Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1943136 ROLL CALL The Newport Beach City Planning Commission met in special session at the Palisades Tavern, Corona del Mar, California, Octob ^r 20th, 1943, at 7:30 P.M., for the purpose of con- ducting the second public hearing havinng to do with a pro- posed amendment to Ordinance 025, altering and reducing certain setback requirements pertaining to certain properti- es, more particularly those of "Properties Incorporated ". Chairman Hopkins presided. Commissioners present: Hopkins, Seager, Johnson, Baltz, Allen and Campbell " absent: Nelson, Patterson and Isbell The Chairman called upon Secretary Seager to state the purpose of this meeting. The Secretary announced the. meeting as specially called for the purpose of conducting the second public hearing on the matter of the proposed ame ndment to Ordinance 525 having to do with altering or reducing the ten foot setback fequirement pertaining to certain properties in districts 16 and 17, Corona del Mar. He stated that the hearing was duly advertised, notice of hear- ing published aryl affidavit of publication filed. ' The Chairmen asked if the Secretary had received any further communications regarding this matter since the last hearing. Secretary Seager said he had received one written protest, to- wit,from Hortense W.Vess, which he read to the Commission. It was suggested by the Chairman that such communication be filed with other written protests. The Chairman then reminded those present that this was the second public hearing; that the first public hearing was devoted mainly to the hearing of verbal protests, and that he hoped this hearing could be expedited by the Commission asking questions of those who wished to be heard - that the Commission desired to give every opportunity to all. The Chairman thereupon declared the hearing open and asked anyone who wished to be heard to speak up. Mr. B. Z. McKinney arose to address the Commission. He stated that he was one of a committee of three appointed by a large number of property owners of Corona del Mar to act for them in the matter of the proposed amendment to Ordinance #525. He said that it was his understanding that the proposed amendment was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council for the purpose of determining whether or not the Ordinance should be amended. He said that he and his com- mittee b, 1 not had the time to go into the matter thoroughly, but that they had examined maps and records and legal. author- ities, and other circumstances concerning the property involved. As a result, he said he wished to make certain statements to the Commission, and also to register the protest of the pro- perty owners represented by his committee to the altering or reducing of the 10 foot setback requirement as set forth in 1:37 Ordinance #525. He referred to the statement read by Mr. Harris at the. first "hearing, which was later published in the local news 'papers. He said he wished to preface his remarks by stating that he bad no dislike for Mr.. Harris or "Properties Incorporated ". Nith respect to Mr. Harris' reference to "esthetic or artistic considerations ", Mr. McKinney said that he agreed with Mr. Harris that neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission had legal authority to require a setback on property simply to protect some- body's view - but that as a matter of fact, the City Council and the Planning Commission did not take into consideration the ques- tion of view with the possible exception as to the height of gar- ages fronting. on Ocean Boulevard,_ and that each action was per- fectly legal and valid and justifiably taken. On the other hand, Mr. McKinney declared that the Planning Commission and the City Council had a.perfeot right to consider matters of an esthetic or artistic nature in connection with setback lines applying to setback requirements. Also, in requiring uniformity in setback on streets so that houses are uniformly set back, thus adding to the beauty and symmetry of the streets upon which they face. In support of this contention, Mr. McKinney cited various cases - notably, Ferrant vs City of Sacramento, 204 Cal. 6879 decided in 1941, in which the court held that asthetie considerations may be properly taken into consideration by the City in making a zoning ordinance. The following were amongst the cases city by Mr. McKinney: Kort vs City of Los Angeles - 52 C.A. (End) 804 at 809; Otis. vs City of Los Angeles - 52 CA. (2nd) 605; ' Smith vs Collison - 119 C. A. 180; Sunnyslope Water Co. vs City of Pasadena 1 Cal.(2ad) 87; Thrille vs Board of Public ',Yorks, 82 C.A. at 199; Ellis, 25 C.A. (2nd ) 99 and Zahn vs Board. of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497 and 274 U. S. 325. Mr. McKinney then went briefly into the history of how the property in question was acquired by "Properties Incorporated ", its sub- division, abandonment to acreage and later resubdivision. "He re- ferred to Mr. Harris' criticism of City Engineer Patterson regard- ing the stakes, and declared that it was not necessary for Mr. Patterson as City Engineer to take stakes into consideration. He said that an examination of the Ordinance would show that it is not a matter of so many feet, but a setback determined by property lines and street lines which show on the maps for all to see. Mr. McKinney went on to say that Newport Beach has in Mr. Patterson one of the fi ne st engineers - so zs cogniz ed throughout the State of California. He also congratulated the Planning Commission and the City Council on the splendid work done in regard to Ordinance #525, saying that he and the property owners for whom he spoke saw m reason for changing it* On conclusion of Mr. McKinney's remarks, the Chairman asked if the 'Commission wished to ask him questions. There being no questions, the Chairman remarked that the Commission appeared to be well sat - isfied with Mr. McKinney's presentation of the matter, and that he appeared to have exhausted the subject. He asked Mr. McKinney for his definition of "confiscation ". Mr. McKinney said he would de- fine "confiscation" where property is absolutely deprived of any use, whatsoever. 138 The Chairman asked,if...t -liar e,;was. anyone present to_ _speak,, for.„ 'Properties Inoorporate$." .. Mr. W. V. Empie arose stating that he represented the Citizens National Bank. He.said,unfcrtunately, Mr. Harris was unable to ' be present , but had asked him to state to the Commission that: of course, the property owners of Corona del Mar would want to protect their view; that, of course, they would want to keep the ten foot setback;:, that ,- the ;:real: ,-qw st ion at issue i s how that eould be done. He said by putting a ten foot setback on the property, the city is depriving the owners affected by such setback of their lawful use of the property, which is unjust, illegal and unconstitutional in their opinion. He said that the Commissioners had read the newspapers, had heard what Mr. Harris had to say, and that the Bank felt this matter is a legal question, that this is not the time or place to try the case, and that it would rest on Mr- Harris' presentatione The Chairman asked if the Commission wished to ask any questions. There were no questions. The Chairman then stated that the Secre- tary had taken occasion to go over the Minutes of several years back, arx3 had found some data inwhich the property owners might be interested. He said it did not necessarily reflect the opinion of the members of the present Planning Commission. He asked the Secretary to read those portions of the Minutes to which he re- ferred. The Secretary asked pemission of the Chairman to make ,a few re- ' marks before reading from the Minutes. He said as one of the older members of the Planning Commission Mr. Empie's remarks insulted his intelligence. He then proceeded to read excerpts from the Minutes of the following dates: February 16, 1938; March 2, 1938; March 16, 1938 and March 23, 1936, having to do with the presentation for approval of the Planning Commission by Mr. Wobley of certain maps pertaining to Tract 1006, later Tract 1026. The Minutes showed that no action had been taken by the Planning Commission. After reading from the Minutest the Secretary said that he f elt that certain phases of the Minutes just read should be explained. He said it should be noted that "Properties Incorporated" appeared before the Commission on two different occasions with tentative maps. He said that the Commission proceeded according to stat- utes, and "Properties Incorporated" should have presented a map for final approval, which they failed to do. He said that after wait- ing a considerable time - during which there were various social activities for the council, but as the Planning Oemmissionwas not thus socially inclined, they.were not invited - the map was pre - sented to the City Council with the ensuing results. The Secre- tary qualified these remarks by stating that the social activi- ties to mhich he referred were not indulged in by the members of the present city council - with one exception. There being nothing further before the Commission, the Chairman ' declared the Second Public Hearing closed, and called for a re- cess. of five minutes. The Chairman after such recess called the Commission to order, and asked for the necessary motions. ' Chairman Seager moved that as a result of two public, hearings upon the matter of a proposed amendment to setback require- ments in Ordinance 1525 having to do with sections 16 and 17, and in view of the evidence presented to the Commission at each public hearings, the Planning Commission find that it is not justified in reoommanding a modification of Ordinance #525. Motion seconded by Commissioner Alien. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Hopkins , Seager, Johnson, Balta, Allen and Campb el l Noes: None' Carried and so ordered. The Chairman announced that it was now necessary for the de- oision of the Planning Commission to be put into resolution form, and suggested a motion to that effect. Secretary Seager moved that the secretary be instructed to write Resolution No. 209 transmitting the Findings of the Com- mission to the City Council with the recommendation that Ordi- nance #525 be not amended. Commissioner Johnson seconded the mot ion. ROLL CALL 'VOTE: Ages: Hopkins, Seager, Johnson, Baltz, Allen and Campb ell Noes: None Carried and so ordered. Commissioner Baltz moved that the secretary be instruoted to send a letter of appreciation to Mr. Leroy Harrod, proprietor of Palisades Tavern, for the use of the premises for the pur- pose of holding the public hearings just concluded. Motion seconded by Secretary Seager. Carried and so ordered. ADJOURN' Secretary Seager moved that the meeting be adjourned. Motion seconded by Commissioner Baltz. Carried and so order ed. Reaps tfully submitted, H0WARD W. SEAGER Secretary v 1:39