Hermosa Council May Once Again Leave Fate of Biltmore Site to Voters

Hermosa Beach’s Biltmore site--probably the most voted-on vacant lot in the South Bay--will likely be back on the ballot sometime next year, the City Council decided this week.

Struggling for consensus on whether to put a park on the beachfront property or develop it, the council tentatively agreed Tuesday to allow residents to vote on the two latest proposed plans for the site: a new council ordinance that would zone the land for a housing development, and a citizen initiative now being circulated that would zone the land for open space.

The decision came in the wake of petitions calling for a referendum on a recently passed ordinance, which zones the weed-strewn 0.8-acre site for single-family homes.

Civic activist Parker Herriott, who wants a park on the site and is spearheading the citizen initiative, has also been calling for a separate referendum on the ordinance to zone the land residential.

Last month, Herriott presented the council with 1,794 signatures against implementation of the ordinance. The petitioners also demanded that the zoning change be put to a public vote before it goes before the California Coastal Commission. Because the zoning change would affect access to the beach--the site is at 14th Street and The Strand--it is subject to the commission’s approval.

But in a surprise announcement to the council on Tuesday, City Atty. Charles Vose said Herriott’s referendum petitions are invalid because of a legal technicality.

Citing a 1985 ruling by the California Court of Appeal, Vose told the council that an ordinance could not be repealed by referendum, if the outcome would be inconsistent with a city’s existing general plan. And, Vose said, the council changed the General Plan when it passed the residential zoning ordinance to allow for houses on the Biltmore site.

Herriott’s petitions, he said, would have had to call for a concurrent referendum on the General Plan as well as on the zoning change. Because they didn’t, he said, they are invalid.

The petitions come before the council for a formal vote Nov. 13, but the council indicated unanimously that it will reject them. Instead, members said, they will allow the Coastal Commission to consider the zoning change. If it is accepted, they then will allow residents to vote on it, as well as on Herriott’s open space initiative, assuming it qualifies for the ballot.

“There is a clear objection by some people to the zoning change,” Mayor Chuck Sheldon said. “As a consequence, it would be my feeling that we should put the residential zoning on the ballot. . . . I’ve heard the music, and the music is loud.”

The latest ballot issues will be the 10th and 11th, respectively, since the Biltmore Hotel was razed in 1965. In fact, open space and housing have been voted on before, but like hotels, boutiques and a mixture of other uses, they have failed to please enough voters at one time to create a solid consensus in the beach town.

Herriott and his backers argue that the residential plan will worsen congestion in the cramped city and squander one of the city’s best views. And, they predict, the Coastal Commission may reject a plan to put houses on the property, since it effectively restricts access to the beach.

But Councilwoman Kathleen Midstokke, who advanced the residential zoning idea, has argued that the city could make up to $8 million by selling the site to a developer, and it could use the money to buy open space elsewhere in the city. Also, she says, the commission might be swayed by the council’s plan to sacrifice less than one acre of beachfront open space for the opportunity to purchase much more parkland elsewhere in the city.

Moreover, council members have argued, plans are under way to build a hotel next door to the site, which might make up for any public access lost to new residential development.