motion. ColIUll. Viault said that·this rough draft included a minimum required lot area of 15,000 square feet, but fel~ after listening to bthe various speakers and re-viewing in his own mind, that tbis area might -t;JMf small and should be trippled in its size to preclude .a nibbling away effect which has been indicated. This is a first draft and subject to change. It was agreed it was best to have the city staff review the -proposal and submit re comnendati ons before considering a planning consultant, and further that there should be a specific date set for the submission of their reports. Comm. Black withdrew bis second, and the original motion was amended by Vice Chairman. Hales by adding that the reconmendations·be submitted to the Commission at the next regular meeting on September 11, 1961G Comm. Black then seconded the motion, which carried unanimously~ • ADJOURNMENT at 9:10 p.m. r
MINUTES OF THE RIDULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION· OF THE CITY OF HERMOsA BEACH, held at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., Monday,September 11,1961. ROLL CALL: Present ... Comma Noble, Viault, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent ~ Cormno Johnson. Minutes of August 14 and 21, 1961, were unanimously approved. MAE GIULIANI Public hearing on request for zone variance of Mae Giulianito permit construction of a double garage, to be added on the east sid-e of existing residence, comprising over 30%-floor area, existing house having no front setback in lieu of required 2', and a portion of house encroaching to north property line in lieu of 3' sideyard, garctge addition to conform, at 209~4th. Street, the westerly 47' of Lot 1, Tract No. 1074. Mrs. Giuliani was present and spoke in behalf of her application. Opposing the petition was Mrs. Anna Atkinson, l867w256th Street, Lomita, California, owner of the property to the north. She stated that her brother o-wned the easterly portion of the subject property and also opposed the proposed construction. Comm,. Viault moved to grant the variance. Conun.. Noble seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Viault and Locken. Comm. Johnson. Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-336 granting the zone variance for the reason that it is felt that a hardship would be rendered if additional parking were not allowed on said property, and it is the feeling of the Commission that the addition of a a.onforming garage to an existing nonconformity of this nature would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Comm. Black and carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Viault .. Comm. Johnson .. GORDON R. AND MARILYN GG SPECK Public Hearing on request for zone variance of Gordon R.·and Marilyn G. Speak to permit addition of a bedroom and service porch, comprising less than 30% floor area but maintaining a nonconforming 4' sideyard in lieu of reqtdred 5' at 121&..-20th Place, Lots 110 and 111, Walter Ransom Company's Redondo Home Tract. Applicant Gordon R. Speck was present to explain his reasons for requiring this addition.
Planning Commission Speck Contd 2 September 11, 1961 Motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Black to grant the variance carried unanimously. Thereupon, Comm. Viault moved adoption of P. c. 154-337 granting the variance for an addition which wil:J/conform to the existing nonconforming sideyard for the reason that it will not materially be detrimental to the neighborhood and that there is still adequate access for safet~nd health purposes. The motion was seconded by Comm. Black and carried unanimously. DOUGLAS F. AND BARBARA CRAIG Public hearing on request for zone variance of Douglas F. and Barbara Craig to permit construction of a deck encroaching 2'6" into the required 3' sideyard along the east side of the building at second floor level, connecting to an existing nonconforming stairway and landing which encro14ches 21611 into the required 3' sideyard, at 7~19th Street, Lot 14, Block 19, Hermosa Beach Tract. Mr. and Mrs. Craig spoke in behalf of theiiroetition, as did Mrs. Skeele, 44-19th Street, and Mrs. Martin,, 8Q ... 19th Streeto Letters ~pproving the petition from Mr. and Mrs~ Harry Parks, Jr., 44-20th Street, an. Barbara and Donald G. Guild, -1920 Strand, and a statement that there was no objection to thtn)roposed addition, signed by 19 residents, were read by the secretary. Comm. Viault moved that the variance be granted. Conun.. Black seconded the motion which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black and Locken. Comm. Viault, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson. (Comm. Viault stated his reason for voting ''no" was that there were no exceptionaJ. or extraordinary circumstances which deem it necessary to grant the petition. Comm. Hales said that he could see no reason for continuing a nonconforming structure to make it further nohconformi.ng.) Comm. Viault then moved the adoption of Resolution P. Co 154-338 denying the petition on the ground that a motion to grant failed to carry the proper votes for an affirmative decision. Comm.Black seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. STANFORD R. AND JEANE. STILES Public hearing on request for zone variance of Stanford R·. and Jean E. Stiles to extend·front of house 61 x 17'6" in order to enlarge livingroom and add fireplace, there being no garage facilities on the property, at 708~2nd Street, Lot 100, Walter Ransom Company's Venable Place. Applicants were present, Mr.· Stiles speaking on behalf of his application. Letters from Aldyth Waggoner, 711 First Place, and Ernest A. Stewart, 702 First Place,were read by the secretary, both approving the petition. Conm. Viault moved that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by comm. Black, failing to carry as follows:
Planning Cormnission Stiles Contd 3 September 11, 1961 AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Black. Comm. Noble, Viault, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson • Comm. Viault then moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-339 denying the variance for the reasons that motion to grant failed to carry the required number of affirmative votes, and the property does not have a garage, the owner indicating no desire to place a garage on this property. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Charles Ewi.ns' -Sign Structure Letter from Building Inspector asking review of proposed sign structure for Charles Ewins' garage to be constructed at 1017 Pier Avenue. Since the plot plan was indefinite as to the location of the sign on the property and whether the sign would overhang onto city property, it was unanimously agreed, on motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, to postpone a decision until this information is available. Nate Stock~ Parld.ng Determination Letter from Building Inspector asking review of proposed parking·for Nate Stock for commercial structure proposed for 2309 Pacific Coast Hi.ghway, Lots 1~4, Block I, Montmarie Tract. Following a discussion and study of theplot plan submitted, Comm. Viault moved that a letter be written to the Building Inspector approving the plan submitted showing 33 parking stalls for the 10,500' square feet of building, with the proviso that prior to approval of theplans, there be a review by the Building Department and the CityEngineer to determine that the underground parld.ng does not have an access driveway of greater than a 15° slope. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: Comm. Viault, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. CODDn. Noble. Comm. Johnson • King & Mcclung -Turning Radius Letter from Building Inspector requesting necessary turning radius for four units located on Lot 4, Block 1, Hiss Second Addition, 1314 Loma Drive. After studying the plans submitted, Comm. Noble moved that a letter be wr~tten to the Building Inspector approving the proposed plan submitted. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble and Black. Comm. Viault, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson. (Comm. Hales "no" vote for the reason that it would be quite· difficult to place a car into the back garages within the area provided, -which in turn would only leave more parking out on the streets.) Further discussion resulted in a motion by Comm.. Viault that a letter be written to the Building Inspector instructing him to notify the applicants that the
Planning Connnission King & McClung Contd 4 September ll, 1961 driveway width shall be not less than il' as indicated on the front portion of the plot plan submitteq, and that the clear area to the rear with 2-car garage at the east end of the property shal~ be a minimum of 27t. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimouslyo Mayor Gazin Letter Letter from Patricia Gazin, Mayor, to City Council, referred to Commission by Council for study and recommendationa A brief discussion disclosed that the letter had received no comment by the Council other than to be referred to the Commission •. On motion by Comm. Noble, seconded by Col.lDll. Locken, the letter was received and filed; the vote being unanimous. City Manager Letter re High-aise Construction Report from City Manager on high,o.rise, highMdensity development, requested by Commission at August 14, 1961; meeting. • Comm. Viault moved that a work session be scheduled for September 18. On being advised by Mr. Harris that he would not be available on that date, Comm. Viault amended his motion,changing the meeting time to September 25. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimouslyo ****** September 18, 1961, was set for a workshop meeting to consider a list of itelllB contained in the zoning ordinance possibly ne~ding changes and also to study a rough draf't of a proposed parking ordinance. Section 401 of Ordinanee N. s. 154 was caJJed to the attention of the Commission by Comm. Viault, and he asked for an opinion from the City Attorney relative to roomers in apartments in areas that might constitute an additional uni ta Comm.0 Viault announced the monthly luncheon meeting of the Southwest Area Planning Conmd.ttee on September 14. He asked that·another ColtDnissioner be appointed in his place to r~present the Commission, since he would be unable to attend daytime meetings. TJ:'. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:15 P.M.
REPORT OF WORKSHOP SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HEIU10SA BEACH held at the City Hall on Monday, September 18, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. Present -All members except Comm. Black. Purpose of meeting to review items a:nd sections in Ord. NoS.154 for possible amendment and study of parking ordinance draft. It was agreed that Mr. Trott should prepare a draft to be presented at regular meetings of the Commission for consideration, amending sections of the ordinance as follows: Section 9042 Para. 1. Section 5001 Para. 2. Also Section 217 Section 6002 Para. lo Section 1605, Para.I. :d Section 1207, Sections 404, 504, 604 & 704 Give choice of 8" masonryfor concrete wall on PL or 10' sideyard setback abutting R-.l... · Add "whose common wall separating the two uni ts is at least So% of the allowable width of the structuren after"A single two-family dwelling" o Spell out R .. 2 requirements, common wall for 3iini ts; 1200 sq. fto per unit(?) After 11Cityof Hemosa Beach" add clause from Parau2 requiring written notice to owners within 300' radius. Add to last sentence exception for second story clearing ground by s1. Amend for living quarters above garages on rear of lot abutting street or alley Para. 2 and 6 of each Section 1212 -Apply this for encroachnents into sideyard for lots on street ~ Section 1223 Section 1309 -lHHHHHHHHH<-l~ side. Add requirement for 8 copies of survey by licensed surveyor, showing any improvements existing on property, proposed split; establish setback for front if needed; _ require any necessary easements for newly created parcels. Amend to read that additions not more than 3o% of existing floor area can maintain nonconforming sideyards -w.tth a minimum of 3tbut not less than existing structure, conform-ing to frontyard requirements. • ·Define Alley and Street. Comm. Johnson was asked to investigate requirements for a sign ordinance, and Collllll. Viault and Mr. Trott were requested to review certain phases of the draft for proposed parking ordinance. (< --~; ADJOURNMENT AT 10:30 p.m.. ~ '..,. "(~,;:--. Bernice Robinson, Sec'y.
REPORT OF WORKSHOP MEETING-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH held at the office of the BuildiQg Inspector in the City Hall on Monday, September 25, 1961, at 7t30 p.m. All members were present except Comm. Black and Locken. Chairman Fredricks referred to letter dated September 7 from the City Manager to the Collllllission, explaining that the purpose of this workshop session was to discuss with Mr. Harris some of the points included in his letter. The meeting was turned over to Mro Harris. His first question was whether the-Commission preferred an exclusive, zone applying only to high-,.rise densityj a zone for high,,..rise including limited commercial, or of: a type of basic zone in which bigb,,.,rise could be developed under certain conditions with special use permits and site development plan, and how lar~e an area of land could be considered for this purpose. Mre Ronald Moran interjected the statement that the development proposed for his land was to apply only to that particular area,which he felt was of sufficient size to adequately support _the projecte Mr. Harris called attention to the possible widening of Herondo Street and the proppect of applications to rezone for commercial use on the Herm~sa Beach side from Pacific Coast Highway to Hermosa Avenue, suggesting that the Commission in its general planning of land use bear in mind that Herondo Street will tie in with the San Di.ego Freeway. Acceptable square footage for parcels on which high-rise structures are proposed received considerable discussion by the groupo Ml. Viault had recommended 15,000·in a letter to the Commission dated August 17, 1961. Haw-ever, he stated, after further consideration, it was his opinion that the figure might ae doubled. He felt it unreasonable to require too large an area that would not be feasible for Hermosa Beach. The Eisner· study resulted in a recommendation for 18,000 sqo ft. for an s~story proposal, it was pointed out. Mr. Moran insisted that his proposal concerned only the property owned by him, that this could be used for minimal standards, thus insuring only top,.-flight development. In sm.all....parcel de-velopments, Mr. Harris said, the architect is liIJtl.ted in flexibility, the required setbacks determining the design of the structure. In larger parcels where planned colll!lllL.--tlty projects are being. developed, the architect can have more flexibility as to bulk, density, land coverage, proximity of building to building, etc. If bulk control is used and a person is allowed to build so many square feet in relation to his total land area, providing certain required facilities, you don't worry too much about the location of the building on the site; it has the end effect of controlling the bulk of construction upon the property. Parking facilities-are another means of control. Four-story structures would not be desirable, Class 1 construction being required for six stories up. Cormn. Hales expressed his opinion that at least a block should be rn:tm.mum, with automobile access on 3 sides, and in a.~ area adjacent to already existing connnercial or multiple dwelling, to bar high ... rise in the middle of an R--1 zone. He felt it necessary to have a reasonable piece of·land with a height that required Class 1 structure for six or more stories, on at least a block of land -defining the block for at least a medium-sized block, leaving it some-what flexible, and keeping the development in a _logical part of the city, ·adjacent
Planning Conmission 2 September 25, 1961 to commercial or manufacturing areas, the nature of the building taking a mixed use. Mr. Harris said perhaps there should be considered some relationship of this type of zone to another. Someone might want to build a purely residential -structure for high-rise residential, coverin~ not more than 30% of the land, landscaping the remaining 7~, which might je-Jgood for a buffer in a residential area. If located in a comm.ercial zone, the COI!llnercial use might gradually increase from floor to floor. He called attention to projects for light manufacturing that offer architectural design and landscaping more desirable than some residential tracts. Concerning standards for bulk control, he asked for the Commissioners' thinking on density control or points of congestion and use of land. It was Mr. Trott f s suggestion that a c ombina ti on of residential and commercial activity should have a large enough land area so as not to intermingle too much with any surrounding residential. Facing on Pacific Coast Highway, he felt there could be more connner.cial in the design that on more restrictive property. Within a completely residential area, he suggested limiting the percentage of commercial which should be within the development and not fronting on the residential street. Mr. Harris advised screening off commercial from surrounding streets so that it is specifically for the residential apartment development. Mr. Harris advised listing the kinds of uses that might be permitted, stating that basically it is desired to develop a residential facility on the remaining properties in the city, realizing some co:avnercial development will continue to take place, and controlling this development by specifying C zones or allowing the combination of uses with a certain percantage for com.~ercial and by defining which commercial uses. He favored the approach that would have some flexibility but believed there should be certain restrictions. Whether c~z or C•l uses should be allowed Jllllt: be-determined by the Commission, Mr. Harris said - a filling station, C-2 use, might be included in underground parking. The Commission should decide whether to pinpoint uses incidental and approved by it. If the commercial is in a separate building,.,. what calculations would be used? Would it be better to have many ".>mall details for individual standards of land ns~ a:.1d property development or a few minimum standards of bulk density and lot area control, leaving it to the discretion of the Commission to evaluate and approve specific plans as to the kinds of uses. Mr. Harris said his major concern was whether the Commissioners wanted large or small areas, multiplicity of land use other than that which is incidental to the residential use, and if he could get affirmative answers that large areas, control of nmltiplicity of uses and density are wanted~ his staff could come back to the Conmrission with only mi.nor criticisms of Conun. Viault1s proposed requirements. In deciding large or small areas, he advi.se4'thinking in acreage. A one-acre site ~h street access on two sides was suggested, and the City Engineer expressed his thought that consideration should be given to the accessibility to streets, width of streets, minimum frontage, and whether area could be landlocked or could fit into the city's transportation pattern. It had been estabUshed that occupants of the high-rise structures required more parking area, since there were usually all adults with cars. Mr.Harris suggested a requirement of 2 garages for one bedroom units and 2½ for tw9'1,edrooms. Answering Mr. Moran's argument that this requirement is-too high, he said there probably were no cities· requiring more than two garages, but if asked if the parking is adequate, the answer is 11no11•
Planning COllll11ission 3 Sep ~c iber 25, 1961 Apa.I'tment sizes and ratio of bachelor to one-and tw·o,...,bedroom apartments received attention, Mr. Harris saying he would get some information on relative numbers and different kinds of unitso It was agreed that standards should be higho Mr. Trott told of numerous one-bedroom apartments remaining vacant with the demand great for two-<bedroom units. Mr. Tom Stevens inquired as to reports-from the police and fire department heads and the local school authorities which, it was understood, would be available. Mr. Burt reported that the school board had instructed Doctor Glick to make an appointment with the Conunission and was advised that this would be included on the October 9 agenda; Mr. Stevens also inquired about water pressure for high-rise structures., Mr. Trott answering that building codes would cover this aspect. Mr. Harris was asked to report back to the Commission at their regular meeting of October 9, 1961. Bernice Robinson., Sec'y.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall at 7:30 p.m., Monday, October 9, 19610 ROLL CALL: Present ... Comm. Noble, Jolmson, Viault, Black, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Absent .... Comm. Locken. Present -Bud M. -Trott, Chief Building Inspector, and John Stevens, City Engineer. Minutes of the regular meeting of September 11, 1961, were unanimously approved. CALVIN K. BURRIS Public hearing on application for zone variance of Calvin K. Burris to permit construction of double garage with apartment above, the second story to be 4' from rear property line in lieu of required 5', with open stairway in rear yard 1, from property line; second story to encroach lt into 3' westerly sideyard on-Pa.ht Drive, at 11S-3lst Street, Lot 6, Block 105, Shakespeare Tract, R-3 zone. The applicant was present to speak in behalf of his application. After some discussion, Comm. Johnson moved that the request be granted, which was seconded by Conun. Viaulto After further discussion, this motion and second were withdrawn, and motion was made by Comm. Viault that the request be granted with the provision that there shall be no encroachment into the westerly sideyard and that the open stairway projecting into the rear yard be of one hour or incombustible fire eonstruction standards. Comm. Johnson seconded this motion, which carried as follows: AYES: N6F.S: @SENT: Comm. Noble, Viaul t, Black and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson and Hales. Connn.. Locken. Commo Noble moved the adoption of Resolution P. c. 154-340 granting the variance for the rear yard encroachments with the provision that the i,pen stairway be of one,,.hour or incombustible materials, and that there be no encroachment into the westerly sideyard, the reason being that it is felt by the Conunission that a hardship would be rendered on the-applicant if this request were not granted. Connno Black seconded the motion, whic~arried as follows~ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Viault_. Black and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Johnson and Hales., Comm~ Locken. Comm. Viault stated that his particular reason for voting 'tyes11 was not due to the hardship of the applicant but becaus'1ie did not believe the projection into the rear yard is a detriment to the Commission's planning as established and is not impairing any free movement down the alleyway totbhe rear.
Planning Conmission 3 October 9, 1961 AYES: NOES: COIIIDl. Noble, Johnson, Viault, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. CODDll. Black~ ABSENT: Comm. Locken. Comm. Black stated that on voting 11no", it is bis opinion that the Comntlssion can act on this application tonight and did not need to postpone this for another month. Cb.aiflman Fredricks addressed the Lucky Market representatives stating that there are many problems to he considered and that it is the responsibility of the Commission to look as closely into these matters as time will allow. Charles Ewins -Sign Structure Review of proposed advertising structure for Charles Ewins' gijrage at 1017 Pier Avenue. Mr. Ewins was present and designated the locatioz,{of the sign on the lot. On motion by Comm. Hales; seconded by Comm. Noble, it was unanimously voted to approve the sign. DOUG.LAS F. AND BARB.ARA CRAIG--Rehearing Reconsideration requested by City Council of full cormnission on request for zone variance of Douglas F. and Barbara Craig to permit construction of a deck encroaching 2f611 into the required 3f sideyard along t~ east side of the building at second floor level, connecting to an existing nonconforming stairway and landing which encroaches 2'6" into the required 3, sideyard, at 72-19th Street, Lot 14, Block 19, Hermosa Beach·Tract. Variance was denied September 11 by ResolUion P. C. 154-338, and heard by the Council on appeal on October 3. Since there was not a full commission present, Comm. Viault moved, Comm. Black seconding, that the matter be held over until there is a full commission present. Attention was called to the fact that there can be no assurance that a full commission would be present at the next regular meeting and that the applicants had expressed their wish to have the matter settled as soon as possible. Mrs. Craig was present and agreed to action by a six-man connni.ssion,and the foregoing motion and second were withdrawn. After further discussion, Comm. Noble moved that the request be granted. Comm. Hales seconded the motion, which failed to carry as follows: AYES2 NOESt ABSENT: Comm. Noble and Black. c·omm. Johnson, Viault, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Conm. Locken. Comm. Hales moved the adoption of Resolution P. Co 154-341, Mrs. Craig ha'Ving stated that it was satisfactory to her interest that the vote be taken by a six-man commission tonight, recommending to the City Council that this application be denied for the reason that there are no unusual oircUJnstances regarding the individual piece of property, there is no substantiating reason to continue an already nonconforming structure within 6" of the property line, and that hardships as indicated appear to be brought on by the owners' personal ideas of·how to improve their specific building. Comm~ Viault seconded the motion, which carried as follows:
Planning Commission 2 October 9, 1961 HENRIETTA JAG-OU Public hearing on application for zone amendment of Henrietta Jagou to change from R-1 (C...Potential) to C....J, and adoption of precise plan for parking lot to be used in conjunction with adjacent Lucky Market, the westerly one acre, less the north 80' thereof, of Lot 6, Block 83, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, 926 Gould Avenue. Speaking on behalf of the petition were -viola Cooper, representing the applicant, R. A. Saari, 1680 Cris Avenue, Anaheim, and Mr~ Becklund of 1129 Foster, Los Alamitos, representing the Lucky Market, Mrs. John Pierce, 2301 Prospect, and Mr. William Sachau, 2966 La Carlita. A letter in opposition from Dr. L. T. Holden, 2306 Borden Avenue, was read by Comm. Noble, and Mr.Theodore Katsogianes, 909-2lst Street, spoke in opposition. The Commission spent considerable time on this item. Mr. Saari, speaking for the prospective buyer, said the company felt this additional parking was needed and that the approach to this lot would be much better than that on·the highway. The store is large enough to utilize this additional parking, he said, and there must always be residual parking. The City Engineer was asked if he had reviewed the proposed parking lot plan with representatives of Lucky Market. He had not, he stated, but he had studied the plan. The State Highway Department has the Pacific Coast Highway -Gould Avenue intersection before them at this time, and there may be a divider strip placed along Gould that would affect the left turns tcyche parking lot. It was his suggestion that this entire area be studied for future circulation patterns. He expressed his objection to three exits shown on the plan and added that the State would be asked to approve the driveways. The State also has plans for the highway at that point, Mr. Stevens said, and in-the near future he will discuss this general subject with the State people, at which time he will get their feelings on the third driveway, the left turn on Gould and what is planned for that area in the future. He also said he would be glad to work with the property owners in the area toward developing some traffic circulatory system. Whether permitting the subject property to be used for parking purposes only would later affect the development of the area as a whole was discussed, and if the use were permitted, who would bear the cost of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. It was pointed out that landscaping and planting are required to r-elieve the barrenness of parking lots in many areas. Relative to a proposed meeting of the landowners with the Commission with a view to working out some plan for the whole area acceptable to each of them, the Chairman stated his feeling that it would be a fine thing if the whole area could be developed altogether, but that these owners shoult have the right to develop their property as they desired and not be forced into any plan for the whole. Comm. Viault moved that this item be G~ltW-U.~~~-'-' to the November meeting and that in the meantime the secretary write a letter requesting~ opinion on a suggested meeting to all the property owners involved fin.n for a written comment from them regarding the possibility of a mutually negotiated plan for the development of all properties concerned. Comm. Johnson-seconded the motion, which carried as follows:
Planning Commission Craig Contd 4 October 9, 1961 AYES: NOES: Conm. Johnson, Viault, _Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Commo Noble and Black. ABSENT: Conm. Locken. Walter Slike -Parking Determination Letter from Walter Slike asking review of proposed parking for north 1/2 of commercial building to be moved from 546 Pier Avenue and relocated at 54-56 Hermosa Avenue, Lot·5, Block 41, First Addition to Hermosa Beach. Mr. Slike was not present, and there was much discussion by the Commissioners concerning the development of thirty foot wide lots in conunercial zones and the meager parking facilities available. On motion by Comm. Hales, seconded by Comm. Johnson, it was unanimously voted that there be a minimum of one·parking space for each 300' of floor space provided for the property, with access from the rear of the building from each store or office to the parking area. . . Dr. Dale I. ,Glick t Letter from Dr. Dale I. Glick dated September 27, 1961, requesting an informal meeting of the governing board of the school district with the Commission in regard to mutual problems that might exist fo:ift;he two bodies. It was agreed that a meeting between the groups would be more effective if a formal agenda were prepared, and Mr. Trott was asked to contact Doctor Glick to work out an agenda, setting the tentative date for October 23 or 30. Items suggested by Commissioners that might be considered at the meeting included the following: How the board plans to cooperate with the Cit~f Hermosa Beach in the development of recreation areas; the proposed use for the abandoned school site on Prospect now used for temporary storage; kow state aid to our school district works in,regard tothe money that would ce,,.e from state aid in conjunction with wat is raised from the local tax revenues; the/4chool's design criteria for determining the number of children in high-rise buildings, if they have any figures that would indicate child population patterns in relation to multiple, single and high density zones; master plan for schools! expansion and proposed land acquisition on all school sites. Proposed Amendments to Ord. N.S.154 ... Unanimously agreed to postpone this item to an adjourned meeting. Chairman Fredricks announced Monday, October 16, 1961, as the date for the adjourned meeting. ADJOURNMEM'l' at l0U0 p.m. to nc®vene r:tr1v::_ Joe'B. Noble, Secretary JBN:r
}{[NUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall on Monday, October 16, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. ROll, CALL: Present -Comm. Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent -Connn. Noble, Johnson, Viault and Black. There not being a quorum present and this being an adjourned meeting, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance N. s. 154 and the directions contained therein,-the Chairman adjourned this over to another meeting date, Monday, November 6, at 7:30 p.m. Bernice Robinson, Clerk r
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMIS.SION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall on Monday, November 6, 1961, at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Present -Conmt. Noble Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales and Chairman Fredricks. Bud M. Trott, Chi.ef Building Inspector John Stevens, CityEngineer Absent ..... Comm. Locken. (Comm. L~en took his place during the discussion oniitem l) WALTER SLIKE, Parking The Chairman stated for the record that Mr~ Slike was not present at the October 9 meeting, at which time action had been taken on request for parking determination for commercial structure at 5-4-..56 Hermosa Avenue, and that Mr. Slike had requested an audience before"tthe Commission at this adjourned meeting. Mr. Slike was present together with Mr. James G. Wells, Jr., co-owner. The Commission had approved one s.pace for each 300 square feet of floor area. Petitioners asked to increase the floor area to permit 1200 square feet.sfor the three spa~es available. The matter was dis.cuss.ed at some length, the Commissioners expressing their opinions, and on motion by Comm.Hales, seconded by Comm. Johnson, it was unanimously agreed that the motion approved at the October 9 meeting be upheld. HOWARD JACKSON, Parking Letter from Building Inspector relative to parking for _proposed commercial building to be used for laundromat at 3217 Manhattan Avenue, ower Howard Jackson. The Oommis.sion under date of Mar.ch 3, 1958, had approved parking consisting of four spaces, including one sub standard space, for a commercial building of the same floor area, 1230 square feet, for two stores. Speaking on behalf of petitioner's request to approve the same parking were Mrs. Jackson and Mr. K. R. (Pat) Anderson. It was called to the attention of the Comnission that plans had been drawn in accordance with the previous ruling and that the proposed·structure bad been leased. The laundromat would serve the local neighborhood, it was pointed out, and the parking provided would be sufficient. Again, the small n:i..~e of the lots crune under discussion. Ch.airman Fredricks expres.sed his view that_ granted the parking is not adequate, the coDD11ercial zone has been maintained, and the owner .should be allowed reasonable use of his property. The Commissioners were asked for an expression of their feelings, after which on motion by Cormn. Noble, seconded by Comm. 13lack, that the request be granted, the proposed parking was disapproved by the following vo.te: AYES: Comm. Noble, Bl~ck and Chairman Fredricks. NOES: Comm. Johnson, Viault, Hales and Locken. ABSENT: None. (Comm. Viault stated that he had ori~inally vot~d against the proposal and saw no reas.on to change his. opinion.)
Planning Commission 2 November 6, 1961 Chairman Fredricks announced a 45 minute adjournment for the purpose of holding an informal discussion with owners of R-1 property at Gould and Prospect who were present on invitation of the Commission. Following this 45-minute period, the meeting reconvened. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE N. S. 154 Letter from Building Inspector enclosing draft of resolution of intention to amend Ordinance N. S. 154, incorporating proposed amendments that were reviewed by the Commission at a study session on September 18, 1961. The draft was studied point by point, and after suggestions for certain deletions or changes, Mr. Trott was asked to redraft the proposed resolution for consideration at the regular meeting of November 13. He was further requested to check on land-area requir~ments for R-3 zone in cities comparable to Hermosa Beach. NOVEMBER 27 MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD An informal meeting with members of the Governing Board of the Hermosa Beach City School District has been set for Monday, November 27, at 7:30 p.m. Rough drafts of a proposed high-rise, high-density zone were presentedi."'.t;o the Commissioners for review and study, motion being approved to hold this over for future study. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:30 P.M. Joe B. Noble, Secretary r
' MINUTES OF THE RIDULAR MEETING-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, held at the City Hall on Monday, November 13, 1961, at 7:30 p. m. Present Absent Comm. Noble, Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Bud M. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. John E. St-,rena,, City Engineer None. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and minutes of the October 9, 1961, meeting were unanimously approved. STANFORD R. AND JEAN E. STILES Review of application for zone variance of Stanfo_rd E.. and Jean E. Stiles at 708-2nd Street on recommendation from City Council that the building permit be granted to extend the livingroom and add a fireplace as requested, with the stipulation that a deed restriction be placed on Lots, 100 and 115, Walter Ransom Company's Venable Place, to. the effect that if either lot is deeded by the present owners, a garage will be constructed on Lot 100. This variance had heen denied by Re s.oluti on P. C. 154-339, September ll, 1961, since the garage for the residence was located on an adjacent lot. Applicants. were present, and Mr. Stiles stated that the stipulation recommended by the Council was agreeable to him. On motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Coi!Dll.. Noble, it was unanimously voted to grant the variance with the proviso that the restriction be placed on the properties satisfactory to the Building Department. Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-342 granting this variance, with a stipulation that a deed restriction on Lots 100 and 115, Walter Rans.om Company's Venable Place, be drawn up and recorded by the owners to the effect that if either lot is deeded or sold by the present owners, a garage will be built on Lot 100, for the reason that the Commission does not believe any lot should be permitted to be sold off that does not contain garage facilities for a,n existing hous~ on the property. The motion waa seconded by Comm. Noble and carried unanimously. HENRIETTA JAGOU Continuation of hearing on petition for zone amendment of Henrietta Jagou of the westerly one acre, less the northerly 80' thereof, of Lot 6, Block 83, Second Addition to Hermosa Beach, and adoption of precise plan for parking. The secretary read a letter from Mr. William .Sachau favoring the petition. Also read was a letter signed by owners of the R-1 property in Block 83 asking for certain rezoning of their property, resulting from an informal discussion between the Commission and thes.e propertypwners held on November 6, 1961. • Representing the petitioner were Viola Coope:;.4 and Roberta Seaton. Mr.R. Ao Saari, 1680 Chris Avenue, Anaheim, represented the buyer, Lucky Market Stores, and on request from the Commission, reviewed the reasons for the acquisition of this property for parking purposes for the store adjacent. Their ~xi.sting parking area
Planning Commission Henrietta Jagou Contd 2 November 13, 1961 had been nearing the saturation point before the Beach Bowl construction, he said. Now that the bowling alley is using this area jointly with thel.ucky Market, there is inadequate parking. A further reason is that the supermarket across the Street on Gould Avenue offers abundant parking for their customers, and it is the opinion of the Lucky Market owner_s that in order to compete, they als.o must offer s.uffi-cient parking. The store as it now stan.dsccan utilize all this additional parking. Dis_c1issing the problems of maintaining planted areas in parking lots, Mr. Saari asked that the Commi_ssion give serious consideration to his request that this not be required. Motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Hales, to approve this zone change and precise plan for parking, carried unanimously. Conrm. Viault then moved the adoption of Resolutio11 P. C. 154-343 granting this zone amendment and adoption of precise plan for parking as submitted, with the provision that applicant provide curbs, gutter~ and sidewalks on the n.ortherly property line fl'llJJl west to east, and. further, that the granting of t.hi s zone change is contingent on the proviso that the Lucky Market shill prQvide curbs, gutters and sidewalks from the westerly limit on the northerly property line o.f their land, lying innnediately to the west of the subject property, east to the point of intersection with the westerly liniit of the subject property; and that the grading of the subject property and the engineering and grading of all curbs and gutters be coordinated with the City Engineering office in Hermosa Beach and other agencies concerned, for the reason that it is not felt that the plan as presented will be detrimental to the future development of the area. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. EVELYN ABSTON Public hearing on request for zone variance of Evelyn Abston, to perm.it conversion of existing two-unit, two-car garage intQ a four-car garage with single unit above, and to add over 30% floor area consisting of three units; existing structure having a 3' easterly sideyard in lieu of required 4.8.5'; the addition to have conf arming 4. 85' sideyards but to extend to front property line in lieu of required 5, front setback, at GO-18th Street, Lot 12. and the northeasterly 18.5' of Lot 11, Block 18, Hermosa Beach Traet. Mr. Jam.es Peck, 42-18th.Street, purchaser of the property, spoke on behalf of the petition. Plot plan ,submitted showed a 2' rear setback in lieu of required 3'. This nonconformity had not been requested on th~ application. The Conmissioners agreed to make a decision at the close of the meeting concerning the interpretation by the Building Inspector that garages .were accessory buildings and if attached to the main building should have a 3' rear setback. Comm . .Johnson moved that the variance be granted. Comm. Hales seconded the motion, which carr J.ed as follows: AYES: NOES: Coilllll. Viault, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. Comm. Noble, Johnson and Black. Comm.Hales moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-344 granting this zone variance for a 2' front se~back in lieu of the required 5', with open balcony extending to front property line, for the reas.on that this will permit the owner to enjoy the same setback as adjacent property owners. Comm.Locken s.econded the motion, which
Planning Commission Abston Contd 3 November 13, 1961 carried by the following vote: A.YES: NOES: ABSENT: CODll1l. Noble, Viaul t, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks. C.omm. Johnson and Black. None. (Comm. Noble stated that his 1tno" vote on the original motion was ba&ed on his belief that the structure was to have,m.o front setback.) TEXAC.O COMPANY -Sign Letter from the Building Inspector relative to advertising structure over 16 square feet for Texaco Company at 454 Pacific Coast Highway, replacing the e:xisting sign. A representativ~ of the sign contractor and the owner of the station, Mr. McFarland, were present. Motion by Comm. Hales that a letter be written to the Building Inspector advising that the request had been granted, seconded by Comm. Noble, carried as follows: .A.YES: NOES: ABSENT: COlilm. Noble, Viault, Black, Hales, Locken and Chairman Fredricks • Comm. Johns.on. None. . . WHITMORE.' ,S STEAK HOUSE -Parki!!_g_ Letter from the Building Inspector relative to parking requirements for proposed 952 square foot addition to Whitmore's restaurant at 833 Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Arthur Whitmore was present and advised that he required more -room in the existing restaurant to be used for a l.tts restroom, refrigeratorJ and cooking s.pace. The s,Jating capacity would be increased by 24. Tlie old building in which there is now an antique shop would be demolished. Mr. Whitmore argued that there was no parking problem in the area during his rush hours. It was pointed ou.t to him that even if parking requirements were met J the apart-ment above the re s.taurant constituted a nonconforming u,se in the C-2 zone, and • a variance would have to be obtained before any addition could be made to the building. Asked if he would be ~lling to supply a garage for the apartment, Mr. Whitmore answered that all the available space was needed for expansion of the restaurant. Cormn. Viault moved that a letter be written to the Building Inspector advising that three parking spaces would be required for the additional square footage for the reason that three spaces would be the greatest number with the least hardship that could be ·provided. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES:. ABSENT: Comm. !lloble, Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales, Locken. Chairman Fredricks. None.
Planning Commission 4 November 13, 1961 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Letter from Bonnie Bright, City Clerk, transmitting correspondence filed with the Council pertaining to height limit of structures and refe~red to th~ Commission f0:r information and consideration. It was unanimously voted to receive and file these co:itmuni_cations. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE N. s. 154 Draft #2 of amendments proposed to N. 3, 1.54 was considered item by item. Ther.a was unanimous. agreement on aJ.1 proposals as finally drafted with the exception of required land area per unit for R-3 development. Comm. Noble moved that the figure be set at 900 square feet. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Viault, Black, Hales and Locken. Comm. Johnson and Chairman Fredricks. None. On motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Noble, the Commi..ssion unanim..ously approved Resolution .P. C. 154--345, a resolution of intention of the Planning Commission to initiate action for the purpose of consideration of the amendment of Ordinance N. S. 154 as agreed upon. ****** Comm. ·Black movedtthat the Comission uphold the Building Inspector's inter-pretation of the zoning ordinance relative to 3' :n,ar yard setbacks .fOffi~ages .• Comm. Johnson se~onded the motion, which carried unanimously. November 27, 1961, was announced as the date set fo~ the joint nteeting with the local school board. The Chairman set December 4, 1961, for a study s~ssion on the draft for an R-4 zone. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:20 p.m. {oe ~-Noble, Secretary r
~J"];P()f('_f C.'B' JC-INT 1~ml:!,.a'.'INr~ OF '.HIE GOVF[fr[:fNO· nc ... s:m O;_;' THE· H'Si.{HDSA BIT'ALH (~D:Y SC.Hoo:., :oISTIUC1' AfID THE: PL.\Nlfi'.NG-CONMISSION· CF HERMOSA BEACH,9 held at the Si."1,.1.th Sch,:,{i,~ ,, "-446 Monterey Dou.1.evard, at 7:30 p,,ru.-' on Monday, November 27 i'J 1961" H1°~ So w. OWen of the School Board presided over the round=table dis~ussion~ Con:dde::-ing Item 1 on tb~ agenda,, 0How state aid to the school district works in regard to th~oney that would come from state aid in c0J1junct.ion wi tt. ,that is raised from the local tax revenues/' nr~ Dale L Glick refe1-red to a chart showing apportionment araounts for elementary-school districts unde1" regular formulas in dollars per unit of avex•age daily attencfance" C"pies 1>re!'e distributed tc those present9 and Doctor Glick explained the ratio of A6D.,A,, ~.nd assessed valuation deterin.irring the amount of state aid contribute&o The :formulas are set by the leglslature, he sa.td., the S·ta.te Board of Equalization ha.'lfng the power to change the f~rmulaso Under the Coolidg&..Colyer Bill~ if properties are not assessed At a high enough rate, the State Board o:f Educa:ti(JD can attach a factor which will reduce the amount of state aid!> thls bill p1"e= vidi1tg fer the equalization of assessments~ The attendance rate has gone up c~nsiderably during the last eight or ten years, but ia now reaching a plate~u9 and though still increasing som'Zlwhat9 the rate is much. slower.. The number ~yf children in apartment houses was discussedp it being point~d out that the mere expe11si ve the apartment J the f'ewer children., and that owners disecuragecl crildren .. There are no plans, with possibly minor ~..ceptions 9 f 01• expansion of the schools.\) Doctor Glick said in discussing Ite:ru 2."P 11Master plan for schools: expansion and proposed land acquisition ,on all school sites.rr None of the sites meets the standard9 but the cost of the lots with houses :i.s equal tc buildi..'"lg a ~lassroom of equal sb:e o Sometime they may -warrt to acquire the f'our lots on 26th Street facing the school site. The Hermosa View School is adequate; Prospect is small; and classrooms may be expanded at the South School without increasing the site.. The Pier A-venue site is limit~d.? but ,access to Clark Stadium assists considerably~ A reasG"table number of class--rooms. could be added to any of the schools without un.d~e strai.'1.9 ;;.cc,n:~airxg to Doctor Glicke Throughout· the district~ an addition.al 100 students would not create a bux-den; howe,.,--er, 100 new pupils at any one school might be a· problem since this requires three classrooms9 and the hillside c'~,:;.,,'lar~oms might not decrease the playgrollild a.rea9 but ther.e would be less 1u.aygr0Ulld area per child,. A study made in 1949 lw.s b~en proven accux11.t*p to the present tJ.me concerning the inci:ease in the numbet"' of pup:i.la D Another study may be necessary in the future o The turnover in. stu.den.ts is a:ppr.o.."tlmately 3o%~ Considerable land has been acquired in the last five years9 adding to all the existing school sites, ;md barring some unforeseen factor3 it is felt the schools are adequate til talce care of the normal increaseo Item 39 i~ a~hoolst der1ign eriterla f~ «{Jtermining the number of children in high rise buildings~ ifthey ha-ve any figures that ~rould indicate child population patterns in relaticn to multiple_,, aingle9 and high density zones,n film under discussione The Park LaBrea apal"tment house had beer.. investigated, and it was learned that there were 4400 uni ts 9 composed of' bachelol." apartments up to three bedroom unitsQ and there were 1000 children living th.ere,, The,1e are rental mri.ts9 and the number of childx>en is limitecl,, Further information crui be obtained fr0!11 Mro Newberry at the Park LaBrea i.f it is decided to continue meetings such as this tonight~ Another apartment ·~-· house recently completed in Honolulu9 ha.v.ing three 17=-story towers, has only four uni ts yet unsold, and ther~ are 13 chil.dren in the entire stn;ctu:rre d A_ source of inforn~tion on multiple mrellings l'!culd be the insurance c~tlnieso. Ttte school has maae no study of the mmfuer of cltlldren in .vsrlM.is ~ tif;. • nntts., The Board would wan~ to lnow -wat is :pr0p_o~~d.. );y· ~-'efty teg~~i~
multiple 1.m.its so the schools ,--;an i,Jcl<e plans fol' classroOO!B!, and lt was &'lJ.ggested tha.t the Bom--d spend the money to have studies mad~ i,, costing betwee-r1 $7 ,ooo and $10 ,ooo o s·:;udiesi on high-rise dwellings are wing made -thr'ougbout the OG!u~s attenti,Jn being <:alled to one study that found not more than 10 school age children per huD~red units9 some of the apa,."tments averaging as low as 2 school cLu.l&-en per hundred uni ts" ltem 3 is direcrUy relatod to Item 49 11What are the city zoning plans for multiple housing? What areas ar.e b~ing considered for :rezoning?': The Board 0irould lS.ke to know what exactly is in the mind of the Comm:tssicn and must knQW what too thinking of the city ia in regard to zoning" The recolil!'lWnda,~-tion for a masterl' ple.n of the cit"Y had 'been turned dmmi~ A proposal for high i'isc has caused the Commisaion to start gathering useful informat.'i.on :i.mpcrt-ar.rt in oonsidei-ing th.'-s typ-~ of prQposaL he.as that have been co11sidered by the Commission for rez(:lning to ft=3 are at 16th a.n<l Ardmore ~d nort,.'½. of, Piex· Avo:m.1.f.J behind the tl"'a:1..le:t court on Valley lrci ve ~ The R·~l uea ax Gcn.u<l betireen Prospect and Pa.c~d;i.c Coast Highway ha~• been cli.s~ussed~ Now, an R-4 zone is being considered j the px-oposal at 2nd -Strceifand Valley prmdir-~ 53 uni ts per ac:reo Under the present ~on.i.ng_9 the R=S &""'Sas· are tmderbuiltll and if lots we1~e ccmibined and subterranoa.n garr.ges pro"1.dedi; the increase in unit:~ WC1uld be st?.ggeri:r:igo Xt was agi--eed that the Bom'd should be kep,t advised. of any large developments and tlmt minutes ,;,f the C:oimrd.ssion~s meetJ.ngs watild be fwnished to Doctor Gllck .. Under Item 5.!l 1n;'lill re~ori..ing for high rise causs 1•ezoning for addition.al commercial areas?H it was admitted that there wGuld be corn111ercial use p!':'lrn&'"'ily fer the development9 but pt'obably not any great amount of J.a.nd area rezoned to commercial., It was stated that commercial use· should be, ~mcouraged because of the revenue received by the ci.tyt a.-ad that inc1.."ensir,:g the i-e.sidsntia.l would increase the assessed valua.tiOll but would e.1so increase the se~ces of the cityo A certain amov11t of commercial inust be provided to support a tcrlfn, Mro Ronnie Mo:1.~an. was present and was asked to ,~n.lighten the g1•oup by telling what he proposed in the 2nd Si."reet project that they might get some indic;ati-0n as to hm-r the development might affect the school 'il s plaim.'lng0 Mro Mo,:ean in:formad them that the Class A construction planned w~mld cost ft-om $15 to $20 a squa.z,e foot anti! wou}.d oil1y appeal to ~;hose who had the money necessary to occupy such units. He anticipa.t~d C6up1Hs 45 o:r-older ll"lthout children, or with a ver-y mutirmm rmmber" The trent~ is tcYtmrd J.=bedroom apartments in the beach areas, the third bedroom being used for a guest roomo The School Board n..~m'bers called attention to the section in the education code _which giYes the school <listrict the right to request a denial of liquor licenses for sales w.l.thin 600 feet of school pl!'.'opertyo Whether this ,:muld apply to .an entire site or a particular location would have to be clarified. Item 6 l) nnow the schools plan to cooperate ·I-fl th the city in the development of reereaticn area~1n ie covered by minutes of a joint meeting Q;f the Board and the City Parks and Recreation Corran.ission9 held at Valley Vista School on October 10, 1961~ it was learned, and copies were available~ YfThe pr~posed use far the abandoned school site on Prospect now used· for temporary storage," Item 7 on tbe agenda,Q wa.s discussed by Do(;tor Glidt9 who stated that the site had been used as a warehouse facility .m.d had not bt!:en sold because it is uncertain what might happen concerning the distrl.ct organizationo A study is being made on request of the state legislatm:'e for a unified distr-ict51 which study must be completed by September."9 1963e There a!'e no specific plans for this property~ If i.t is sold!) the proceeds ·woultl be applied to the state loan" It was pointed out that the zoning i~
residential, and the warehouse use nonconforming.. • Whether the site could be~om.e a city playground was consitlereda However, it was the Boardes thought that until the loan had been paid off to t~~tate9 when the px-operty is sold., the sale must be advertised and_tf property sold to the highest bidde~a In closing the discussion., the 1949 survey was again refer.red to.si 2150 to 2300 being the anticipated maxi~ number cf students. Doctor Glick felt they had planned well; there have been no double sessions; and he could not see any possibility of havlng a great number of additional children because there is no added area in the city. ADJOURNMENT at 10 :10 p.m. ~u. '{{~ ~ Bernice Robinson Secretary to Planning Conm:d.s.s.ion
MINUTES OF THE REUULAR MEETING OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION of the City of Hermosa Beach, held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on MondayJ letrember 11, 1961, at 7:30 p.m. Present -Comm. Noble, Johnson, Viault, Black, Hales and,Locken. BudlW.. Trott, Chief Building Inspector. Absent -Chairman Fredricks. In the absence of Chairman Fredricks, Vice Chairman Hales presided. On motion by CoIIDll. Black, seconded by Comm. Noble, minutes of November 6 and 13, 1961, were W1animously approved. HOWARD JACKSON Review of Howard Jackson proposed parking for laundromat at 3217 Manhattan Avenue;on request of City CoW1cil by their motion of November 21, 1961, that this be sent back to the Commission for favorable action. The secretary read a letter from Attorney Thomas Foye on behalf of the applicants. Mrs. Jackson was present and stated that she had no further cononents to make. On motion by CoIIDll. Noble, seconded by Comm.Locken, that the request be granted, the vote was as follows: .AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales .. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks .. Because a resolution reconunending favorable action to the City Council was not forthcoming, Comm. Viault moved that the matter be tabled, Connn. Johnson seconding the motion, and the vote being as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Johnson and Vice Chairman Hales. Corum. Viault, Black and Locken. Chairman Fredricks. On failure of the foregoing motion to pass, Connn. Noble moved the adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-346, r;ecommending that the applicants' proposed parking be approved, re-affirming the former decision of the Planning Commission dated March 3, 1958, approving four parld.ng stalls, including one substandard space, for a commercial building of the same floor area, on direction of the City Council. Comm. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commo Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks. .ARTHUR W.dITMORE Review of Arthur Whitmore request to enlarge restaurant with no parking to be provided at 833 Hermosa Avenue, on request of City Council by motion of November 21, 1961, that this be referred back to the Commission with recormnenda-tion for favorable consideration. A motion by Comm. Viaul.t, seconded by • Comm. Black, that the request be granted failed by a unanimous vote.
Planning Commission 2 December 11, 1961 Prior to the adoption of a resolution, there was a discussion on what might be acceptable, it being suggested that a garage be furnished for the upstairs apartment. Another suggestion was for three parking stalls facing on the alleyway. A further solution might be to dismantle the nonconforming apartment so there would be no need for a garage, and have a loading zone. It was felt that the area is predominantly residential and that the hours the restaurant is open coincide with the heaviest use of the parking facilities in the -vicinity. It was the consensus of opinion that the applicant should be given some idea of what parking facilities might be required. adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-347, Comm. Viault moved/that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that one garage space shall be provided for the existing apartment and a minimum of two other offstreet parking spaces be provided for the enlarged restaurant, and that permission to extend the restaurant with no parking provisions be denied for the reasons that the area has inadequate parking now; the site has inadequate parkingj it is the desire of the Planning Connnission to upgrade the area and provide adequate parking; there has been no additional information presented since the original hearing, at which time a negative vote was cast; and it would discriminate against other business property owners to ask them to provide parking space when the applicant in this case would not be doing so. Comm. ]Qack seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. WALTER SUKE Review of Walter Slike proposed pat"king for commercial structure at 54-56 Hermosa Avenue., on request of City Council by their motion of November 21, 1961, that this be referred back to the Conunission for favorable consideration. The applicant was represented by his partner,Mr. Wells, who called attention to the plot plan that had been wubmi tteddto the Council on appeal, there being laid out three accessible and three nonaccessible (invnediately to the rear of the head~in spaces) parking spaces for the proposed 1200 square foot commercial structure. Comm. Noble moved that the parking be approved. Cormn. Black seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommQ Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Connn. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-348, recommending, due to additional information supplied, the approval of the three additional parking spaces, making a total of six, as per plot plan d~ted November 17, 1961, acring on the wishes of the City Council. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corran. Noble, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnson and Viault. Chairman Fredricks. (Comm. Viault asked that the record show his dissenting vote on the grounds that the plot plan as proposed shows nonstandard parking spaces as described by the Planning Commission in previous meetings; that the access to the parking spaces is inadequate; and that tandem parking in any case is not desirable.)
Planning Commission ROBERT A. WISE 3 December 11, 1961 Public hearing on request for zone variance of Robert A. Wise to add more than ~0% to existing residence which has 6' of nonconforming sideyard, varying from three to five feet, in lieu of required 5'; addition to conform to required setbacks; and to incl~de a double garage, making a total of four garages in lieu of allowable three stalls for R-1 zone, at 805 Prospect, Lot 33, Tract 8386. Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Motion by Comm. Viault, seconded by Comm. Noble, to grant the variance carried unanimously, Comm. Johnson expressing his hope that the extra garage will be used for the parking of cars. Comm. Viault moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-349 granting this zone variance for the reasons that the nonconforming setback is very slight and at a corner which is not objectionable to vision on the street, and that the four-..car garage is not an unreasonable request in a residential zone of this nature o The motion was seconded by Connn. Black and carried unanimously. E])}AR C. MILLER Public hearing on request for/4one variance of Edgar c. Miller to extend garage 6• forward with 4' easterly sideyard in lieu of required 5'; add bedroom and bath on eastside of residence, bathroom wall now existing, bedroom to have 11' long sideyard fine with 4, s.e,tbaelt~.:l:i:.~u :_·c,,f required s,, maintaining nonconforming 4' easterly sideyard of e:x::isting building, at 1136~8th Street, Lots 62 and 63, Block 140, Redondo :Villa Tract.· , Applicant was present to speak on behalf of his petition. Comm. Viault moved that the request be granted. The motion, seconded by Comm. Noble, carried unanimously. A motion by Commo Viault to adopt Resolution P. C. 154-350 granting trus zone variance~for the reasons that the nominal projection to the front of the existing structure is still setback 25' and would not be objectionable to the neighborhood, and the 4' sideyard is adeijuate for ingress and egress of emergency equipment, fighting fires, etc., and would not be detrimental to the general overall planning of Hermosa Beach, was seconded by Comm. Noble and carried unanimously. ROBERT F. MASON-Public hearing on request for zone variance of Robert F. Mason to add more than 30%to existing residence which has a 4' easterly sideyard in lieu of requir·ea 5', addition to conform to all yard requirements, at 632-25th Street, Lot 4, Tract No. 19846. Mr. Mason was present. to speak on behalf of his application. A motion to grant the variance by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Black, carried unanimously. Comm. Noble then moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154,..351 granting the zone variance for the reasons that it is felt that it would be a hardship to the family if this request were not ,granted, and the exLsting nonconforming sideyard is of negligible consequence as a reason for not permitting this
Planning Commission 4 December 11, 1961 Robt. F. Mason tcontd variance. Cormn. Johnson seconded the motion, wh.i.ch carried unanimously. CHESTER CLYDE STEWART Public hearing on ireques-t\f or zone variance. of Clyde Stewart to permit construction of storage room on rear of property with no rear setback in lieu of required 11, for use -with commercial building adjoining at 344 Pacific Coast Highway, there being a nonconforming, single-family residence existing on the.property which is zoned C-3, at 820-4th Street, the westerly 12' of Lot 12 and the easterly 30' of Lots 14 and 15, Hurdt s Ocean View Tract. Mr" Stewart was present, speaking on behalf of his-petition. Connn. Noble moved that the request be granted. Seconded by Comm. Locken, the motion carried unanimously. Comm. Johnson then movedaadoption of Resolution P. C. 154-352 granting this zone variance for the reasons that the proposed structure will not be any more detrimental materially than what is aJ.ready there; there will apparently not be any additional parking requiredj the land area in question would involve no add:i. tional parking problems in the area; the proposed building to be fire resistant; and that it does-appear to the Planning commission that it would be a hardship to the owner if this request were not granted. Comm. Locken seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. NEWCASTLE IMPORTS -Parking Review Letter from the Building Inspector requesting review of parking requirements for 870 square foot addition to service area for Newcastle Imports at 700 Pacific Coast Highway. Relocation of the wash rack, consisting of approximately 400 square feet, was also requested. This item had inadvertently been omitted from the agenda. It was established that there was an 11,000 square foot area in the rear of the property not being used at the present time and that the proposed structure would be used for parking in connection with the b~siness. Comm. Viault moved that parking requirements be waived due to the nature of the business being such that there is already provided ample customer offstreet parking area. Comm. Johnson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. - - - A 5~minute recess was called at this time. . -' RESOLUTION OF INTENTION P. C. 154-345 Public hearing on Resolution P. C. 154-345, an initiative petition of the Planning Commission proposing certain amendments to the zoning ordinance, N. S. 154, adopted at the November 13, 1961, regular meeting. The proposal was considered item by item, as follows:
Planning Commission 5 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345 Contd Article 2, Section 217 -Change the period to a comma on the last line thereof and add the following: "whose common wall separating the two uni ts is at least fifty (50%) percent of the allowable width of the structure." Mr. Charles Roth, 1533 Manhattan Avenue, asked for an explanation of the meaning of the proposed change. Councilman Anderson, present in the audience, asked if this would prevent construction of two separate dwellings, connected by a breezeway which could be easily removed, resulting in lot splits, and was assured that this was the purpose of the amendment. The ordinance specifies one 2-fa.mily dwelling, and this will clarify the definition. Articles 4 5 6 and 7 Sections 404 504 604 and 704 res • after the last lin thereof, add the allowing: "However, where a rear ya.rd abuts a street or alley, the building may be located three feet on the ground floor level and one foot on upper stories from the rear property line.11 Paragraph (4)2 line 5, delete 11twenty-two (22)" and substitute the following: "twenty-three (23)11• Article 42 Section 400, Paragraph (3), delete and substitute the following: "(3) The renting of not more than two rooms to not more ·than one roomer in the main building, or the providing of table board to not more than one boarder, or both, in the main building, but not to exceed one person in any combination thereof; provided further that the room that is being rented has no access or door to the outside, said access being through the main building." Article 5, Section 5002 Paragraph (1), change the period to a comma and add the folio.wing: "except the renting of rooms as set forth would not be allowed if there exist more than a single-family residence on the premises." Article 6 -Add the following section: "SECTION 608: LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be not less than nine hundred (900) square feet per dwelling unit." Speaking in opposition to this requirement were Mr. Farnsworth, local realtor; Mr. Claibourne,·1860 Hermosa Avenue; Mr. Basil Adlam, owner of R~3 property; Mr. Davis Karl, contractor; Mr. McGuyer, Second and Monterey; Mrs. Roth, local realtor; Mr. Dietz, 1829 John Street, Manhattan Beach; Mr. Ray Miller, 732 Strand. •
Planning Commission 6 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. C. 154-345 Contd Article 92 Section 904, Paragraph (1), after the last line thereof, add the following: "Exception: The wall of the building may be erected on the property line provided that it is constructed of a mi.nimwn of eight-inch, solid concrete or concrete block, all cells of said concrete block grouted solid." Jack Wise, 520 Hermosa Avenue, expressed his approval due to the intermingling of manufacturing and residential. zones in this conmn.urity., Article 11, Section llO9, delete the first sentence and substitute the following: "SECTION 1109-: REQUIRED OFFS'IREET PARKING. (1) For every building hereafter erected, reconstructed or structurally altered in all zones except the ,c, zone, there shill be pp.G.uded permanently maintained parking space, including the requirement for a twenty-three (23) foot turning radius, as provided in this article. (2) Before any additional units may be added to a lot where there new exists a building or buildings used for human habitation, there shall be provided permanently maintained parking space for each existing unit, including the requirement for a twenty-three (23) foot turning radius, as provided in thi~ticle.11 Mr. Roth opposed the requirement for a standard-size garage for existing units, if there existed a garage serving the purpose. Article 11, Section 1113, delete Paragraph (1) and substitute the following: 0(1) Size of Garage and Offstreet Parking Space and Access: Each garage and offstreet parking space shall have a minimum width of eight feet six inches (8'6") and a minimum depth of twenty feet (20'), clear inside measurements, exclusive of drives or aisles. Each such space shall be provided with adequate ingress and egress. u Article 12, Section 1207, after the last line thereof, add the following: 11Exception: Any portion of a structure commencing eight (8) feet or more above the established curb grade need not comply wi. th the foregoing restriction." Article 12, add the following section: ttSECTION 1224: REQUIREMENTS FOR APPUCATION FOR LOT DIVISIONo When application is made for any lot to be divided or added to, either by review of the Commission as outlined in Section 1223, or by variance, the applicant shall furnish eight (8)~copies of a survey by a licensed surveyor showing any and all improvements existing on the property in relation to the property lines and the
Planning Commission 7 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345 Contd. proposed division. Applicant shall agree to provide any necessary easements for the proposed parcel or parcels. If necessary, the CODlltlission shall establish the front of the lots and front yard setbacks. rt Article 13, delete Section 1309 and substitute the following: "SECTION l309i BUILDINGS MAY BE ALTERED WHEN NONCONFORMING BY REASON OF INADEQUATE YARDS. Where a building or buildings and customary accessory buildings are nonconforming only by reason of substandard yards or open spaces, the provision of this ordinance prohibiting structural alterations or enlargements shall not apply, provided that any structural alteration or enlargements of an existing building may maintain the same nonconforming side yard setback as the existing building, but not less than three (3) feet from the side yard property line, and shall conform to the required front yard setback, and provided further that the enlargement does not increase the size of the structure to an amount greater than forty(~ percent of the gross floor area in the existing structure with nonconforming yards, and that all other requirements of this ordinance are complied with." On inquiry by Mr. Floyd Hawks, it was determined that the nonconforming yard requirements of an existing building would not affect a second, detached structure. Artice 16, Section 1605, Paragraph (1), change the period to a comma on the last line thereof and add the following: "and by mailing a writ;ten notice not less than ten days prior to the date of such hearing to the ownersof property within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property to be changed, using for this purpose the last known name and address of such owners as ar~hown upon thelatest available lot books of the County Assessor of the County of Los .Angeles." It was explained that the present ordinance required proposed zone amendment applications to be published in the local newspaper but did not require that notices be sent residents in the area affected, although this has been the policy of the Commission. The public hearing was closed, and the Commissioners spent conside·rable time in discussing the one controversial item, the proposed Section 608, requiring 900 square feet of land area per unit in an R-3 .zone. Connn. Noble moved that the resolution of intention be accepted as outlined and as published in the Hermosa Beach Review with the exception of Article 6, Section 608, which would be held aside for further study. Following a brief discussion on what steps should-be taken for continued study on Section 608, ColDlll. Viault seconded the motion, which carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Viault, Black, Locken and Vice Chairman Hales. Comm. Johnsnn. Chai.rm.an Fredricks.
,. Planning Commission 8 December 11, 1961 Resolution of Intention P. C. 154-345 Contd Before adopting a resolution for recommendation to the City Council, Comm. Viault suggested that some formula might be worked out whereby the "· --• number of units could be increased proportionately to the increase in total lot area, the land area requirement being less than that required for a unit on a standard 40xl00 lot. It was agreed that there were many angles that should be studied, and since there is no master plan, the study on R-3 property would have to be made by the city staff. Relative to the length of time that might be required to thoroughly study this matter and to reach a decision, the view was expressed that possibly the City Council would agree to an interim zoning ordinance which would prohibit construction on R-3 lots until settled. Comm. Noble moved adoption of Resolution P. C. 154-353 reconnnending to the City Council amendment of Zoning Ordinarrce P, C. 154, including all items in Resolution of Intention P. c. 154-345,except the proposed Section 608, the reason being,.that it is felt, through the public hearing with interested citizens present, that all of the foregoing proposed amendments have been deemed acceptable and will provide a more refined, updated zoning ordinance for the City of Hermosa Beach. Seconded by Cormn. Viault, the motion carried unanimously. Comm, Noble then moved that a letter be prepared by the Building Inspector to the City Manager and his staff requesting a ettlcJy· of all existing R...J properties and confines of the City of Hermosa Beach, giving some analysis and reasons therefor as to the existing usage, and perhaps some history behind some of the deviants to the R-3 usage, and correspondence directed to some of the comparable cities in the outlying beach conmunities that perhaps might be revealing as to their experience wi.th this problem, suggested cities being Laguna Beach, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Huntington Beach, Redondo Beach, and the Corona del Mar area, together with the city's staff's reconnnendation as to what is felt reasonable for lot area per dwelling unit and lot coverage. Seconded by Comm. flack, the motion carried unanimously. Vice-Chairman Hales suggested that if the staff does not have a recommendation by the next regular meeting date, that they give the Commission a definite date that can be a guiding point for this question, making it unnecessary to request the interim zoning ordinance if the matter can be settled quickly. CITY COUNCIL LETTER ON HIGH-RISE A letter dated December 7, 1961, from Bonnie Bright, City Clerk, concerning the Council's policy on high rise amendment to the zoning ordinance, and instructing the Commission to proceed with the R-4 high rise area study, on the basis that any such amendment to the zoning ordinance would be presented to the people by referendum, was received and filed. McGUIRE'S MARKET, Parking Determination A representative of McGuire's Market. 1052 Pier Avenue, asked to be heard on a review of parking requirements, if any, f~p a shed ~o rotect motors, etc-. on being satisfied that the parking is adequ~""")ITefn m9fi,n by Comm. Johnson, seconded by Comm. Viault, it was unaninfousl_y a r ed tha no additional parking liQuld be required for this structure, \ L~ cl ,.-;-I. /J ADJOURNMENT at 11:15 p.m. ~~ ... 0> y..,-r..__f Joe B. Noble, Sec'y. '