Minutes-PC 1966/05/23City Hall
Anaheim, Califo.~~ia
May 23, 1966
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING .,OMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
~RESENT - Assistant Development Services Direc~or: Robert Mi.,kelson
Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson
Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grucizinski
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Associate °lanner: Jack Christofferson
Associate Planner: Marvin W. Krieger
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
PLE1x'iE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Ailred led the Pledge of Allegiance to tne Flag.
APPr~OVAL OF
THE MINUTES - The !:'.inuies of ~he meeting of A'~ay 9, 1965, were aoproved as submit-Ad,
CONDITIONr':L USE - PU~LIC HEARIivG. GCOR~C E~ riASENYF,GER, 1091 St~ Jonn Place, Santa Ana,
PER1v1IT N0~ 838 Califor~ia, Gwner; FREDRIC WESTOVER, oob E~s*. 17th Stree~, Santa kna,
California, Agent; requesting permission ~o eSTF,3LIS!~ A SERVICE STHTIO:v
~~ AT THc I;JTERSECTIO~ OF A M~AJOR STREET A;1il E. C~:.icCTOrZ STrZecT on property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel oi la~d situated ~t the northeast corner of
;a Katella Avenue and Ciementine Street and 'naving :ronzages oi aoproximateiy 127 feet on
+ Ka~ella Avenue and approximately 13o feet on Clementine St:eet, and furtner described as
; 231 V:=st Ka2ella Hvenue, ?roperty preser~tly classified G1, vc;vcRAi COiJ,11cRCIAL, ZO;dE.
~ ~1r~ Fredric N'estover, the age~t ior. tne petitioner a~o representative of che Gulr" Oil Cor-
;~ oeratio.^.,appeared beiore the Commission a~d stated tnat in studying the genera: Com;~ercial-
~ecreation P.rea it was noted Gulf Cil Corporation was not represented in said ~rea; that
subject property was a logical p~ace to estaolisn a service stztion since Clementine Street
would be extending nortnerly to ;uiancnester F+venue, tnus providing ~ tie-in witn tne Santa
Ana F*eFway, and additional :low of traific woulo be created irom tile r'reed:rzn Center.
T~:e Commi=_sion incuired of t^e agent :or zre petitioner wnat wzs proposed for tne bala:,ce
of tne rarcel, to wnich ;;r. 7uestover replied :not no deiinite plans nad been formulaied;
tnat there was a poss:bility an o`fice puildin9 would be constructed - however this would
not be in cona?ction witn tne service statio~; furtnermore, i; was plannea to remove tne
existing auandoned restaurant from subject property, and it would be repl~ced .~itn a modern,
rancn-style service station.
hir~ ~Vestover tnen submitted _~ugh renderings of ihe proposea service station, noting that
it would ~e siTilar to t^at co~i;tructed at State College 3oulevard and Urangewood Avenue -
nowever there would 'oe consideraoly more brici: proposed in the new design~
No one eppeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE ~EHRI:~~ WkS CLGSED.
~
Commissioner Perry expressed concern that this prime parcel of land would be divided, making
it difficult to develop the remainder of the parcel, and that the existing restaurant should
be removed - however it should be developF9 as one parcel with the possibility of a motel
rather than a servi.ce station since t~eservice station was proposed on a collector stree~.
~oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson, ~n response to Commission questioning, stGted that sub-
ject peiition cove=ed bcth Parcels 9 ~nd 10 - however af:e* the service station parcel was
r?moved, a 121-foot by 110-:00? oarcel v:ould still remain; that the plans submitted o:ienteri
the stotior, and the pumps to tne Katella irontaye, ratner tnan Clementine Street; and
that the original service station sitz development standards indicated a 150 by 150-foot
parcei - howev=_r many service sta*.ions withir, the City did not fall within the recommended
size.
3044
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION, May 23, 1966
3045
CONDITIONAL USE - Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that in view
PERMIT N0. 838 of the fact the Commission had broader powers in approving or denying a
(Continued) conditional use permit, it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to
require a 150 by 150-foot site.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Vo. 2042, Series 1965-66, and
noved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissio•,er Herbst, to grant Petition for
Conditional Use Permit No. 838, subject to conditi.ons. '~e Resolution Book.)
u~ roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMIS:::CVERS: Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland.
^IOES: CO~MISS'ONERb: Allred, Perry.
ABSENT: COMMI~~IONERS: None.
Commissioners Allred snd ?erry in voting "no" on subject petition stated the proposed
service station was to be located on a cnllector street which diri not provide for adequate
circulation since it was to the southerly end of an industrial tract, znd possible problems
of ingress and egress might result, and that subject property should be developed in whole
as a motel or as part of an industrial tract.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. R. F. BUCHGitI~di, WILLIAM D. G~cSC1NE~~ ~ND HENRY STtIN3RItiK~
PERMIT N0. 841 cT AL, 1905 cast 17th Street, Santa Ana, California, Owners; i-I03ART
GILLESPIE, 2035 West Beacon Street, Anaheim, Caliio:nia, Agent; requesting
permission to ESTABiISH AN AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK OVc'R:iAULING, ?AINTING,
McCHANICAL, AND BGDY AND FeNDER REPAIR ESTABLISHMcNT IN AV EXISTING STRUCTURE on property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 220
feet on the soutn side of h1anchester Avenue and having a maximum deptn of approximately
151 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 203 feet east of
the centerline of Loara Street, znd further described as 255 Nortn Manchester Avenue.
Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONc.
Mr. Hobart Gillespie, agent for rhe petitioners and president of th? company pruposed to
occup;• `he oroperty, appeared before the Commission and stated the site was selected in
order to ~~rmit t:~e operation to be confined to the interior of the building; that it was
not their i:,tent to rebuild wrecks; tnat the main purpose of the operation would be tne
repainting of tnree to five-year old cars, requested by c~stomers; that it was intended
to improve tne structures so that tney would have more "eye appeal" and add landscaping
to attract more customers since 75~ of their work was for indivioual car owners, and the
balance of 2~~ was through ileet owners; that there was no goo~, existing example o: a
similar busireas witnin the City o: Ananeim; tnat tne only body work to be done was very
mino-~ - in ccnjunction with tne entire repainting job; tnat approximately 20 cars per day
would pe handled within the structure; and that his present location was on a small, dead-
end street.
Mr. Gillespie, in respcr.se .o Commission questioning, s~ated ris operation would be similar
to the "Earl Scheib" operation; however, there was a oifference in tnat the proposed develop-
ment would be to a higher level customer tnan tne Earl Scheib operation, with newer cars, and
it was their intent to invest approximately $40,000 in equipment ~lone to establish the pro-
posed auto paint company, this being n?cessary because the automobile was the pride and joy
of every individual owner, and their propo=_~d rainting operation would require an absolutely
perfect job; that only 50% of tne existing s'r:cture would be utilized; ano tnet if he had
to construct his own building, he vrould require only 10,000 square ieet.
P~r. Gillespie, in attempting to clarify the advertisement and legal notice of the petiLic^,
stated it was not their intent to operate an automobile and truck overhauliny, mechanical,
and budy and fender repair establishment, since the operation would consist of ninor body
and fer~de: repairs ,ecessary prior to completely painting any automobile~, and that ~i,e pro-
posed operation would r.ot be a production type auto-painting business.
The Commission inquired wnether or not the agent would stipulate to confining all work
indoors and no outdoor storage, to whicn Mr. Gillespie stipulated to this requirement. He
also stated that the painting ef the car would be required in the center of a paint room,
and they would not be equipped to paint anything larger than 25 feet in length; and that no
sign work would be done within the structure:, Furthermore, the spray booth tney proposed
to use was constructed by the Spray-King Company in Los Angeles; that the proposed plan was
reviewed with th> representative of the Fire Department who went tc Long Beaci~ to view a
similar booth; that McCoy Ford also liad one o: the proposed booths - however, the proposed
operation would have an electrical power drying operation, rather than qas drying on the
painted job: and that the majority of labor involved would be in masking the trim of an
automobile.
.~x
~ i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3046
rONDITIONAL USE - The Commission also inquired of Mr. Gillespie whether or not he intended
PERMIT N0. 841 to place any landscsping on the front setback of subject property, to
(Continued) which Mr. Gillespie stated it was his intent to place landscaping as in-
dicated in green on the plot plan in order to have a more pleasing appear-
ance to 'the customers, and there was also a possibility he would provide
more landscaping than the code required.
Commissioner Herbst inquired whether or not he could maintain the M-1 site developme~t
s~andards of landscaping, to which Mr. Gillespie stated tnis could not be done completely
because of the setback requirement.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
Ti-IE HEARING WAS CLGSeD.
Commissioner A.llred of:ered Resolution No. 2043, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner GGuer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 841, subject to conditions, and the stipulation that the petitioner would confir.e all
operation indoors and no storage outdoors, and that landscaping would be developed in accord-
ance with the revised plans initialed by Mr. Gillespie. (See Resolution 3ook.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COPJ~MISSIOIJeRS: A1'_red, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CUMMISSIONERS: IQone.
ABSENT: COM.MISSIGNERS: ;Jone.
CONDITIOiJAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BEN J. HESS, 307 iJorth cuclid Street, l+naheim, California,
PERMIT tJU. 8a2 Owner; E. H. OLSON, 1600 West 9roadway, l~naheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to have GN-SAL'c 3EER IN CO;JJUWCTIGy P~ITH AN `h~PLOYEc
CAFeTERIA on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of lar.d
(containing approximately 1.22 acres), the southerly boundary of which lies approximately
330 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and the easterly boundary of which lies
approximately 340 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further described as
23' Tlorth Euclid Street, Building "L". Property presently clas,sified h1-1, LIGHT I;JDUSTRIAL,
ZONE.
Mr. crwin H. Olson, agent for tne petitioner, appeared be;ore the Commission and s=ated 'ne
would be tne operator of the proposed on-sale beer operation which would be in conjunction
with a food establishment; that the on-sale beer woulo be incidental to the sale of food;
that he was supplying a request made by the employees for the sale oi beer in conjunction
with their lunches; that the operation would be open from 6:00 h.No to 4:00 ?.h1. since there
w=re only a few employees present?y workiny on the eveni~g shift.
In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Glson stated the cafeteria served a number of
industrial operati.~ns in the area; that ther~a would not be a kitchen in conjunc•:ion with
the proposed o~eration since all the iood was prepared on the pr=mises in the cafeteria;
tnat he had discussed this with various man~facturers in the areo, ~nd he had c,anvassed
the area and i~ad recei:-=~i only one voice of opposition; that because it was racher difficult
to gain access tc L,i.r.coln ,lvenu~ and go to ~ restaurant for lunch where beer was served, the
employees brought ",~r lunches or ::*__ ?n the cafeteria and 'nad expressed a desire to have
beer served in con, ~:tion witn their lunches.
No one aopeared in o~~osition to subject petition.
T:',c iieARING WAS CLOL~c;).
Commissioner Rov~land ofiered Resolution vo. 2044, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, second=d by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 842,subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Gn roll call the foregc,ing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COIJ~uIISSIONEnS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Nwngall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
:IOES: COM,4IISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMh1ISSI0NERS: None.
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COAM~iISSION, May 23, 1966
3047
CONDITIONAL USE - PIJBLIC HEARING. OWEN A. MURRAY, 1752 Rainbow Drive, Santa Ana, California,
PERMIT N0. 843 Owner; BILL W. PEBLEY, 302 East Broadway, Anaheim, California, Agent;
requesting permission to PERMIT A~ EXISrING WALK-UP RESTAURANT IN A NEW
STRUCTURE AS A CONFORluIING USE on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land situated at the southwest corner of Citron Street and Lincoln Avenue
and having frontages of approximately 120 feet on Citron Street and approximately 80 feet
on Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 800 West Lincoln Avenue. ?roperty presently
classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Bill Pebley, agent for the petitioner, indicated hie presence to answer questions.
_ Considerable discussio~ was held by tne Commission relative to the dedication for street
;~~ widening purposes on Citron Street, and inquired of Oifice Engineer Arthur Daw what would
~~ occur if the Commission recommended the 27,7g ,eet rather than the 30 :eet which was necessary.
~'~~ _ Mr. Daw stated that if only the 27.75 feet was required, this would elimiaate the required
~,•j' 10-foot parkway; however, the 27,75 feet would be to ~ne overnang oi the structure r.ow under
jl ; construction, and if any additional dedication was requireo, an easement of the overhang
ti i would be necessary.
i
,~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated tnat if
„~ - the full 30-foot widtn was required for dedication, the City Council couid
`I such as the overhang, provided the overhang did not interfere with walking oraridingeonesaid~
easement.
~!
1 It was also noted by the Commission that the reconstruction of the walk-up restauran~ nad
`!'~.,i already begun; that the contractor had started construction prior to the filin of t
,~I conditional use permit, having obtained permission from the Cit Council g he
assumed all responsibilities. Y ~ provided he
~ Mr, Pebley, in response to Commission uestionin
9 g, stated that the height of the overhang
: by the sidewalk would be 8 to 9 feet.
~
~ Mr. Pebley also stated he did not know anything about the dedication having been attempted
for a number of years along Citron Street; that this was not mentioned at the City Council
meeti~g wnen he was granted permis^ion to construct prior to appreval oi the conditional
use P=rTi*_~
;
~~ - ~o~:ir.g 5ooer~iso: 3or~ala :c:o~; son ,,~,i
?.t _ y P ' se.: tae ~,o;n~,is:ion ~hat t;~~:ese ~ttem~ts ior street
I dedic~;ior; ~;cy hai~ ~ee-. c~ade witi:L~~e c;reviocs ex~r:ers o: suo;ect p <
rop_rty.
,; I .VG O'?6 c~JEcI~d;; ?r: OD~7051Li0.^, ~O SUD]?Ci (1P~1t10'l.
,.. ~
' .t:L ..~h~1.~.. :ifi,~. i.:.~:s:..i.
;i CoT:~issie~er Per:y oi:er=~
~ :tesol~~ior. :lo. 20a~, ~ories L55-oo, -..d T,o,~eo io: its passa?e
I a^•p d~0}~i10.^.~ S?CO".~@Q N~~ ~,O.T,.^,.i5510^@P 'r.i~P~u~ i0 ~T'c::L r'aL1T.1pC.c'C_ ..0^:::1'~10::c' ~52 rBT.T,li
~ :vo. 343, raquirir,g ~ 2i'.,~-fo:t ;:a1i-wid~t; ~A ".4
.. dica-io~ ~lor:? Citro. ,.,_•Ee~
cc;pitio^s. (See ~esolutio^ 3oo;c.; ~ su~ject to
I
~;~ I ~^ :oll cal: ~::e ioregoinq resolutio~ ~Nas pa:sed uy ,he :ollowi-;7 vo~e;
~ ~ : kY_S: CG:...'SSIQ:1c35: A11red ~
~ :~~~S: :;ii;,~.:ISSiO:.~RS: ,~oa + ~s~._ , :ier~=_t, ,.iu~gal:, ?e:ry, :~owl~^o, ~a:rp.
e.
, h3Sc.;T. „~,.::JiSSiU:.~RS: ;o ;e.
CO`1DI:IU:dHi, u5~ -: U~'.iC ;{E~,~IiJ~. ~J:ii'JE3SITY CU:JSTRUCTIO:J CU;;;Pr,VY, ~ox 2592, ?omona,
?En,1i? :~'0. d44 Cali;or^ia, Gx;~er; ~f:'rH +J. •
~e11:0::115~ /•,GE^Y.i S2CU?Stl;; ..S~t~~ i1J0 .v~I'CT fi•^.~I1B171 5oulevard, fi'1cf1P.11P,~
rh.:ILY R~SIJcid.IF:;. STRJC,•Ur~c9F,SeHT35U.VIT ;J,C~iL~jo~~` Tric cXISTI:•:G ;~iULTIPLE-
~ rect~;-:gulcI'1'y' snapeo parcel o: lann wit : a , property described as:
side oi riomer Street and ravi~~ ; maximum depta~oia9o roxiPatellm~`ely 50 feet on t~e east
bou~dary ~; <u~ject prooert~ bei^ a p y' '-18 ~°ei, ~ne sou~ner:y
/ g pproximately 55 .eet ~or~h uf tne ce~terline or E.nGheim
3oulevard, a~d iurtner described as i104 Homer Street. ?roperty preser.tly classi:ied
R-3, MULTIr~Lc'-FA;,4ILY RESID~NTIHL, ZOi7=.
'~ n:r. 3alpn csten, ~ ent ior t'r.e petitioner, appe~.req ~E t^e Co:nmission a~o stated it was
:` ` 9 ^
p*oposed to expand tneir existir.g motel s^d utilize subject proper~y ior :~.ni~y units ior
~ visi.ors to tne Disneyland arez; that tne oroperty nap bee~ very dif.icul~ to ~ti?ize zs
>~ ~ aoar~mec~s; snd tnat ~ne building was cpproximately two ears o1d.
a * Y
~ ~
, I;
i ;7
.T' ~ ` .'~,_re_.,- .
~
}
PaIINUTES, CITY PLAIQidI;dG CGIJu~7I~SI0iJ, iviay 23, 1905 3048
CONDITIONAL USE - The Co~nmission inquired whethez the petitioner proposed to rent ihe units
PERMIT N0. 844 as a motel in the summer and apartments in the winter because tnis would
(Continued) oresent somewhat of a problem because of the bed tax ruling of the City.
Deouty City Attorr.ey Furman Roberts advised the petitioner and the Commis-
sion that up until the present time, the City had followed the theory that a mote? was a
commercial operation, whereas an apartment was a residential operational use; that ':here
were different types of standards for the two, and the way to define the diif~erence was not
the length of time of occupancy, but it would be based on collection of the rent on a weekly
basis, which would determine the use of the room was for motel purposes, and to avoid the
bed tax, the facilities would have to be rented on a monthly basis.
f
~
,
No one ap~eared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission was desirous of having an area development plan for the balance of the
properties in close proximity to subject property in order to provide for future guidance
for any requests tnat might come in to the Commission.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 2046, Series 1965-66, and moved for its pass~ge
ar.d adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to gra~t Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 844, subject to conditions. (See Resolutior, Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONcRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, hiungall, ?erry, Rowland, Camp.
NUES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEr'2S: None.
DIRECTIVE TO THE DEVeLOPMENT SERVICcS - Commissioner Perry o:fered a motion to direct the
DcPARTMENT - PiANNING DIVISION Development Services Department, ?lanning Division,
to prepare an area development plan of the properties
along Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street in close
proximity to the property under consideration in Conditional Use Permit No. 844, in order to
provide the Commission a formula for guidance in the event of future requests for development
of the area. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
R~C~FSSI"rICATIU;J - ?U°_LIC 'EA3i~~~. ~IC:iAR~~ E. uSTR~~T, 50~ ~~st "cliza'cetr: ~rive, '..ra~ge,
?i~. c0-51-38 Csliior~ia, Owner; L. J. Scih:`~, !2311 C:~apmaa E.ve^ue, ~ui~e 104, :.arder.
::rove, Caliior^ia, ~,~e^t; requestinc ~^e ,~E'r~i0'JF:L U'r ~uD 3cST3ICTiC;:S cn
prope:ty describeo as: F~ rect~naulc:ly snaped parcel o: land si~u~ted
ai tne nort'r.east corner o: ;lutwood Street aod 3ai1 ~oad, a~d havi~g
:rontages of approximately 24~ feet on :;utwood Street and ~pproxirr.a~e'_y
530 iee~ on Ba11 ~oa~. P:ope:ty presertly c:~ssiiieti G-1, Gc:C=~?.
CUiJl'~~c3Cil,L, Zuivc (~ccD RcSTRICT~J TC 3US?\~SS F,:dJ ?3GF~S5?OtiAL 0~ R-3
'~SHS ONiY;.
t~~QUrSTFD Ci.ASSiFIGAiIO?i: C-? ~"`:ucRfi:. i.C7u;:,~cRCin':.~ ZG'>~c.
CO~~I-?OVF,L USE -?J3LiC -~ARI"uG. RiCi;AR:. c. OS:30GT, 505 'cast clizaoetn Drive, Crange,
~cRi~iiT :~0. 839 California, Owner; i.. D. SaANK, 12311 Ci:ao:nar: nver.ue, Suiie 104, G~r~en
Grcve, Cali:or^ia, Ager.t; requestiag ~ercr.ission ~o ~S:A3LiSri A:v AU?0"J~G3ii.~
S~~ViCc STf,TLOV WIT'r.I;u 75 Fu? Or A ~Iiv~L~-FF~;,:iiY ~eS?DcXTIF;L, ZCtie r.\~ f,T
THc I~TcRScCTIG:1 OF n?RI:.:A3Y ST3~cT AVJ A COL_cCTC~ ST~ccT, or. ~ropert;
oescribed as: F,n ir*egularly snaped parcel o: land situated at tne n a th-
east corner oi 3a11 Road and ;vutwood S~reet and havi~:~ :ronta9es of approxi-
mately 150 feet on 8-~11 ~oad and approximately 125 iee~ on tiuLN'OO;i Street,
and :urther described ~s 1085 '~4est 3~1i ~oad. rroperty oreser.tly classi-
: i2d G1 ~ GciJcRf+L CC1G%iMcrZi.InL ~ [V:IC ( JEcil :ZcSTRICT.=il~ .
F, ' ~ ::ir. ~, u. ~i. ::k, agent for the p=titioner, ap;.eared beiore the Commission ar,a stzted tnat
~< ^~.:e to tr~i:i~ ccnditions, the restrictio~s placed o~ subject proper~y had made ~t impossiole
Q, to develop; tnat tne vacsr.cy factor for apartments a'_ong Ball ~oad was considerable, ar.b te
develop subject property io* apartments would be inadvisable; that commercial uses for suoject
~,`
~~~ property wc~ld give tne City a nigner tax basis; that the servic.e station was :ne nighest and
oest use ror the intersection; ar.d that t^e existing, old house would be removed and repl~ceo
y with a modern American Oii Company .ranch-style service station, and all the improvements .~e:e
~~ ' i-• ^r on tne property, o: nad been bonded for said improvements.
t< *
~j ~
1
~
r
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3049
RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission stated that the agent's comment relative to the traffic
N0. 60-61-38 having changed on Ball Road was rather ambiguous since traffic along
Ball Road had been heavy for some time, especially at the time zoning
CONDITIONAL USE had taken effect on subject property, and the petitioner was aware of
PERlu1IT N0. 839 this heavy traffic.
(Continued)
The Commission further inquired what olans the petitioner had for the
balance of the co.mmercial property, since no plans were submitted
except for the service station.
Ms. Shank responded it was proposed to have a Tic-Toc Market with acijoining stores on the
balance of the property; however, no plans had been submitted because the owner had not
finalized any development plans with the prooosed restaurant operator and a bank.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
: Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that some form ofrecommenda*_ion
was desired by the City Council of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Perry was of the opinion that conditions had not changed since the zoning had
take~ place to warrant a change in removal of the d~ed restrictions.
Commissioner Gaiier was concerned that at the original public hearing on subject reclassi-
, fication the property owners adjacent to thP propert•~ were quite concerned and had expressed
considerGble opposition, and this was the reason deed restrictions were applied to subject
property.
Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that at the tin~e subject proparty was reclassified to
tne C-1 Zone, the construction of apartmerts was permitted in ~he C-1 Zone; however, t:~is
was no longer applicable, and if apartments were proposed to be constructed, the property
would have to be reclassified, and the p*operty was preser.tly restricted to business and
professional office uses only.
The Commission was concerned the entire parcel was proposed for C-i uses, rzther th~n the
frontage along Ball Road for a depth of 250 feet.
Air. Thompson stated that the entire parcel was readvertised to give the Commission maximum
flexibility in its decision.
Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibilit.y that th= deed restrictions
attached to subject property were semewhat harsh; however, if remo~:at was made, it shoulri be
macie without permitting a service station to be construc~ed on si!~'~c*_ Froperty because of
the close proximity of homes on the west side o: iJutwood Street.
It was determined by the Commission that the proposed service station was entirely different
from that just approved at the intersection of a primary and a collector street in that the
proposed service station would be located at the entrance ar.d exit of property t~at was
developed entirely residential northerly and westerly of subject oroperty, whereas the
previous service station considered was in the heart of the Commercial-Rec•reation Area
znc~ at the edge of an industrial tract, and i: subject service station were approved, this
might open the door, or set a precedent, for similar requests throughout the Ciiy to estab-
lisn service stations at other than two arterial streets.
Commissione: Herbst ofiered Resolution vo. 2047, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoptiu,^., seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Ce~ncil that deed
restrictions placed on property under Reclassification No. EO-61-38,limitizg the uses of
subject property, be removed to allo~v subject property to be developed in accordance with
~he C-1, General Commercial, Zone, subJect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~e:
AYES: COhW~ISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, nerbst, N,ungall, Perry, F.owland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABScNT: COh1MISSIONERS: None.
~
P
,
,
MINUTES, ~ITY ~'LANNZNG (:OMMISSION, May 23, 1360 • ;;~gp
REC;I.ASSIFICATXUN - Comm'issioner Allreci offered Resolution No. 2048, Series 1965-b6, and
N0. 6Q-61- ,9 m~ved fr.~ its passage and adop~ian, secon3ed by Commissioner Perry,
*o deny P~tition for Cor,ditional Use Permit IVo. f339, based on the
CONDITIO[~AL USt fact that the pro~osed service station at the entrance and exit of a
PERhII'L NQ. 839 primarily r.~siden2ia.l area northerl~~ and wes*_erly of suLject property
(~on:i,~ued) would set an undesirable ~rece~ent fos~ the r~maining two corners at
the intersection, as well as setting a p•rec~dent for similar requests
for service statio;~s at the intersection of a collector or local street
and a psimexy street. (See Resolution Book.)
Qz roll call the forego_ng r=solution was passed by the :ollowing vote:
AYES: COM7+IISSIGNERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CONMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMM7SSIONERS: hone.
Commissioner Rowland, in offering his vnte of "aye" on the aforementioned resolution,
stated ~tt,at alth~ugh the request for a service station at t'r~e intersection of a collector
and a p.rlmary street was similar to a previous requ~st, the character of the traffic at
this intersectiora would be primarily rasideniial, whereas the other was commercial and
ir.dustrial.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARI1dG. LAINRENCE A. h1UCKENTHALER, 1530 Avolencia Drive~
N0. 65-66-112 _ Fullerton, California, Owner; MGDANIEL 'eNGiNEERING CpMPANY, Box 3666,
Anaheim, California, Agent; req~esting that prcperty describeu' as: An
i irregularly shaped oarcel of land with a frontage of approxirnately 145
~~ feet on the west side of Loara Street and having a maximcm aep~n of appxoximately 186 feet,
subject property being bounded on the north by the Orange County Flood Control channel, the
soutnerly boundary of subject property being approximately 560 feet nor;.h of the centerline
I, of Crescent Avenue,be reclassified irom the R-A, AGRICULTURAi, ZONE to tne C-1, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
I~:~' Mr. Jeff Lauder, representing the ao,ent for the petitioner, appeared beiore ine Commission
and reviewed tne location and size of subject pr.operty, further noting that the intended
use would be for a small, neighborhood shoppiny center, anri that precis? plans had not
been presented because it had not been determined wi~ether or not the concept plan would
I, be a a a
do d
te nd 11 that wa b in
P r s e re uested was rec assi'ic
9 4 1 r ation of the ro r
e t
P P Y•
The Commission inquired of the agent foi the petitioner what te.^.tative plans were being
made for the parcel to the rear of subject property.
Mr. Lauder stat.ed tha; it ~Nas possible the post office department mighi wish to lease tne
rear parcel.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission the petitioner had s~bmitted a
concept plan and was desirous of working within the confines ~f the C-i Zone in develop-
ing the commercial property.
It was noted by the Commission that on petitions for reclassification only, plans -,f develoo-
ment were not required; however, the Commission was interested in the fact that tha parcel to
the r>ar would be a landlocked parcel.
IJo one appeared in opposition to subject oetition.
TiiE I~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 2049, Series 1965-66, and moved :or its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition
for Reclassification No. 65-66-112 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONL-RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlana, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: tdone.
ABSENT: COMNISSIONERS: None.
i '
a '
• i ~~
f.
r
MIIdUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3051
GENERAL PLAN - PUBLiC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
AMENDMENT N0. 75 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amenament to the
Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way - Table of Exceptions
to include Haster Street between Katella Avenue on the north and
Chapman Avenue on the south.
Associate Planner ,"4arvin Krieger appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed
amendment to the General Plan, noting tna~ aithough Haster Street was indicated as a
primary highway on the Circulation clement of the General Plan, development along both
sides of Haster Street had precluded any widening of the street to the ultimate width of
a 106-foot wide street; furthermore, a portion of Haster Street was developed within the
City of Garden Grov~ and had existing dedication and curb alignment.
~; The Commission inquired of Mr. Krieger whether or not the curb line would a straight line
with the recommended 45 and 50-foot nalf widths, to which Mr. Krieger replied in the
affirmativeo
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissio~er Gauer offered Resolution No. 2050, Series 1905-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Co~ncil that
General P1an Amendment No. 75 be approved, establishing Haster Street as a primary highway
to the Table of Exceptions with a 45-foot half width between Katella and ~rangewood Avenues,
a 50-foot width o~ the east side, and a 45-foot width on the west side of Haster Street
between Orangewood and Simmons Avenues, and a 50-foot width on both sides of Haster Street
oetween Simmons and Chapman Avenues. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herost, Mungall, ?erry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMNiISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONeRS: None.
GEVERAL PLAIv - PU3LIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East
aNENDMENT N0. 78 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an amendment to the
Circulation Element - Highw<.;~ Rights-of-~Nay, establishing tne designa-
tion of an "Expressway" on t~e Gene^al Plan and designating Santa Ana
Canyon Road as an "Expressway" between Cerro Vista Drive on the west
and Weir Canyon Road on the east.
Associate Planner Marvin l;rieger presented General P?an Emendment No. 78, indicating tnat
the Hignway Rignts-of-Way Circulation Element did not r;esignate an "expressway" and upon
tne northerly relocation of Riverside Freeway,Santa Ana Canyon Road would then be open
for development of the properties adjacent to it; therefore, the average daily traffic
estimates by the Traffic Engineer indicated traffic would warrant an "expressway" designa-
tion for Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The Commission inquired of Mr. Krieger whether or not there was any definite plan by the
State for the relocation of the freeway. Mr. Krieger stated that only the alignment had
been adopted,and no property had been acquired as of tnis date.
~vir. Krieger, in response to Comr~~ission questioning, stated that those homes presently having
access to Santa Ana Canyon Road would still have their access; however, if the land use
changed from its present R-A to a heavier density, then the access would have to conform
with Lhe Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study, Exhibit 7, which had been adopted by the
Commission and Council.
Mrs. Nabel 1'~rba, 5521 Santa Ana Canyon Road, appeared before the Commission ano stated
' ~ hez property was a portion of the island between Santa hna Canyon Road and the Riverside
'e I Freeway and inquired what would happen to her access with the proposed desiqnation of an
P expressway.
s; i
Mr. Krieger stated no change was proposed to the access point study which had been adopted;
;:~ however, if Mrs. Yosba p:~nned to redevelop her property to a more intense use, access to
;~j : Santa Ana Canyon Road would be in accordance with the Santa Nna Canyon Access Point Study.
'" ~ y
~ Pdrs. Yorba stated she had a difficult time gaining access from her property to the Riverside
~' Freeway in order to go to her ranch and was not desirous of having her present access
ti ~ ' eliminated.
i .ex
~
, ~
~
.,
MINUTES, CITY Pi.ANNING CO;NMISSION, May 23, 1966 3052
GENERAL PLAN - Planning S~apervisor Ronald Grudzinski advised Mrs. Yorba that the
AMENDMENT N0. 78 access for her property had been discussed at previous meetings;
(Continued) that there was no intent of the City to change her access ;.u Santa
Ana Canyon Road until a change too}; place in the use of her property
along Santa Ana Canyon Road, and until the property owners on both
sides of the road requested that the City abandon the street, this abandonment would
not take place until a fron±age road was supplied along the rear of the Yorba property,
at such time as these property owners chose to develop their properties, and that her
present access to Santa tina Canyon Road would remain since the designation of an
"expressway" made no change in the designation on the General ?lan - however the designa-
tion was necessary in order to supply this information to pr~perty owners ~vho were propos-
ing to develop their properties.
?HE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry oifered Resolutior. No. 2051, Series i965-66, and moved ior its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~owland, to recommend to the City Council the
, adoption of the definition of an "expressway" for the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-
of-Way of the General Plan, as follows: "Expressway: A divided arterial highway with
intersections at grade prohibiting pedestrian or vehicular access to abutting properties
via private driveways o: accessways. Cross-over across the median may be permitted
~~. where turning lanes ~re provided". (See 3esolution 3ook.)
On ro11 call the foregoing resolutio~ was pa~sec3 by the fo1lo~Ning vote:
AYES: CCMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COh~NiISSIONERS: Ncne.
AEScNT: COh~'UISSIONERS: ~onee
, COTTI15510.^.E? ~'erry OIi@.9C ~BSOiU~10.^. .':C. L~%~<~ .Ci?:Z~S 1955-50, c.^:: .T.O`!20 -0: 1L5 FJ055cge
a^p adopLlO.^~~ SECO.^.~2u 'u''j 1~.0.^.1fI115510"~.ST r.1~.*?C~ ~0 _TFCOi.'.71E^~ ~0 L.^:@ ~.1~~' i.OU,^iCll L!:f~ cCOD-
tion oi General ?la-: ~;;~e~d-~c~ :;o, 78, :=sig::~tir.~ Sa^ia F;~a Ca^;o~ 3ozd be~ween Cerro
!~ista ~riv= and 'ideir ,.~ ~~•e.^. as an "exo:esswa~~", wit:~: ~ i:r,i:ed access zo cnose eleve.^, points
~e;i^ed 'oy ~ne Sar.ta ~;,a Ca~;y~o-. 3oad kccess roir:-. ~wdy, ~x:~ipit :~o. 7, adop~ed by resolu-
tio~ by ~he Co:nmissio:~ r.^.c :.~t•,• ',ou,.cil. ~See 3eaolution 3ook. ;
Un roll ca11 ~he ioregoin~ resolutio:: v+cs p~ssed by t.is.e foliowi~~g vote:
c,yr~; ~~;~;;;;Icci:,:v=~S: P11red, vauer, :ierbst, :J~ung~11, rer:y, :towla~a, Camp.
:d.,cS: ~U:~'~;'_SSIG:~cc~S: .Jor~e.
A~Sc.~.. ~C,,,1'~iISSIU,J~3S: :~o:~e.
~I~:.. 18~ 4:in~c?~~l -?UP,i.IC HEN:2I~SG~ I:~dITI~.?c7 c:`i iii= CITY ?'_.=:~:~i:~ :G;~1b1IS~I0:~~ [04 cost
i~iU~ICI?A! CG;~_ Lincol~ k~renue, r.~anei^., ~~ii;ornia, proposing ~n ame~dment to
Title 19, Cnapter 1~.~2, ,•.-1, _iyht Inoustriai, ~one, Section
18.52.Oo0, Si~e ~e•ieloo:rer.t S~~~oaraso
€" I r.ssistan: ~l~~a?r Ca~rles ~oberts re~~iewed :o. tne Co:r.missio~ c::e proposed amendmencs to
s~ I a~ 1 ~' a 1 c~ C~- A T~ "'
S_~tion 8.52~050, zte j_ve_opm_~: o~aards oi t^e h~-'_, i.ight dustrial. ~one, noting
~r~ 2hci~. ZS c SBSUlt Of a15CU5510.^.5 D2LWE2f? SE~7PE5?.^.2o21VQ5 02 ~llE Jevelop:r=.^.~ ~?Z'V1CB5 JepcZ'~-
~ ment ~ca ~ne ~1an~ing and Zo~ir.g Committee ef ti;e n^~~h.?im Cnamcer oi Co:nmerce, tne sta:f
E' nad inv=siigateo tne existing setoack and la~dscaping requirements of ~ne ;lrl Zone ~o deier-
~ . ' ;;ice v:;;et::er ~., aTe-dme;t to ~~ese reg:::a;.ions wou:d 'ce necesszry due ~o c;:a^ging circL~:-
s:.ances and conditions since ch= adoption of tne provisions of tc:e zone; that t.he generai
~. ~ 0:'qail~d~i.lOfl 02 S.R15 particuloP S@C~~OfI 0{ tf7~ aone W05 SOIileWflci, ~IlCO(1515~8!1L~ scattered, dfla
f: _
~ ~ ir. some czses ~oi clearly u~derstandaole - ihere:ore tne entire section was reorganized; that
~.f I the seiback and landscapin; requirements for prooerties abutti~g :reeway :ron~age roads and
~ I 1eca1 streets were necessary, and cnis was G^. ~ddition to the Code; tnat ~he landscaping
~ reGuirement apolicable to properties aout~ir.g coilector streets was inequitable when compared
+ witn requirements of otner arterial streets, ~~~d an amendmeni was desirable in order i.[10t said
landscaping requirement woulo be on ~ more comparable basis; ~n~t the builriing setbacks ;or
properties abutting interior streets of an industrial su~di•~ision should be reduced irom 25
~. :eet ~0 5 reet, said setback bein9 fu11y landscaped in order to allow a developer to make more
efficient use of tne property, and at tne same timE creaie greater esthe~ic qualities ior ~he
Citv, ;nd thzt due tc the fact inat the existing landscapino requirzmen~ for tne interior
`~; porking areas w;s not performing the functicn for whicn it was intend=d, the regulation
'~ si~ould be amended to provide for the planting of trees within s~io parking areas which would
3 be breakiny ~..p a'~sea of asphalt" appearance wnen d parking lot wos empty~
~f _
f, ~I Commissio~er Gaue= again expressed concern tnat Lhe City's parkir.g lots snould also be land-
,~ scaped ~i ti~e City was requiring landscaping of industries and commercial developments.
particularly the parkina lot on Lemon Street~
~
~~~
' ,t
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966
3053
I'ITLE 18, ANAHEIM - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the
MUNICIPAL CODE City had plans fo~ landscaping some of the parking lots; however, he
(Continued) was ur.certain whether or not the parking lot to the rear of the City
Hall would be landscaped.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THt HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo 2053, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hllred, to recommend to the City Council that Title
19, Chapter 18052, Section i8.52.060, Site Development Standards, be amended as described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and ~eferred to herein as though set forth in full.
(See Resolution booka) ~
Gn roll call the :oregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: CONu17ISSI0NcRS: hone.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t~ene.
STREET NAME CHFlNGE, - PUBLIG HEARING. INITIATED BY TiiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
°ALM LANE AND MALL LANE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing street
name changes for Palm Lane, north-south street located south of
Ball Road, east of Euclid Street,to Palm Way; anri Mall Lane,
located north of Broadway, west of Gilbert Street, to Mall Way.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented a request by six property owners of Mall Lane,
a short cul-de-sac street located north of Broadway and west of Gilbert Street, requesting
that the street name be changed to fdall Way because the street sign was incorrectly posted
as Mall W:y, and that because of this confusion, the police and ambulances were unable to
locate Mall lNay when requested by the residents of tne street.
Mr. Thompson also noted tnat Pa1m Lane was a designation of a street running both east and
west and north and south; that the east-west Palm Lane was used for street identification
by the apartments; and that the apartments along the north-south P;lm Lane used the Ball
Road street identificationa Furthermore, the postal authorities and emergency vehicles
had considerable confusion due to the fact that th= street ran both north and south and
east and west, and by changing the street name to Palm Way, this would reduce the confusion.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THF HEARII;G WAS Ci05ED~
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo 2054, Series 1?65-56, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commission~r Herhst, to recommend to the t'ity Council that ?alm
Lane, north and south ~treet, ~e changed ~?alm Way to eliminate confusion to postal
autiiorities and eRer9ency vehicles in loca~ing said streeto (See Resolution 3ook.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followin9 vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONi:RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABStNT: COMMISSIOfdERS: z:_~e.
Commissioner Mur.gall oifered Resolution No. 2055, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconde? by Ce~uniss~oner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council Lhat a
street nam= change to Nall Lane be made to Mall Way, as requested by the residents of ihe
street to eliminate confusion because the street was already signed as Mall 'Nay. (See
Resolution Book.)
Gn roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CGU~AISSIONtRS: None.
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3054
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5058, Revision i~o. 4,
DEV~LOPER: MEN-M0, INCORPORATED, ?. 0. Box 2036, 114 North McPherson
Boulevard, E1 Modena, California. ENGINEER: ;dcDaniel Engineering
Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract,
located on the south side of S:nta Ana Canyon Road~ approximately
2000 feet east of Imperial Highway (at Access Point No. 7 of the San~a
Ana Canyon Road Access Study, Exhibit No. 7), and containing approxi-
mately 17 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 63 R-1 (8,000)
One-Family Residential Zoned lots.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5058,
Revision No. 4 to the Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property, the
proposed access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, the street pattern and circulation, drainage~ etc.
Mr. Thompson also noted that ihe Orange County Planning ~epartment and the developer were
desirous of having recommendations from tne City of Anaheim relative to access, circulation,
and drainage facilities, as set forth in the Report to tne Commission. Street na~es for the
proposed tract were also discussed, and it was determined that the namino of the ~treets
should be coordinated between the County and the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County
Planning Commission oe urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5058, Revision No. 4,
subject to the followin9 conditions:
1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, ~ach
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative iorm for approval.
2o That a storm drain system sha11 be installed in Street "F", Street "G", and then along
the westerly property line of Parcel 2, Catholic church site, to the existing culvert
under Santa P.na Canyon ~oao.
3. That a minimum 10-foot wide draina~e easement shall be acquired along the westerly
property line of ?arcel 2, Catholic church site.
4~ That if Street "G" is not dedicated prior to the installation of ~ne s±orm drain, a
10-foot minimum storm drain ease~.ient shail be acquired.
5. That Street "E" shall be improved with a 40-foot roadway within the 60-foot right-of-way.
6. Tnat the vehicular access riohts from Lot ~os. 00 through 63 to Street "A" snall be
dedicated to tne governing ayency.
7. That all tract improvements shall conform to the City of Anaheim s`andards.
8. That all grading shall conform to Section 17 of the Ananeim ~~unicipal Code.
9o That the street names assigned to Streets "A", "B", "C", "E", and "F" shall be
coordinated with the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTIUN CAR3IED.
ITcM NG. 2
Warianc> No. 1788 - Helen Bouck - Request for modification
of Resolution No. 2012, Series 1965-66 - deletion of the
requirement for street dedication.
P~;
~'~ ~*
Associate Planner Jack Christofierson reviewed the repoxt from the Development Services
Departmeni relative to a request made by the attorney for A4rs. Helen Bouck, authorized
agent, under Varianc? No. 1788 wnich requested the deletion of the requirement of street
dedication along Harbor Boulevard as a condition of approval, since the petitioner was
granted a period of two years for the p:oposed use of subject property, namely the sale
of art objects in conjunction with a residential use, and since the variance had such
a limited duration, the requirement of dedication could be imposed at the time of the
request for renewal of the variance or when the owner sought to develop his property for
a more intense use.
The recommendation of the cngineering and Development Services Department to d~ny the
request was also read.
t
I
P:~INUT~S, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3055
REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 - (Continued)
Mre JErry Brody, attorney for the agent for the petitioner, appeared
before the Commission and reviewed statements made in his request for consideration of
deletion of the requirement of street dedication for street widening purposes, since the
owner of the properiy was not desirous of offering the d~dication, and ~he agent would
only be leasing the property.
Considerable discussion was then held between the Commission and the attorney for the
petitioner relative to the street dedication, and upon its completion, the Commission
was of the opinion that to grant the request for deletion of this condition would be
setting a precedent to allow homes along Harbor Boulevard being used for commercial
purposes without dedication for street widening purposes.
~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated that
I' under normal conditions the City would require street dedication to be made within 180
days after a use was granted.
Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to deny the request for deletion of Condition No. 1
of Resolution ~lo. 2012, Series 1965-66, granting Variance No. 1788. Commissioner Perry
seconoed the motiona MATION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
Variance Noo 1755 - William D. Grescnner Company, et al,
509 East Katella Avenue - Expand an existing non-conforming
use in a conforming building - request for termination.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson advised the Commission that a letter had been received
:rom William Do Greschner Company, et al, requesting that all proceedings regarding V~riance
No. 1755, granted by tne Commission on January 17, 1966, in Resolution No. ~903, Series
,~ 1965-66, be terminated because the tenants of the building had decided not to expand tneir
.,, operation.
'~ Commissioner Rowland offered Resolutior. No. 2057, Series 1965-66, and moved for its passage
1 and adoption, seconded by Commissi~ner Perry, to terminate all p.roceedinys on Variance
Noo 1755, as requested by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book.)
'•S
>j On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
~ AY~S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, rTowland, Camp.
;iOcS: COMMISSIONERS: ldone.
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIOtdcRS: ~one.
I TE7A NO , 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 787 - Raymond B. Terry and Amdex,
Incorporated (Stuart Fisher) - Permit expansion oi an exi.sting
motel and the establishment of a restaurant with on-sale liquor
facilities, located on the north side of Katella Avenue, weste:ly
of Harbor Boulevard - request ior an extension of time for completion
of conditions.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented Conditional Use Permit No. 787 zt the
request of Richard L. Tom, architect for the petitioner, requesting an extension of time
for comoletion of conditions in Resolution No. 1858, Series 1965-66, approved by the
Planning Commission on November 22, 1965. It was noted the City Council took "no action"
on the Commission's approval; that no previous requests for extensions of time had been
made; and that none of the conditions of the Commission's approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 787 had been m=t. Furthermore, the staff recommended a one-year extension
of time.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to grant a one-year extension of time for completion
of conditions in Resolutior. No. 1858, Series 1965-66, dated November 22, 1965, said time
extension to expire November 22, 1966. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion.
MQTION CARRIED.
,~ ~
`~ *
~: ~x
~
,, , _~ )
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Msy 23, 1966 3056
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 5
RECAMMENDP~TIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 702 - First Christian Church of Anaheim -
(Continued) Dahl property - request for an extension of time.
Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented the request of the First Christian Church
of Anaheim for an indefinite extension of time to meet conditions of the Commission's
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 702 in Resolution No. 1622, Series 1964-65, grant-
ing Conditional Use Permit No. 702 ior the establishment of a church on the south side of
South Street, west of Harbor Boulevard; that a request for an extension of time had been
granted by the Commission on November S, 1965, said expiration date being May 5, 1966;
that a bond had been posted with the City Engineering Department to complete street
improvements of said resolution - however no other conditions had been met~ and that the
staff recommended a Fix-months' extension of time.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant a six-months' extension of time for the
comp:etion of conditions of Resolution No. 1622, Series 1964-65, dated May 10, 1965,
said extension to expire November 8, 1966. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for
ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion.
tdOTION CARRI'eD.
The meeting recessed at 4:18 P.M.
RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:30 P.M., all
Commissioners bein9 present.
~
j -
i .
~~
, i:
;
,
~
E .~ ~..
~ -_ _.
~
~ 1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966 3057
CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. CHIELL L. PHARRIS, 18151 Charter Road, Orange,
PER.MIT N0. 826 California, Owner; requesting permission to EXCAVATE AND REMOVE SAND AND
GRAVEL TO A DEPTH OF 75 FEET on property described as: A rectangularly
shaped parcel of land (containing approximately 24 acres) with a frontage
of approximately 1,670 feet on the east side of Miller Street and having a maximum depth of
approximately 640 feet, the northerly boundary of subject property being approximately 180
feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, and further described as 6722 Miller
Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 11, 25 and May 9, 1966, to allow
the petitioner time to resolve problems and complete studies.
Mr. Sam Hurwitz, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the history of the petitioner's sand and gravel operation in Orange County, as well as the
zoning actions taken on subject property and the proposed request before the Commission to
excavate to a depth of 75 feet.
Mr. Hurwitz then stated that a consulting civil and sanitary engineer would present a report
on the question raised by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) as to possible deleteri-
ous effects a 75-foot excavation might have on water pollution and percolation, if subject
petition was approved.
Mr. Loren Blakeley, civil and sanitary engineer, presented a report to the Commission regard-
ing the Pharris Sand Pit (copy filed prior to Commission hearing in the Office oi Development
Services) and its effect on the water facilities of the City of Anaheim and the County of
Orange.
The Commission inquired as to the depth of the adjoining Crill pit as compared to the Pharris
pit; whereupon, Mr. Blakeley ::tated that the Crill pit was excavated to a depth of 53 :eet or
175 feet above sea level and ti.at the Pharris pit had been excavated at one point to a depth
of 60 feet, and there was no evi~ence of interference with the percolation of water or unsani-
tary hazarcis, even though the water remained at the lower ex.cavation of the pit~
A picture of the San~a F,na Valley Irrigation basin was presented indicating debris was strewn
in certain areas in the basin, and no evidence had been noted as to water oollution theree
Mr. Milford W. Dahl, attorney representing the OCWD, appeared before the Commission and
stated he would have the technical and engineering representatives responsiale for the
practical operation of the spreading facilities of the UCWD indicate problems which would
occur if the depth of the Pharris pit was approved over 20 feet of the depth originally
granted.
Mr. Howard W. Crooke, Secretary and Manager of the Orange County Water District, aope~~red
before the Commission ancl reviewed the history of water facilities in the County of Oronae
since 1924. (Copy filE~ with the Commission prior to public hearing and on file in the
Office of Development Services.) It was also noted that the District had received up to the
present time in excess of 1.6 million acre feet oi Colorado River water for replenishment of
the ground wa~er s~pplies of the district; that thE ground water levels which had dropped to
an extremely low poi.nt in 1956 were now restoxed to the highest practical 1eve1; that wzter
for ground water repl~~nishment in the future would not be available on a year-round basis,
and unless the Distri:t had adequate capacity for spreading water when it was available, the
safe reserves of watPr underground throughout the District could not be maintained; that in
order to provide fo: adequate water spreading facilities, the District purchased 95 acres
in the Atwood Cone area tor this purpose, and the area would be excavated to a depth of
approximately 50 feet, the depth which the Crill Pit site is being excavated; that the
District had found from its experience that side slopes of less than approximately 3 to 1
ratio would slough off when its facilities were used for extended periods; that when raw
Colorado River water was spread in large quantities, the suspended solids were deposited c.i
the side slopes ana bottom of the spreading facilityo This accret:.on of fine-grained materials
form an impervious layer through which water will not percolate. Thus the maintenance of the
spreading facilities was of paramount importance, since the only way proper percolation could
be effected was to pump out the pit in order to remove the thic~ accumulations of silt which
retarded the percolation process; that where excavations were made below the elevations used
by the district, ground water would probably appear in the excavations for extended periods
of time making it practically impossible to renovate the pit in order to permit the water to
percolate; that in the operation of the spreading facilities the maintenance could become a
major expense item if proper consideration was not given in t;~e formulation of the plans for
the installation of the facility; that in order to prevent pollution and/or contamination of
the water, ii was necassary to maintain a constant patrol of the district's properties, some-
time finding it necessary to treat the water with copper sulphate in order to stop algae
growth; and that in order to econamicaliy combat an lnfestation of midges which breed in
accumulated slime and silt at the bottoms of the spreading facilities 1t was necessary to
dry ~p the facility and expose the land to the sun and air, and this could not be accomplished
when excavation was at a depth below water level in the surrounding area.
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CCMMISSION, May 23, 1966 J3057-a
COtJDITIONAi USE PERMIT N0. 826 -(ContinGed}
Mr. Landon Owen, District Engineer for the Oranye County Water District, appeared before the
Commission and graphically depicted the flow of watsr in unsaturated soil or when a basin
was dry. It was also pointed out that after percolation anu saturation, referred to as
hydreulic continuity , had taken place over a period of time, said flow would hav~ a lateral
ano semi-lateral movement. Therefore, if an adjoining pit we~ e~cavated to a depth below the
depth of the water-spreading facilities, spreading would flow oliliquely by a lateral and
semi-lateral movement and would drain water into the pit adjoining the OCW~ spreading fac~ity.
Since the adjacent pit is not being policed by the OCWD this would present a considerable
possibility of polluting or contaminating of the underground water flow due to midges,plankton,
. mosquitoes, and phaeatophytes infiltering the water.
~"'~ Mr. Owen also stated there were three quest~ons which had to be answered, as presented in the
report by Mr. Blakeley: 1) would extension of the pit to 75 feet interfere with the water-
~ spreading operation? The answer wouid be yes; however, this would not occur in the initial
opera•~ion, but after the water spreadir.g had been operating for a period of time, the sediment
, wou).d gradually cut off percolation - but as to the exact amount, he could not ascertain at
II this time. 2) Would the water be contaminated or polluted? There would be no immediate
effect felt; however, in years to follow, the fungi, algae, midges, trash, etc. would affect
~ the water settling, since supervision in the maintenance of a private facility would not be
• accomplished as was done on OCWD spreading basins - therefore steps would have to be taken
to clean these basins. The Cri11 basin would alternately wet and dry the adjacent pit with
the movement of water into and out of the pit, and would break the membrane or deck which
Mr. Blakeley discussed in his report. Following ttiis, a period cf siltation of tne basin
v+ould occur and a ponaing would eventually dev=lop in tne basin with the siltation creating
a block 9_n the lateral movement of the water. After ponding, a marshing condition would
occur with algae, mioges, mosyuitoes, and plankton infiltering tne water~ Tnis condition
had occurred as could be seen in the picture of the Batavia Street basin. hs a result of
this siltation it would be necessary to drain the pit and remove the residue prior to usic~
the pit for water percolation; however, this might not always be possible. The deptn of the
pit, as proposed, would ~ot have any aporeciable affect on the quality of the water, as
Mr. Blakeley stated, but in the years to come, the lack of annual =_upervisior of this pit
with no assurances that trasn and other sedimentation being removed would have considerable
~- affect on the area water supply. 3) Use of the proposed pit as part of the OCWD facilities?
The OCWD had expressed an interest in this facility as evidence was presented; however, the
~ pit would not be desirable at the depth of 75 feet because after the OCVJD took over the pit,
!; it would have to be reconstructed along the side walls from the excavated 2 to 1 ratio to a
-• 3 to 1 ratio, as the OCWD had learned was necessary from experience gained in the excavation
- of the Crill pit. An illustration was then given which snowed the complications encountered
if s'.opes in the depleted pit were 2 to 1 or 1~ to 1- indicating that this would bring the
cu~ to a line within 104 feet of the property line, and if the OCWD were fortun~te to main-
tain the slope at less than 3 to 1, it would still be back 20 feet from tne present cut,
based on a pit depth of 53 feet. The aforementioned items were overlooked by A~ir. Blakeley,
as well as the placement of the pit adjacent to tne spreaoing basin which causes the OCW~
considerable concerr., and a sequence of events unooubtedly would occur, after excavation
took place.
i
!
Diagrams were presented which indicated the slope differentials at a oeptn oi 52 feet and at
~ 75 feet, noting that the 75-foot depth would have to have tne slope cnanged to a 3 to 1 ratio
I which would bring the grade out to beyond the property line of the facilit~ into the public
~ right-of-way some 64 feet. Anotner problem, in addition to the maintenance of a 75-foot pit
would be the depth of fill which would have to be put in the pit to raise it to the level of
the surrounding facilities.
It was also noted by Mr. Owen that ~~r. nlakeley maoe the statement that with the passage of
time the depth would impede the passage of water through the filter medium, and that tne
spreading basin would have to be cleaned periodically and dried. This would mean that the
Crill pit operation would be tied up for cleaning and drying, if the Pharris pit were permit-
ted to excavaie to 75 feet. Furthermore, the elsvation of Hnaheim Well i~o. 27 located in
c~ose proximity to the Crill pit property would have an intrusion into it one-half of the
time because of the depth of the Pnarris pit compared with the le•vel of the well.
In the normal processing of sand and gravel, Mr. Owen stated, quite naturally the material
is high graded, and the fine grain material is by-passed and pushed aside - this condition
had been found in previous :~cavations of pits - and as a future requirement during the
e~cavation, supervision of these pits required that excavation of all the materials, includ-
ir,g the fine grain material, to mak9 the pit more usable as a settling basin.
~
MINUTES, CI7Y1FLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 19ti~ )3057-b
CONDITIONAL USE ?ERMIT N0. 826 - (Continued)
Lastly, th~ OCWD did not have need :or additional water spreading facilities in this immediate
area, since the water to be placed in this area was at maximum. One need only to look at the
map to note that in addition to the Crill pit, there was the Orange County Flood Control
Dist:ict cnannel, the Miller basin, etc., indicating that additional facilities were not
r,ecessary. However, ±he question foremost was the use of the Pharris pit as a dual purpose
facilit~ - excavation of sand and gravel - and upon completion of that excavation to be used
for a water settling basin, which was a good principle, but if over-excavation was permitted,
the value of the pit and its potential as a water spreading facility would be lost.
Mr. Owen, in response to Commission questioning, stated that if the property was over-
f excavated, its dual purpose as a water settling basin would be lost; that he would recommend
that the purchase of a pit excavated to a depth of 75 feet would not be an economical venture
,~ since, in his opinion, even water settling basins dug to a depth of 40 feet were somewhat
questionable as to their economic use; furthermore, there was also the possibility of water
pollutior. due to trash and foreign materials being dropped into the pit, as well zs the
supervision of the pit not being under the jurisdiction of the OCWD during the years of
excavation.
The Consolidated Rock Products Company pits were then reviewed as to oroblems, wnereupon
Mr. Owen stated that at such time as these pits were void of sand and gravel materials,
there would be many problems facing ttie OCWD as to pollution cf these pits, and it would
be up to the OCWD to determine whether or not it would be practical to purchase the property.
Mr. Dahl, in response to the question by tlle Commission as to whether or not the UCWD was
obligated to purchase abandoned pits upon completion of excavation, stated that this was not
an obligation, and that the purchase of any property was at the recommendation of Mr. Crooke,
Secretary and Manager of the Orange County Water District for many years.
Mr. ~~iil also advised the Commission that former OCWD Engineer John Toups was available to
answez any questions the Commission might have since he had been an engineer for a number of
; years and was now on a consulting basis to the OCWD.
.i
Mr. D~hl, responding to Commission questioning regarding the investment of Mr. Pharris in the
~ pit site, stated that although P4r. Pharris was operating to a depth of 60 feet, upon examin-
; ing the original petition which was approved under the County on subject property, it was
, noted no mention was made as to a requested depth of e;ccavation; however, the depth of 40
feet was imposed by the Orange County Planning Commission, thus he was limited in his excava-
tion to 40 feet. Furthermore, when subject property came under the jurisdiction of the City
of Anaheim, a similar limitation of 40 feet was imposed, and that. investment in the pit ~nd
its value could not be based on the fact that the property was as valuable with a laroe hole
as it would be if its contour was the same as adjoinin9 industrial property. Mr. Dahl also
indicated that there was a great area of difference in statements made by Mr. Blakeley and
Mr. Owen regarding the degree of pollution and contamination of the water spreading facilities,
~ and the effect on the replenishment of the water, and that Mr. Blakeley presented his report
` on the assumption that the OCWD would take over the Pharris pit - when it was depleted of sand
; and gravel. However, this should not be considered a correct assum4tion.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director of tne City o: Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and
stated that the City was concerned with the water qu~lity and potability of the City water if
the Pharris pit was permitted to excavate to 75 feet. tdr. Hoyt also pointed out that this
depl:~ could intrude below the normal ground water level, thereby contaminating the ~ity's
wells because ~f the reduction o: :iltering materia~ the water would 'nave to percolate through,
and because the pit would not be policed by the OCWD for this possible pollution. Since a
number of the City's wells were located a short 6istance from the pit under considerztion,
Mr. Hoyt recommended that the Planning Commission only permit excavation to the same deoth
as the Crill pit, namely 53 ieet or 175 feet above sea level. ~
Lir. Hurwitz, in rebuttal, requesteo tnat iSr. Blakeley oiscuss ;~ir. ~oyt's concern regarding
possible poliuting of ~he we11s.
~ ~
h1r. Blakeley stateo tnat tne iinit;; deptn of tne sand below any pit bo~tom dio rot necessari!}~
purify the water, as was explaineci in the report; trat puriiic~•:o~ was a matter ior control
be:ore water was placed in the water spreatii.ng facility; that : r~ his reoort tnere oio not
appear to be any serious nazard co tne water suoply of tne City; ihat tne Couaty o; Los ~!~QC1CS
had a number of gravel oits in the Tijunga ~rea which were never considerad polluteo, a~ci only
after people deposited the wrong kind ef material uirectly into the water, did it become o01-
luted, such as cesspools ano other materials wnich pollute tne ur~oerground water; and t'~~t he
was fully a~vare of the City's concern in the pollution of the nearby wells; however, the
peiitioner hao no intention of placin9 any ma~Qrla~s in the pit which would be deleterious
to the percola~ion of the water in the underground ~torag~ araa, si~ce his only inter.t ~o
excavate to 75 ieet was for the removal of sano and ~ravel a~d ~pr the eeonomic developmen~
d
MINUTES, C?IY.PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966
1
3057-c
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT N0. 826 -(Conti.nued)
of the pit afterwards by the OCWD or the City. Nir. Blakeley also indicated that the ground
water level in this area was 100-150 feet during most of the time, which would be below the
level of the proposed pit depth.
Mr. Blakeley, in response to questioning, stated that if the pit was excavated to a depth
of 75 feet and then partially filled wit5 a solid body of material on the bottom, the water
would not be able to penetrate this solid body, but would flow out laterally; however, where
the underground water storage basin was the bottom of the pit, there might be problems, and
waterWrisesetottheecontrol elevation~of~theustreamtbedW~UFUrthermore~TtheoGomberrwells,lwhich
were located at the northeast corner of the Crill pit property and the other at Miraloma
Avenue, by record were at a level of 100 feet below the surface during the heaviest rains of
last year.
Mr. Hurwitz then asked bir. Elakeley in his considered opinion and knowledge of the history
of the water flow and level from 1962 on, would the excavation of the Pharris pit to 75 feat
nave any effect on the pollution of the under9round water at that point downstream indicGted
on the chart, whereupon Mr. Blakeley stated that there woul: be no effect.
Mr. Crooke then asked tc, make comment - namely, that he would suggest that ldr. Blakeley
consuit with the Santa Ana River Board at San 6ernardino in regard to tne depth of excavating
to the ground water, since he had received a letter regarding the possible effect - one stcte-
ment in the letter indicated a distance of 10 feet.
Mr. Hurwitz inquired whether or not this evidence was p;rt of the petition with tne ~lanning
Commission because the reasoning behind this question was important to fdr. Blakeley to analyze
since he had spent fiis career in this program and had given the Commission his reason as to
why pollution would not result - his opinicn was not an unknown man's opinion in San Bem~rdino
who may not have made a study of the area as Mr. Blakeley had done since he had b~en chief
engineer of the SAVI and had been employed by the GCWD and tne OCFCD as consultant; ~h~t tne
only evidence he could determine nad been submitted was the iact that if the area was r~ot
maintained, there might be a problem in that the pit would have to be drained and treated
for midges, etc.; tnat no evidence had been presented that would warrant reouiring t'r.e CoTmis-
sion to continue subject petition for :urther study, since in his opinion subject petition
should be 9ranted; that if any problem aruse, in that hlro Pharris did not comply wi~h the
health and zoning laws or that the excavation became a public nuisance which woulc endanger
the public health, there were remedies for this, ano the fact that one person raises tt~e fac'.
that there might be a possibility that pollution would occur does not justify deorivino anotner
individual the rioht of making full and complete use of his property.
Mr. Hurwitz also stated that the petitioner had been contacted by Mr. Crooke in tne latter
part of 1965 (this would be stated under oath if necessary) regarding the possible ourcnase
of his property; that negotiations had reached a stage where ~dr. ?harris was asked to obtain
an appraisal which was made at a cost of several thousa~d dollars to h1r. Phorris; tnat
Mr. Crooke had offered $800 an acre for the property for water spreading purposes - nowever,
whe~~ t~,~ appraisal revealed that the
trouble with the City oi Anaheim regardingrtheWde thrtheS212,000, Mr. Pharris was exoerie~cing
would guarantee that if the P P1t was being excavated; that he
~ would be used for a water spreadingyfacilitlo tha~800eor whatever price was paid, the property
j. that under the 100-foot berm around the Y~ Petitioner's engineers haa estimated
a and the Pharris Perimeter of the property which separateo the Crill
pits there wa: $600,000 worth of sand - this would give the OCWD the neneiit
of $500,000 of sand; that ic was logical that any pit would have to be drained and cleaned -
that the Cri11 pit in the past 11 years had only been filled twice; furthermore, takino 95
acres of land off the tax ro11s in the industrial area :or water spreading facilities, which
~ the OCWD was now proposing to do, would still present a problem of
should not interfere with the petitioner being able to excavate $BOO~OOO~worthtof~sandsr om h s
~ pit; that unless the OCWD could prove without a shadow of a doubt that any excavation to 75
~ feet will interf^_re in a seriuus manner i^ t~e water flow and pollution, subject
; should be y^ranted; and taat it was not roir tnat a petitio,^.
to operate to its nignest and bFSt use. °ri~~~~e e.^.terprise snou~~ not be alloe~e~
i
I
~ Tne Fnarris employee payroll an:; .,c:•;.rolls oi truckers oi t:;e sa~,i a~,u gr~~~el op=*~tio~: ~s it
pertained to tne economy oi tne Ci:; was reviewed.
f~ir. Hurwitz also stated durin th=
9 past iiscal ye~r t'^,e:;C~;il hao only
twice, wnereas tne OCFCu reco_ds in~icate durin Placec water i:: t~;e Cri:= oi~
`~ to depths of 10 ~ 9~ similar oeriod te~~ 28 acres W~_
~~d 1~ feet and water spread twice tn ~„•~.-, °''z excava;ed
66 acres; inat ~nese figures did not take i~to account theUbalar.ce of~-ipyyJ q~ao sNre~d over
~ GCFCD had; and that from signiiicant evidence A ocr_s wi-:ich the
making an attemot to e2iminate th~ i~~livic~ual sandeanq, 1` y~~s ~poaren~ t!;~~ ~ne ~C'+',~ was
}.' ~ monopoly of the. sar,d dnd 9ravei qperators a:~:a nave G co:r,plete
j~ gravel opQration in si;c r~pnt~~s.
~ :_,=; - - ~ -~.~.
_ ._. ~ _-•,~,A.. ,-~~_~„ __ .~~..
'~
MINUTES, CITYIPLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1966
3057-d
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, g26 -(Continued)
The Commission inquired of Mr. Hurwitz what would happen if the OCWD did not purchase the
Pharris pit after complete excavation. Would the petitioner just walk away from the excava-
tion? Mr. Hurwitz countered this could happen to any pit in tne vicinity owned k~y private
operators.
Mr. Dahl then inquired whether or not the appraisal was made ai 5212,000, assuming that the
pit was not excavated. Mr. Hurwitz stated that the area had been appraised at 323,000 per
acre if not excavated.
. Mr. Dahl then discussed the considerable fill to be placed in the hole,and taking into
account the possible polluiion or the underground water with the fill which would be placed
in the pit, and the assumption that the ~it would not be used as a dump site, the possible
return for the property would be reduced by $12,000 per acre. Furthermore, Mr. Dahl indica:ed
that Mr. Hurwitz went above and beyond the level of rebuttal in his closing statements.
The Commission expressed tne opinion that mucn of the evidence submitteo was far beyond the
scope of the Commission's jurisdiction, and that the Commission should determine whether or
not the land use of a pit dug to a depth of 75 feet was good land use, not the merits of
hydraulics of water spreading.
THE HEARING WAS CLOScD.
Commissioner G~ue: expressed the opinion that the OCWD and the City were iaced with a problem
in the matter of the depths of many pits similar to the request made by the petitioner which
were adjacent to water or flood control facilities in the matt?r of havin9 to drain and treat
these pits prior to use as water spreading iacilities. In addition, he also i~dicated that
perhaps the petitioner did have a hardship in not being permitted to excavate to a similar
depth as other sand and qravel operaiors.
Commissioner Herbst was oi the opinion that the petitioner had alrea~y derived the highest
and best use of the property, and that the City would be faced with problems in the :uture
which could affect tne livelihood of all the ci~izens of the City and County if tnere was
even the remotest possibility that pol:ution might occur to the drinking water of these
citizer.s; that the problems o: these deep ~its should have been reviewed a long time ago,
since the City seemed to be expanding easterly in the direction of these pits, and if protec-
tion was not given to the water supply of the City, in 10-15 years the i;ity would be faced
with an insurmountable problem.
Coinmissioner Perry stated he was primarily concerned with the water facilities of the City,
and every effort should be exper,ded to protect this water source; that when tiie petitioner
acquired the property he had projected the economics of the pit •to a depth of 40 feet, whicr.
he had already acquired up to the hea*ing, and that in order to protect the health of the
City the depth should not be p=rmitted beyond that of the Crill pit.
Discussion was held by the Commission as to the exact deoth this would be, and whether or
not all conditions recommended should be required, wherFupon Mr. Crooke stated that irom
measurements macie, the Crill pit was 53 feet to the bottom or 175 feet above sea level, and
that some portions of the Pharris pit were 65 feet; however, he would recommend 53 feet, or
175 feet above sea level.
Commissioner 'ierbst offer=d Resolution t1o. 2056, Series 1955-6G, and moved for its pass~ge
and adoption, to deny the petitioner's request to excavzte to 75 feet; however, in view of
tne recommendation of the OCVJD a depth oi 53 feet or 175 feet acove sea level would be
permitted, based on the fact that a greater deQth could lead to possible water pol:ution
problems, and the fact that the depth of 75 feet would present problems in refilling it to
place it in a usable condition for use for industrial purposes; iurthermore, that the existing
excavation snould be :i11ed to the maximum depth allowed with clean sand approved by the City,
and the deletion of the condiiion that only materials excavated on the premises should be
stockpiled or process=d on the premises, and subject to other Ir.terdepartmental Committee for
Public Safety and General Welfare and Development Services Department recommendea conditions.
(See Resolution Book.)
's - On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
E.Y~~: C0~~1f,4ISS70N'cRS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, !1lungall, r~erry, ~owland, C~:~o.
:dO~S: CO;~~'~iISSIG:~cRSr fuona.
~ ~
~ F,3SEidT: COflu;;ISSIO?d~RS: None.
'` ADJOURN;~iENT - There being no furthar businees to discuss, Commissioner Allred ofiereo ~
motion to adjourn the meeting. Cp~nmiss}one~ Pe~ry seconded tiie mo~ior:.
- luIOTIUN CARRI"eQ. The ma~ting 461~eu~f~ee~ 9g 7~~ p.M. Respectfully submitte:,
* '~~
~ ~ ANN //Ci! ~ ~ ~
r~~B~, ~Qc~~Gary, q~a}~eim City Planring ~om:r,issior.
,3
~