HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1955_02_16 (Rezoning)I \ L l: .ll R L l. C. Ii £. A ll I. Ji n on the proposed rezoning of the area west of Valley Drive in the City of Hermosa Beach February 16, 1955 Present: Comm. Black, Dennie, Fisher, Haneman, Hixson~ Miller, and Mayor Edwards Kay Kal1cka, Planning Consultant
( F. ll. Ii L I. .Ct H. E. A. B. l. .N .G. re Proposed Rezoning of the City of Hermosa Beach Chairman Dennie called the meeting to order and asked Mr. Kay Kalicka, Zoning Consultant to explain the purpose of the meeting to the audience~ Mro Kalicka pointed out that most of those present were naturally vitally interested in the proposed rezoning and that this was the main reason for holding the hearingso. He asked that remarks be confined to the items at hand and that they be briefo Mro Kalicka suggested that the map be the first port.ion of the rezoning to be considered and explained that this was definitely not the final draft of the maPn ~e then explained ~he color key ko the audienceo Chairman Dennie asked to hear first from tnose repr-esenting groups of property owners"' Mrso Gordon Evans 2124 Monterey Blvdo Mrso Evans presented a petition bearing 10 signaturet in protest to the rezoning of th:i.s area of Monterey rrom R~l to R~)9 She brought out the fact that the existing structures are mostly duplexes and that most o.f the people felt that it should be left R=l or pos~ibli"· R-2. but not R~)o She wondered about the area around ~ircle Avenue being e£t R=l when all the rest was to be R-3~ Se Frederick Smith 202Q §trand Ave0 _ Mro Smith presented a written report which he reado Following are some excerptso He protested the pro posed rezoning on the Stranel from 18th Street to 35tli Street9 from R=l to R=)o He felt that originally the town was proposed as a residential town and should be left.as such, instead of crowding in as many tenants per lot as possiblea He also brought up the parking problem, pointing out that it is difficult to put more than two garages on small lots~ He said parking on the streeta will be increased a large percentage if the R=3 persists in this areao Another point in his report concerned itself with potential increased schools, fire-fighting equipment and personnel, etco because of increased number of renters, thus increasing the taxes of the property ownerso He also mentioned that the beach itself will be so crowded that property owners and their families will be denied the use of the beach in comforto He concluded that he felt \the-majority of the residents along the Strand fee1 that rezoning from R=l to R-3 or the above area will be detrimental to the entire City, not just to their properties and therefore demand that the Mayor and Council veto the proposed change in that areao Mr .. Stan Weller Mro Weller was representing a group of business men l_ .12J ~ Manhattan_A!.fl a. and ot.her interested property owners who met previous1y to attempt to maintain a Commercial status in the area of Manhattan Avenue and Longfellow and also on Greenwich VilJ.l&ge Street0
t; :J .. fJJ.. i e tie c.t> 1.·:~r~g Pr·oposed B.ezo1.in6 February 16, 1955 Page Two ( He pointed out that by zoning the area residential, bank loans would become very difficult to secure because a commercial building in a residential area could not be rebuilt if more than half of it were destroyed by fire, and the insurance companies would pav onlv enou~h to rebuild the damaged portion of the structure_. ne aJ.so felt that this residential zoning would lead to deterioration ana. felt that control of the properties is being taken out of the hands of the property owners in the area and that that right should be vested in them instead of in a governing bodyo James Go Leovy 2a26 Strand Aye.,._ ll.iro Laovy protested the proposed change froi.m Rnl to R-3 on the Strand between 18th and 35th ~Greets, pointing out that it had always been R--1 and is the only exclusively R~l zone in this area from here to Los Angeleso He also pointed our ·that more than 75% of the dwellings· from 22nd Street to 30th Street are single family dwellings, with only 12 structures being duplexes or larger, one a we11~,cared-for boarding house and 10 duplexeso MrD Leovy brought out the point that in the last 5 or 6 years, some $200,000 has been invested in improvements in the area acquired from the Pacific Electric Railway transaction soma years ago. He could see no reason whatever for rezoning this area from R-1 to "slum" areae He felt the main motivation was that someone wants to crowd Hermosa Beache He wanted to know who was ( 'responsible for permitting the R=l island in the center of the R-J zoneso I G .Mro Kalicka answered that all the meetings at which these maps and Ordinances were discussed were public meetings which the press reported for the public's h~to No meetings were confidential or privateo He said nobody had cared enough to attendo He was interrupted by Mro John MacFaden and asked to answer the question at hando Mr,, V.tacFaden finally asked tha-t the whole proposed Zoning map and ordinance be thrown outo He pointed out that nobody knew about these open meetings and did not like the fact that no postings had been made in the areas to be affected by the rezonings . Walter Uptegraf 1250 Manhattan AyeA Mro Uptegraf said that he had learned about thie meeting only last nighto He felt that apparently the Commission felt that the beach frontage property was the most valuable and radiated out various zones from thereo He asked what premise this whole map was based upono He also asked about the lack of Commercial properties in the area of Manhattan Aveo and Longfellow and the proposed Commarcial around 22nd Street and Hermosa Avenueo Mro Kalicka said that the Commission had worked on sever.al basic premiaee0 10 They had felt that as much as possibleg the multiple zones should be kept on the west side of the railroadso 2o He said that the property owners on the Strand area in question are actually figtr'Ging a losing battle and that eventually the area will have to go into multiple zoning,, 3o Sal~ that north of 22nd Street will probably remain R.,..l in structure, even thougiJ zoned R=)o 4D Said that the ordinance sets up minimum yard areas on each lot, regardless of zone~ so that a person would have to acquire several lots in order to build rooming houses or "tenements"o
( Proo sell J1.e2 ,i:i.. ,1" February 16 /I 1955 Page Th:c-ee He brought up the point t11At, under the existing ordj_nance r 10 boarders are allowed in an R-1 zone0 ne said that a careful comparison between the old and new maps and ordinances \'IOuld show how much R-1 was present in this area right now0 He said that both he and the Commission actually felt tha~ the R-1 zoning in that area could not be held for very long and that was one reason for the proposed ;hange at this time. He also pointed out the !·aason for the hearings again""--to get public feeling and opinions so that suggestions could be taken into consideration~ He men-tioned that Gordon Whitnall and Associates had been instrumental in promoting more stringent State zoni·•g laws so that the political aspect would be more restricted. He said that the Commissic:n did not agree with the premise that from Monterey Blvd~ south will always r(~'llain sine;le family dwellings, but feels that the tide of population will ei·9ntually ~ush it into multiple dwellings., John R,, MacFaden JJOl Hennosa Avenue Nr. HacFaden felt that a new ordinance would not acl.ually solve the problem of variances and mentionea th~t there 1s no more certainty that the new map and ordinance will not have pet,itions for variances than there was when the current, ma-p and ordinance was adopted in 19450 He said that he had fought the rezoning or that area from R-1 to Cwnmercial at that time and felt that only a .few speculators wished to develop certain areas to their own benefit instead of the benefit of the City0 He said that he felt the p1esent Commercial properties should be fully devel-oped before any more proper\·,y is zoned Conmercial and that appropriate parkin0 areas should bC1 required for· such developmento He asked for more s_tringent en£orcement o.f existing laws, stating that carelessness in enforcement is responsible for the present condition of Hennosa Beach. Mr0 KalickfA said that Mro Ma:!Faden was correct in assuming that no mar:, or ordinance could possibly be free from future changes~ He said that one of the reas~ns for the consideration of a rezoning map is because there are so many va;.•iances being brought before the Commission that they felt it was time to mak~ some changes0 The only way this can be remedied is by the desire of thJ Commission and/or the request of the people0 The current proposed map •Jnd ordinance is a step in that directiono Mr, MacFaden said that the integrity 0£ property is destroyed because some-o•je on the edge 0£ an area wants to move further into another area0 Mr0 Kalicka pointed out that most people want a zone to incorporate their pro-perties, after which it can sto~. Mrs0 Stan Weller She was protesting the proposed change t°C!>'-:Hesidential 3232 Manhattan Avenue in the area of Manhattan Ave& and Longfellow and also 310 Longfellow Avenue Greenwich Village Street, pointing out that Mr0 Kalicka had previously mentioned that Commercial areas are usually allowed every! mile or s00 She asked why, in this case» there was a stretch of l~ miles with no Co.rmnercial zone0 Mro Kalicka said he did not recollect the reason the property was proposed as Residential, because he had originally suggested that area be Commercial~ but the Commission had seen fit to propose it Residential.
Puol:Lc Hei::.ring Proposed Rezoning February 16~ 1955 Page Four • 1 Chainnan Dennie was asked about this areao He said that t•lr,. Kalicka had proposed too much Com.merci~l zone in that area, and they had felt it was unnecessary. !-u-s O ·:'leller then asked why property on 22nd Street and Her--mosa Avenue was proposed to be Commercial when it is already built up es Residential, and why property in the Longfellow-Manhattan Ave0 area should be proposed Residential when it is already built up as Commercial. Mrc Kalicka said agai1i that the most important reason for the hearing is to find out just how thtJ people feel about the whole thing» not why it was done es it was0 It boil.3 down to how the property owners1 feelings toward the rezoning go instea1 of how the Commission and Council feel it will go~ Ha said the Commissi~n admits they do not kil~w .. all the technical aspects of zoning and planning, but they are willing to learn0 He pointed out that A r.-is at lea:$t one raore hearing before t.he Commission can .take any actionr. He cited a situation which developed a few months ago concerning the erection of a hotel on 16-th St0 John Dunn, Sr~ i2,--l9th ~tr_r:,!i as an exa~ple of ~mat can happen in multiple dwelling zones.. H(• wanted to know who had asked for R-,3 dwellings in Hezmosa Beach in the firs~ place and said that Hermosa wants less R-2 and R-3 and more R-1. He said that the merchants in Hermosa Beach want more R-3, but that they should .cealize that property owners are spending more in Hennosa than tenants ever 't1.>uld. He says the City Wl:JS basically planned as a residential town and nJt as a resort area. He wants a good ordinance that will guarantee the rigtr:;s of property owners to continue as R-1 and protect their investments0 Ad(1lph Ehlers 27~2 Circle Avenue He just wanted to know the reason for this ~eti ng. t"lr,, Kalicka said that it was to hear the expression of the people. Mr0 ~hlers mentioned that most of the J.ote in Hermosa Beach are 309 x ao~ and stated that he did not want the pro-pos~d ordinance to go into effect because of the enforced yard area clauseso He wishes to develop his property as fully as possible> but will be unable to because it would be impossible t.o built 3 units with garages on only 5~ ~r 55% of 2400 square feet~ He also wished to clarify the point about who was the enforcing agent of the ordinance0 Mr0 Kalicka pointed out th at the Building Superintendent was the enf'orcing agent and that i.f anyone wants to vary from the l"equirernents of the ordinance, he has to come before the Planning Commissiono The Inspector is oo t able to allow such variances on his own hook,, Mr. Van Dorn 6J2-36th Street 30' x 80' lot if only Mrsa Stoshitch 24,-9th Court He also protested the required yard areas in the pro-~ posed ordinance, pointing out that it would be im-possible to secure any kind of government loan on a 50% or 55% could be built ono She felt a;l.l are agreed that whet is desired is to hold the line on further high development of lots0 She would like to see property in her area kept R-1 or R-2 but not ll-J because that would invlte multiple dwellings into the area~ ir0 Kalicka said that everything has been done to tighten the zoning instead of opening it upo He pointed out that the existing map has to be considered when any rezoning issue comes up, not just what should be done in a certain area or, but also what now exists.
-. Pt.\;:;1.J. c Si:i. =.:. l".i. L!.g Proposed Rezoning February 16~ 1955 Page Five "" ~rs0 Stoshi'Uh asked why the Commercial area was being extended south for 2 blocks 0£ existing residenceso She wanted to know why more area should be opened up for Commercial development when it was already developed residentialo MrD Kalicka mentioned that parking in this area is a serious problem and that both he and the Commission had felt that the present business areas would definitely acquire off-street parking facilities in the proposed commercial zones. It this is not done, the extension 0£ Commercial would rot be necessary He said the Co~ission and himself had felt that the problem of eni'orcing parking regulations and requirements prohibits there being such clauses in-cluded in the proposed ordinance, as had originally been planned. Mrs0 Stoshitch brought out the point that once the Comnercial 2t;>ne would be established and buy up the properties for parking purposes, it new businesses in the area. t-he ordinance was in effect, • __ if the businesses did not wouln encourage an influx of At this points Mr0 Leovy pointed out the fact that the proposed H=J zone would include those dwellings currently classified as R-4. Dani el Ernst 5Jl Pier Avenue He said that when the zoning study had been in pro~ grass for the current map and ordinance (1945) he had appeared before the Co~~il to find out why it was being done. He said they had told him the reason for a new map was be-cause the old one was so badly marked up it could mt be clearly understood any longer. He was protesting the change .from M-1 to R=l on his property o / -·te felt the citizens should be allowed to prepare the map themselves, so \_ everyone could be s~tisfiedo A. Co Hager 2150 Loma Drive W. H. Gage l 7-16th Street He wished an explanation of why his lots are the only 2 lots on Loma Drive not zoned for multiple usage0 He wants them to be R-20 He wished to protest the Commercial zoning on 16th Street0 He said that some months ago~ there was a hassle with ·the Council about allowing a hotel in that R-4 zone, and the Council had guaranteed the ordinance would be quali-fied to prohibit such possibilitieso This was done; now the proposed ordin-ance would again allow such structures in a multiple zone~ without coming before the Commission0 He said Dr0 Hamilton, 98~16th Street felt» alonf, with him, that they did not want this to happen., He also mentioned that he actually does not think 16th Street ::should be Com-mercial, but that Hermosa Avenue to 16th Street should be., He said that coi~ Scott also agreed with this viewpointo .t-ir., Gage felt that what was wanted in this area was R-2, not R-3 as it is row defined. Mrs0 Weller said that it doesn't matter what happens tonight, there will have to be variances eranted as time goes by. Why not leave things as they are instead of changine the whole cityo She says parking in the Longfellow area is adequate to take care of businesso ~ t.oger •:allace Mr~ Wallace pointed out that the propo~ed busines:;i 1622 Strand Avenue zone from BayView to 16th Street is now covered with residences., He wanted to know who would want to climi, the 16th Street hill to Bay View and back again just to go shopping., He said there appear to be two main poin~s of contention; The north Strand area and Commercial zoning in different areas.
r Public Hearing Proposed Rezoning February 16, 1955 Page Six Mr. Wallace asked the reason for a portion 0£ Pacific Coast Highway being proposed R-) when it has always been agreed that Pier Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway should be Commercial. Charman Dennie explained that this was an error on the pert of the Commissi<:m and it would be corrected before the March 2nd meeting when the area East of Ardmore Avenue would be con-sidered. Mro Wallace expressed his dislike of the way the rezoning program is pro-ceedingo He felt that no young man should come into a strange City and propose to show the residents and property owners how to live and what they must do with their properties. He stated his hope that the Council and Comnissicn would hire a new agency, if necessary, and drop the program as it now s·tands, leaving it on a spot zoning basis0 He also mentioned that there should have been notices and postings sent to property owners concerning such a large programo He did not like the fact that properties bought for a certain usage could now be changed wholesale to another zone. L. ,J .. McPherson ,!2!i5 Monterey Boulevard He pointed out that on the existing map the area between 19th Street and 22nd Street is R-1, and the rest of the area is R-20 He asked for an explanation as to why this area is _ will be R-20 He would ( ,.fr I\ Swift 716 Longfellow Avenue proposed to be left R-1 wben the rest of the street like to have all the area zoned R-2 or better. Mre Swift asked about the lega~ processes involved in adopting the Ordinanceo He has already si~ed a contract with a contractor to build a duplex in an area which will be rezoned R-1. He has not as yet .filed for a building permit0 Mro Kalicka informed him that it takes 5everal mcrt.hs f'or all the legal re-quirements to be fulfilled, but that a contract would not be considered a substantial enough basis for allowing him to proceed with his building in the event he does intend to secure a permit. Mr0 Up~egraf said that at present his home is ao situated that he has an un-impeded view of the whole bay, but a large multiple dwelling would completely block this view. He said he had not realized the l-3 zone would be so all-1nclus1ve. He asked that the R-3 zone be more limited, since Hennosa is pri-marily a residential town. ' Mr. s. Frederick Smith inquired about the lack of an R-4 zone0 He said that Hermosa's zoning laws should follow the City of Los AngelesQ The Commission exnlained that all towns have their own zoning laws. Mro ~mith then mentioned that at least we could follow the example of Los Angeles in the point of notifying all ~roperty owners within a JOO foot radius of proposed changes0 John Dunn, Jro 59-19th Street ..____Jecher fnderson 2201 Manhattan Avenue will be recorded with He asked what could be done if a building was con~ structed contrary to existing lawso He referred es-pecially to a building on 19th Street . Mr0 Anderson asked if all written protests are of record with the Secretary of the Planning Commission0 Cha innan Dennie assured him that a1l such protests the records of this hearing.
Public Hearing Proposed Rezoning February 16, 1955 Page Seven n Mr O MacFaden asked whether or not all protests should be made verbally and entered in the recordso He requested the Chairman to order a show of hands signifying protest or favor to the changes of zones0 Chainnan Dennie asked £or the show or hands, and there were more hands raised in protest than in favor. Mrs0 Shelley 2902 Strand She s~ted she felt there must have been some reason for.the who+e question of rezoning in the first place She said that .her property was zoned R-4 when she bought it, and that sne is operating at present under a zone variance, bu~ thot there are many draw-backs to this set-up. She operates a boarding house on her property and would like to have it zoned R-4, because that was what she had bought it as. She said she was in sympathy with the protests made, but felt the town must grow. r:r O Leovy said that originally Mrso Shelley's property was zoned R-1 ~ but since the warp the boarding house had operated under a variance as R-4. Mr0 Ehlers asked that Mr. Kalicka define more clearly the meaning of all the zones, especially R-3. He had owned a home at 133-30th Street,, which was then zoned R-_l and had been changed to R-2., Now someone is putting up 4 units on this Street on an R-2 lot. Ee Graywod Smfthe Mr0 Smythe asked what steps have to be taken before (-,2626 Palm Drive the proposed zoning ordinance can take effect0 Mr. _ · . Kalicka explained that there will be a hearing on March 2nd to hear expressions and opinions from the property owners east of Ardmore ~-venue; then there will be at least one more general hearing before the Planning Commission on the entire City, at which time the corrected map and ordinance will be considered. The map and ordinance will then be referred to the City Council for their recommendation. After they take actionp the City Attorney will draft an ordinance aoopting them, and it will be published and go into effect )0 days after adoptiono Jack Burch Mro Burch asced whether or not the fact that so many Strand Avenue variances had been coming before the Commission had anything to do with the consideration of a new zoning map and ordinance. The Commission stated that this fact definitely had a bearing in the matter .. Cyril Brookes He said that several months ago he had applied ror a 2010 Monterey Boulevarq variance on his property located on Monterey Blvdo He said that several properties in that area are im-proved on BayView Drive1 but are sand lots on Monterey Blvd0 He felt that he had a right to apply for a variance to build oh Nonterey Blvd. 9 but had been told to wait till the rezoning was bra.gb.t before the public" He now finds that his property will be zoned R=), but the lot is too small to meet the yard requirements and still enable him to put up another unit .. He slso did not like the all-inclusive R-J zoning, but pointed out that even £ the R-3 zone is applied, most of thEt lots in Hermosa could not have a third unit built on them because of the required yard area paragraphs in the proposec ordinance. Mr0 Ehlers stated that several years ago only a few streets existed, and all the houses were built on them; then other streets were put through, and the
( Public l-k.11:::r1.ng Proposed Rezoning February 16r 1955 Page Eight lots £aced on them, but had been improved on the older streets; this was how Mr. Brookes' and property owners with similar situations came about0 Mr0 Edwards thanked the property owners for coming to the meeting and expressing their opinions and ·views. He wanted to point out that the Commission and Council did not want to hurt anyone's property or devaluate it0 He cited the case of the proposed hotel on 16th Street, and pointed out that the inter•• pretation of the existing ordinance in this and similar respects is sketchy, because of this and other inadequacies, a Planning Consultant had been hired to help take care of such thlngs0 He said the Comnission and Council valued the advice and opinions of the people to guide them. When Mayor Edwards had concluded, several property owners and members of the audience left the Council Chambers, during which time the £allowing property o'Wllers registered their protests verbally. Nancy Adams, 1928 Strand Phyllis Shinner, 1838 Strand Howard Sturtevant, 3104 Strand Hugo Lizza, 2702 Strand Mrs0 W.H~Short9 1728 Strand Jim Clark, 1918 Strand Lo R0 \laters} 900 Strand Dave WilkinsonJ 2140 Strand Jack Bergstrom, 202a Strand against R-J zoning on Strand tt " n tt tt tt tt n n tt n n n n n ,. " n " " , wants R-2 against whole rezoning program against Commercial zoning on 9th Street between Hermosa Ave. and Strand Recommended zoning Strand R-1 from boundary to boundary» except 3 blocks each side or the pier which are now Commercial Same as above. Mr. Leovy said that even if the R-.3 zonEi is made .more limited, the Strand property owners he represented would still protest multiple zoning in that area. Mrs., Holly Lenz Mrso Lenz stated she had purchased a lot on Palm 1618 Palm Drive Drive with a house on i to Since she can use only 60C,., of her lot under the proposed ordinance, it will be impossible for her to improve this lot further, even though it is to be R-30 Mr0 Kalicka pointed out that only 72% lot coverage is allowed under the Stat"· Housing Act and further defined R-3. It includes courts, hotels, motels, et everYthing that is now called R-4 and R-J. Mrs., Karl Raife 13 3 Llndon Street Mrs0 Hai fe did not like the existing spot zoning set up She now has 2 duplexes in that area and "WOUld like t e proposed RP zone definedo Mr0 Kalicka said that it would permit professional men to locate in a home or officeD He pointed out that professional people did not usually like to locate in a Commercial zonei so this RP zone would take care of that problem~ Mrso Raife said she would like the R-3 zone made more limited, to exclude courts, motels, hotels, etc. L. R. Waters 900 Strand Avenue a Commercial zone is He was not in favor of doubling the size of the Com-mercial area in the downtown section. He feels that taking 8 streets 0£ residences and turning them into unnecessary. He said there are several lots and houses
Pu:o_,.,_ic h:.:~:-.:·_: j.~.\=~ Proposed liezoiiing February 16, 1955 Page Nine ('between him and the business zone at present, and that buffer vould be eliminated if this zoning becomes efrectives Mro U~tegrar felt that since J units could not be built upon most of the lots in Hermosa Beach (30' x 80•), he would rather have a stipulation in the ordinance which requires the Commission to have a hearing on each indi-vidual case than to have a blanket minimum yard requiremento Mro Kalicka said that throwing yourself on the mercy of the men who happen to be govern~ 1ng at any given time is not always besto He pointed out that rezoning and spot zoning are aaually illegal according to the State Housing Acto Commo Hixson pointed out that Mro Ka1icka should be allowed to state his position and explain the laws of zoning to those at the hearing, instead of being continually interruptedo Mr., Kalic:ka proceeded to explain t~he second map on exhibito He explainea that map as showing the present zoning condition of Hermosa Beach~ This map ia dotted with variances and spot zones, in spite 0£ existing zone and land use ordinanceso He explained that a variance can be legally given only to allow a property owner the same fair use of his property as everyone eJee in the area is being allowed., Any other reason is illegal. He also poin·ted out that a spot zone is allowed on a single lot in a block, instead of re= zoning the whole area and said this also is illegal. He mentioned that about 400 spot zones and variances have been granted since 1948 and that about 70% of those should never have been given~ ( \ Mrs. Meredith Loughman She asked whether or not she could build J units on 1536 Manhattan Avenue her lot, even if it is zoned R=J, and if not, why zone it R-3 at all. Mr~ Kalicka said that with the substandard lots in Hermosa Beach, more complete development of the lots would completely destroy .;:property values. He tried to explain that the new ordinance would actually.be much more restrictive than the old one, because of stricter specifications, etco Mrso Loughman wished to go on record as opposing the R=3 zone as it now stands,. She also protested the Commercial zone in the 1500 block on Manhattan Avenue0 Hugo Lizza ll02-.Strand Avenue He protested the change from R-1 to R=J on the Strand~ He asked if there have been a majority of property owners from that area protesting the proposed rezoning,, Chairman Dennie answered affirmativelya He then asked whether or not the CoIDJ11ission flit the majority of the people wanted R-1, and if so, would the R=l zoning continue., Mro Kalicka said that the Commission would certainly consid,3r the changes from R=3 back to R=lo To G., Lawrence 25.J..S Hermosa Ayenµ~ He protested the proposed change from R-1 to R=J on 1~he Strand from J 5th St o to 18th St o He gave the same reasons as before expressedo He also protested the inadequate notice given for this hearing .. He wanted notices sent to the entire Cityo He also wanted to know what zoning Mro Kalicka had originally l ,uggested before the Commission gave their suggestions~ Mr. Kalicka said '---Ghat no map could be just presented to any office and accepted as it stood, but would be subject to many changes~
1.::11 j,ii C t;.€0:C' J..~(i.g Proposed Rezoning February 16, 1955 Page Ten ~4r o Lawrence said he was especially interested in what Mr°' Kalicka had sug~· gested for the Strand area in question,, He stated that he thought it was incredible that the Commission could prepare such a map as has been presented~ obviously against the interests of the majority of peopleo Mro Kalicka said he had proposed the R=) zoning in the Strand· area in questiono Chairman Dennie summed up the major problems as follows: lo Proposed R=J zoning in the Strand between 18th Ste and 35th Sto • 20 Too much Commercial zoning downtowne ). Requested Commercial in Longfellow and Manhattan AveQ area" .MrQ Smythe protested the change o~ zoning on the north end of Manhattan Aveo from Commercial to R~J, also the following property owners: Howard Jackson, 3217 Manhattan Avenue Co Mo Bingham, l25-J4th Street Mrs. Raite wanted to know whether or not some of the old buildings in the City would be condemned. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to condemn any buildings, Chairman Dennie informed hero However, i£ a non-conforming building should burn down, it could not be ·replaced with another non-con forming building~ Mrso Jo Ho Edwards 2a12 Hermosa Avenue more units, and to make She wished to have a clarification or the proposed R=3 zone made again, enpecially in regard to a 30' loto She wished to be allowed to build at least 2 her lot R-3 instead of R~le Mrso Loutse Kline 1900 Mont@rey Blvd~ there could be only 2 quirements .. Mrse Kline wanted to know how the people with homes built on the. back of lots facing Monterey can ever utilize their lots~ Mr~ Kalicka pointed out that units built on them, because of the minimum yard re= Mro Brookes said that since the whole area is already built up, why try to put restrictions on the lots nowo He said the only reason he could see for it was that it would open properties on both sides of certain persons for further developmento He did not like the fact that blanket zone changes would prohibit. development of certain lots and wanted each lot given indivi= dual attention, in the light of its individual problemao Herbert Albright 2818 ..Hermosa Avenµe conditions~ Mr~ Paul Ho Draine 1144 Hermosa Avenue He wished to congratulate the Commission for their effort to change the City from the hodge~podge which now exists to a plan more consistent with changing He also wished to congratulate the Commission for their efforts in this respecto He pointed out that most regulations are for 50v x 150' lots, and that since this town started out in the main part as cabin sites, not as resi-( --~ntial lots, the Commission has a large job on its handso '--He pointed out that everyone is agreed there must be some changes made, but that quite a few people think their lots should have more utility& He hoped that in trying to make it better, the Commission would not strangle the growt.h of the towno Also, he ho.i.:-ed that with the changes to be made, most
Pubi.i_; Hec1.r1ng Proposed Rezoning February 16, 1955 Page Eleven people wanted more usage out of their property instead 0£ less, without being subjected to a law suit o He felt sure the Commission was open·2minded and wishes to give the people what they wanto Ben Cogsworth s.2s~21st Strefrti He felt that someone should apologize for the abuse ~. Kalicka had been subjected to all evening, and ~e expressed his apologieso Karl Knott Mro Knott wished to recommend that every property 1131 Pacific Coast Hwy;, owner be notified concerning the hearing scheduled for March 2nd. Mr. Kalicka said it was his fault the areas had not been postedo Mro Dunn wished to change his position, because he found the proposed ordin= ance would so limit the usage on a small R-3 lot that it would not be as objectionable as he had thought; however, he still wished to protest the multiple zoning in that area of the Strand. and felt most of the property in the north end should remain R-1 and the R=J definition should be made more limited. Jim Padgett 1256 Strand Avenue He asked whether or nat zoning from single to multiple would increase the value of the ~ropertyo He expressed his position as favoring R~2 zoning or higher for the entire Cityo He felt that, in regard to the proposed Commercial area around Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, a Parking zone should be established to be ( ·Jsed exclusively for parking.. This would permit and.<lencourage the develop·" ·--dlent or certain lots near the Commercial zones for parking onlyo He suggested that a value between R=2 and R=J would be best ao that multiple dwellings would not be encouraged to go up in these lots. ' He also asked the Commission whether or not the proposed changes would raise the'property tax revenue or decrease ito He felt that also, if the proposed , lot coverage were restricted to only 50%, there would probably be more lots covered with yard trimmings and other refuse than there now areo Mro C,. Mo Hardin 3,417 Hermosa Avenu~. Mro Hardin also asked £or a clarification of tax evaluationo Mr~ Kalicka said that the zoning in itself is not sufficient to increase the taxes, un-less there is development on the lot to substantiate the zoneD Mro Pat Anderson 212 Pier Avenue, He brought out the fact that the most valuable lot in Hermosa at present is an R•·l lot,. He felt that after everything settles down, most of the people will agree that the whole plan is fineo Mro Padgett asked some member of the Commission to make a motion to notify the property owners 0£ further hearings. Chairman Dennie mentioned that notices had been sent to all businesses and organizations concerning the first meeting held in regard to the rezoning. ,nd only about 40% felt it necessary to attend that meeting. Bob English 2203 Hermosa Avenue_ argue from~ He suggested that in the future, definitions, etco should be read directly from the ordinance instead of verbal interpretations using only the map to
., . . . .,_ -.a Proposed Rezoning February 16. 1955 Page Twelve ( Mr~ Jerry Stam1s a20 .. 9th Str~et He felt most of Hermosa Beach is satisfied with things as they are and do not wish to make any changes., The following written protests were received by the Planning Commission: Nancy Jc AJams, 1928 Strand Against rezoning north Strand area from R=l to R-J o Mrs. Walt.;er Butler,49-20th Street " " Vernon r.tnd Leila Sargent, 3001 Strand " Mr.&. Mrs .. C .. R. Lombardo, 1908 Strand " John h~ Wilson, Jr .. , 1522 Strand " Tarr & McComb Corp, 3409 Strand " Josi::phine W., Lawrence,2515 Hermosa Ave0 " Arthur and Minnie Morgenstern,2654 Strand " Frank and Dorris Lockhart,3411 Strand 11 Aimee R. Means, 2100 Strand " Alma M,, Thompson,2000 Strand n Mrs., R., Co Thompson., 2000 Strand " Esther Eo Batchelder, 2108 Strand " Betty Thompson, 2541 Hermosa Ave., " Lucy Doheny Niven,2408 Strand " Robert Mo\.lton,2530 Strand 11 Co Ba and Vera Stern, 2918 Strand " Ko Se and Agnes Steel, 2720 Strand " Howard Thomp~on, )116 Strand " Kenneth Carrahers, Jru,2510 Strand " K., R., CarraheJils', 2720 Strand " Moya and John MacFaden,3301 Hermosa Ave~ " James Go Leovy,2826 Strand " Mro & Mrso Kenneth Hudso·n, 2e10 Strand " Mary and Donal Gardiner, 3031 Strand " Barbara and George Guild,1920 Strand " Sn Fredrick Smith, 2024 Strand " Marguerite and Vernon Brydolf,3311 Bermosa" Hugo Lizza, 2702 Strand " Petition of Davld Wilkinson, 2140 Strand " containing 21 signatures II " " 11 " tt " " ft " " It It " " 1f 1t " ti tt ~ " ft " ft " Daniel Ernst, 531 Pier Aveo, against change from M-1 to R-1 o~ Trailer Ct,. Petition of Mr., and Mrso Gordon Evans, 2124 Monterey Blvde containing 10 signatures protesting change from R=l to R~J in that areao Ho K., Patch, 71-17th Street against change toward commercial zones~ ·Jo Beecher Anderson, and 15 signatures protesting change from R-2 in the area of 22nd Street and Hermosa Avenue, adjoining 2201 Manhattan Ave,, Commo Hixson moved the adjournment of the hearing, with Comm. Bladk seGonding the motion., It carried unanimously, with the meeting adjourning at 12:15 Ao~L