HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1961_05_15MINUTES 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