HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/1938*f the a§rsmlwr Grp,
Mr. Storey favored this p -jest.
Mr, Wallace favored a project of this kind within reason. ad felt the voters should have the
right to vote on all these projects separately.
Com.Williams, as representative of Corona del Mar, explained that this improvement is needed
badly.
No further discussion,
_RECREATION CExni IN COP.ONA DEL MAR
Mr. Patterson eisplayed the drawings of this proposed project and explained them to the
commission. The city owns the property on which the center would be constructed. The entire cost
is estimated at $34,000. The community hall itself would cost approximately $14,700.
Mr. Kendall and Mr. Davis, residents of Corona del star, explained the need for some place
to entertain the young people of their community. Corona del Mar is a rapidly &rowing community
and. some recreational features should be provided here.
Com. Williams spoke in favor of this project. She explained that Corona del Mar has no
place in vhich to hold public gatherings and no playground facilities.
Chairman Hopkins asked what part of the project would be considered the most important.
Com. Williams said she considered the recreational building the most important.
Mr. Kendall's opinion was that the p,ayground should be put in first.
No further discussion.
REPAIRS AND F.=TION OF THE NEWPORT PIER
Com. Patterson explained that the necessary repairs on the pier amount to $5,000. There are
about 110 pilings to be replaced. The present boat landing is dangerous and should be reconstruct
and located on the outer end of the pier. The estimated cost of the complete job including ex-
tention of the pier is $22,000.
Mr. Davis considered this a good expenditure.
Mr. Wallace favored this project.
Mrs. Lane expressed the opinion that nothing could be done which would help Newport more
than extention and repair to the pier.
There were no objectiont from the floor to this project.
STREET LIGHTING IN WEST NEWPORT
Com. Patterson explained that this project includes instalation of street lights west of
32nd St. on out to Coast Highway. The approximate cost of this project is $18,000.
Com.Schnitker thought that Seashore dBr. should be included.
Miss Coffin, a resident of West Newport told of the need for more lighting in this area.
There were no objections from the floor to this project.
LIGHTING IN THE BUSINESS AREA OF NEWPORT
Com. Patterson stated the approximate cost of this project would be $10,500.
There was no discussion or objection from the floor on this project.
Mr. Tilton stated that the first thing to decide now is how the recommendations should be out
mitted to the City Council. Whether you wish to recommend the plan as one proposition, listing
the items to be included, or submit each project separately. Whether it would be better received
by the public as a group proposition or as separate items.
Com. Williams favored submitting it as one plan because, if submitted separately,she feared
the smaller projects would be defeated.
Com. Briggs favored listing the items according to their importance.
Com.Findlay felt that if submitted as one proposition, the whole program whuiid.be defeated.
Com. Seeger thougH2 that as a Planning Commission, we should submit a comprehensive plan
of city -wide improvement. He favored a plan well thought out from a physical, recreational and
hygenic standpoint. If placed separately on the ballot, none will carry.
Com. Hopkins favored recommending the plan as one proposition. He felt that in this way
publicity could be given the program as a whole and the public could express their opinion at
the *oleo as to whether they favor the idea of comprehensive planning. I would like to see it
submitted as an orderly plan.
Com. Seeger moved that the Newport Beach City Planning Commission go on record as favoring
the plan of placing before the electorate of the City of Newport Beach a program for municipal
improvement to be voted upon as one proposition. Seconded by Com. Williams.
Roll Call vote:
Axes: Hopkins, Seeger, Williams. Briggs.
Noes: Schnitker, Findlay, Patterson, Hodgkinson.
Chairman declared the motion lost.
Mr. Tilton suggested that the items might be grouped under general heads such as Sanitation,
-5-
Harbor development, street lighting, Recreational, Traffic Relie. etc.
In this way the sectional element could be eliminated, emphasizing the Reed rather than
the location of each project.
Com. Patterson did not think it would be possible from a legal standpoint to group the
projects in this manner. They will have to be submitted to the P.W.A. as separate items.
Chairman Hopkins suggested that, since the commission had decided to submit the projects
as separate itemd, they should proceed to consider each item in the order listed.
Coin. Briggs moved that the Planning Commission recomend to the City Council the item
of Sewer Repairs and Reconstruction and that the same be favorably considered fro submission to
the electorate. Seconded by Com. Findlay. Motion carried and so ordered.
Com. Findlay moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the item
of improvemdnt to the Water System and that the ways be favorably considered for submission to
the electorate. Seconded by ^vom. Briggs. Motion carried and. so ordered.
ADJOURSn= -
On motion of Com.Briggs, seconded by Com.Findlay and carried, the meeting adjourned
to Saturday, July 39th, 1938 at 1 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,