Minutes-PC 1982/01/25I
r
~~
r t ' ~
Civtc Cartar
Anaheim~ Cal i fc~rnla
Janua ry 2:+ ~ 1982
RECULAR MEETINC OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING CONMISSI4N
REGULAR MEETING The regulsr meettng of the Anshetm City Planntn~ Commfss(c+n was
called to orde~ by Chofrmen ~ushore at 1Os15 ~.m., .~anuary 25~
1~82t in the touncil Chan~e~, a quorum belny ~rasent, and the
Commisston reviewed pla~ns of the it~ms on todey's aqends.
RECESS: il:l~ A.m,
aECONVENE: 1:30 p.m, for publ{c testimony.
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
CNAIRMAN: Bushore
COMMIS~IONERS: Barnes~ Bouas~ Fry~ Herbst~ King~ McBurney
R~nald l. Thompsan
Ann(kA Santalaht(
Joel Fick
lack White
P.7~~1 Singer
Jay Titus
Pamela Lucado
Jay Tashi~o
Robert IGet ley
Gregory Hastings
Dean Sherer
Edith Herrls
PLEDGE OF ALLEuIANCE TO THE FLAG LED 8Y:
Pianning Qirector
Assistant Director for Zoning
Assist~nt Director for Pla~nirtg
Assistent City Atrorney
Traffic Engineer
Offica Engin~er
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Plenn~er
Assistant Pianner
Assistent Plenner
Planning Commtssio~ Secret~ry
Comm{ssi~ner Herbst
APPRqVAL OF MINUTES: Commisslonar `:ing offered a motion~ seconded by Commissia~er
Bouas and MOTIO LARRtEO that thk °•i~utes af the January I1, Ig82 meetinq be approved
es ca~rected to include the fo1l~v+ing addition on Psge 82-6: "Th~t Commissioner King
offered a resolutian granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2285 0+- the basis of the
size and locatlon of the p roperty and that the property Es not being utilized to che
utmost; that much of thi~ valuable land is not in use which means it is being wasted
a~d that the Commission sonr.tlmes speaks of overbuilding thc properey~ but this 1s
a case where the property is underbu(lt,"
ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DE'--~•1TION ANO RECLASSIFICATION N0. 81-$2-10.
PRU9LlC HEARING. OWNER: Br~;*~~ ~. 0'Neil~ et al, 1014 North Parker~ Orange~ CA 92b67.
Pr,oerty described as an i~regularly-shaped pa~cel af la~d consisting of app~aximntelv
I.l acre~ locatad at the northeast corner of the River~'de Freeway and Lemcn Stretlt
(1k20 Narth Lemon Strect.)
RECLASSIFICATION R~QUEST: RS- 43~000 to ML.
It w~s noted the petitioner requested a six-week continuance.
ACTION: Commfssioner Htrbst offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
Mb~N-CARRIEO thst consideration of the efo~ementioned matter be continued ta the
i^egularly-scheduled enesting pf Me~rch 22~ 198Z~ at the request of the petitla.~er.
82-20
~
)
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jsnuary 25~ 198~ 82-21
EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CIASS 1 WAIVER OF COQE REQ~IaEMENT ANO
2. ~~~ ~~~ ~
~ •~M~ w~~~~~~ ~~/~ A~/1~__J____~*~_Jl
PUBLIC NENRING. OWNEa: ROBERT L. AND ETHEL WETZLER~ 9596 Garde~ Grove Boul~evard~
N212~ Gsrden Grove~ CA 92644. AGENT: GREGG SAVALA, 2952 W. 8e11 Road, An~helm~
CA 92804. Property descrlbcd es An lrregularty-sheped parcel of land conslstl~g
af approxlmetely 2.1 acres lacated aouth end east of the southeast corner of Ball
Road ~+nd Beech Bouleverd (2952 West 8e11 Road (Litcle Cabaose)). Property =oned Cl.
CONDITIONAI USE PERMIT aEQUEST: To permit on-sale beer and wine ln an existing
restaurant wlth walver of permltted well signs.
SubJect petltlon was contlnued from the meeting of January 11, 1982, to re-advertise~
to (nclude a waiver of permitted wall signs.
Greqq Savala, agent~ wAS present to answer any questions.
TNE PUBLIC HEARI.NG WAS CLOSED.
Cammissianar Herbst stated he has no obJectlon to a mural. but that he woul~' :onsider
thls proposal as adverttsing slnce it depicts what is to be sold and that h~ felt since
thls city does have a sign ordinence, it should be adhered to and tf this is granted~
everyone else would want the same thing.
Mr. Savala clarlfied that he could have 20$ c~f the face of the building wall as
pcrmitted by code.
It wes noted the Planning Director or his auth~crized representatlve has determined
that the proposed proj~ct falls within the definitian af Categorlcal Exemptio~s~
Class l~ as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is~ therefore. categorieally
exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
ACTION~ Cammissioner Nerbst offtrcd a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and
MOTION CARaIED that the Anaheim City Planning Co~mtssion d~s hzreby deny waiver of
code requirement on the basis that i+ wo~ld set an undesir~ble p~ecedent.
Commissianer Herbst offered Resolution No. PC82-6 and moved for its passage and adoption
that the Anattioim City Ptenning Cpmmissio~ does hereby grant Condittonal Use Permit Na.
2289, in part, subJect to Interdepertrnental Committee Recommendattons.
Qn roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ Barnes. Bouas, Bushore~ Fry~ Herbst, King~ McBurney
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nane
ABSENT: COMMISSIOaERS: Nona
Jask White~ Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right of appeal.
1/25/82
~~:
)
' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM15510H, JAnuary 25, 1982 82'22
;:
''~.' ITEM N0. 3. E~R NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN AND VAR~ANCE N~. g248.
~~
PUBLIC HEARING: OMNEa: LOARA 5TREET PARTNERSHIP, 17781 8each Boulevard~
Nunti~gton Beach~ CP. 92b47, AGENT: G. MICNA~L LYON~ 594k S. Avalc.•n Bc~~levard~ los
Angeles~ CA 9000;. Praperty described ws en ir~egulerly-shaped percel of land
censisting af' approxlrtuataly 0.5 acrc located At the southo~st corner of Wtlshire
Av~a~ue and Loara Street (3S~ North !lshire Avenue). Property zonod CG.
VARIANCE R~QUEST: Waiver of minimum number of parking sp~cas to permit medical
pffice uses in an ex{sting office building.
Subject peticion was continued from the meeting of Jenuary 11, 1982. for the petitloner
ta prese~t sdd{tional information perta{ning to Lhe proposed use.
It was noted the pet(tioner has requested that subject petttion be withdrawn.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas oFfered a motion~ secanded by Commissioner King and MOTION
CARRIED that ihe petitio~ for V~riance No. 3248 be wlthdrawn at the request of the
petitioner.
17EM N0. 4. EiR NEGATIVE QECLARAT10hl~ RECLASSIFICA~ION Mv. .)1-82-13~ WAIVER OF CADE
RE UIiIEMENT CONDITIONAt USE PERMiT N0. 22~ and TENTA IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 1) ?. .
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ERWIW H. W. AND WERA P. KERSTEN~ 1097 In~ Obrero Avenue~
~'. 0. 8ox 5-736, GuadalaJara, JA~, Mcxico a--d ORANGE COUNTY F1000 CONTROL DISTRICT,
c/o County of Orange Enviranmental Management A~ency, Oivislon of Regulation~ P. 0.
Box 4048. Santa Ana, CA gZ70?. AGENT: STATE-wIDE DEVELOPERS, 5182 Katella. Ste. 106.
Los Alamitos~ CA g~720. Property described a~ a rectangularly-shap~ed parcel of tand
c.ansisting of approximat~ly 1.9 acre, having a frantagc of approximately 160 feet on
ihe south sicle af Ctescent Avenuc, ~ipproximately 330 feet w~st uf the centerline of
8rookhurst Street.
RECLASSIFICATION PtEQUEST: RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000
CONOITIQNAL USE REQUEST: To permit a t-lot. 39-unit~ 45-foot high condc~mi~ium
subdivision wlth waivers of minimum buildtng site area per unit, maximum struttural
heigh[~ minimum landscaped setback, mir~imwn sideyard setback, minimum recreational-
leisure area and required type of parking spaces.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQIlEST: Ta establish a 1-lot~ 39-unit. 45-foot high condominium
subdivision.
SubJect Ratition r~as w ntfnued from the meeting of January 11, 198?~ at the request
Qf the petitioner.
It was noted tha patitiona~ has requested a two-week continuance. '
AC710N: Commissiane~r Bou,as offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner King and
MOTtafl CARRIEDthatco+isi~eration of the aforementioned•matter be continued ta th~:
regularly-sch~duted meettng of February 8~ 1982, at the request of khe petiti~~+ne~~.
t/25/82
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Janusry 25, 1982 82-23
. ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT N0. 2 1 WAIVER OF CODE aE(
LU~h . .
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. A~ahaim Boulavard~ Anaheim~ CA 92805.
AGENT: C-0 INVESTMENT COMPANY, 99~1 W. Pico Boulevard~ Ste. 4;1~ t.os Angeles~ CA
90035. P roperty describod as e~ irregularly-shaped parcel ~~f land consisting of
appr~ximately 12.7 acres~ heving ~pproximate frontages of 2~5 feet on the south side
of Ketella Avenue and 630 feet on the north side of Conventlon Way. The proposed
hotel use and hotel parkiny structUre will comprise approximately 8.5 acres of sald
parcel. The belance of the parcel wtll be devoted to parking for the A~aheim
Convention Center.
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: To permit An 11-story, 160-foot high, 1600-room hotel and
accnssory uses and on-sale alcohollc beverages wlth wa~ver of minimum number and
type of parking spaces.
There were approxirtx~tely three persons indicatiny thei~ presence in opposition to
subJect request and ~lthough the staff report to the Planninq Commission dated
January 25. 1981~ was not read at the pubiic hsaring, it ts referred to and made
a part of the minutes.
Bruce Gelb~ Legal Gounsel for C-D Investment Company~ stated C-D Investment Company
and Hilton HotelsCorporation proposc dcveloprr~nt of a 1600-room conventi~n head-
quarters hotel to be located on the Anaheim Convention Center's east parking lat
on an 8.5-acre site; that tl~e Anaheim Hilton prc~posed proJect is being submitted
for revinw today in furtherarce of the Lease and [k velopment Agreement executed by
the proposed developer and leysee in accnrdance with the exclusive right ta negotlate
app roved by the M aheim City Councii on October 6, l961.
Mr. Gelb introduced A1 Coler anci Naftall peutsch~ General Partners of C-0 Inve+stment
Company. and Pxpl~ined C-D Investment Company is fully integrated with ics own team
of architects~ designers. attorneys and r.~arketiny personnel; that they presently
have under const~uction a 1300-room hotel at the Los M qales International Ai~port
whlch will be enveloped by en office center complex consisting of approximattly
two million squa~e feet of office space.
Mr. Gelb also introduced Earl McDunough , Sr. Vice President nf Operations and Nc-rm
Hansen~ Oirector of Real Estate Develc~pment, both af Hilton Hotels Carpor~kion.
He referred to Hil;on's excellent reputation for operating first~CIA55 hotels
and stated he felt the Comnission should hear from both of these gentlemen later
in the presentatio~ regarding their experiente in managing hotels ~f this size and
shape~ especially testimony regarding their expertise in the design and operation
of the hotel's parking system.
Mr. 6elb stated they are here to a~k the Planning Lommission to consider and review
evidence, bc~th written and dral~ to supplement the Draft Environmtntal Impact Report
No. 251 and to find and certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act; and to ask the Planning Cortmission to
approve t~e Conditlonal U~se PGrmit No. 2288 to permit a 12-story, 160-foot high~1600-
room hote4 rrith accessory uses including on-site sale of alcc+hollc beverages: and
to waive ihe min(mum and type oF parking spaces required by the Maheim Municipal
Code, SetCian 18.06.Ob0 and allow the developer to proceed with the parking plan
designed with a proposed total of 3.266 spaces~ wfiich shall be comprised of 1,054
standard spaces, 724 compact car spaces~ 874 tandem-standard spaces and 614 tandem-
compact spaces~ with a total ~u~mber representing only a deviance of 6$ from the
minimum code requi:en-ents. He stated they have read the staff repQrt a~d are in
1/25/82
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 25~ 1982 82-24
agreeme~t with the reconn~ndations ~nd suggested findings af staff and the th~ust oF
their presentation is in written form and tha Commission has already received copies
of the Draft EIR a~d Response to Comments on the Draft EIR and other written and
docurt+entary ev{denca provtded by independent consultents. Mr, Gelb stated he would
ask that soma of the consultants introduce themselves er~d (ncorporate into the record
their written reports whtch have already beon submitted.
Mr. Gelb stated Dick Keku, Vice President of PRC Voorhees~ author of the Justificetion
for Watver of Parking Requiremencs, Is not prese~t.
Mr. Gelb stated he would like to reserve approximately five minutes at the end of ~ny
rebuttal tinK In order to summartze the testimony ~resented and to marshall the
evidence showing they have shown by substantial evidence that their bu~den of proof
h~as been reet with regard to getting approva) on the CUP and pdrking walver.
D~oug Holm~ C-0 InveSt~-ent Company, 1039~ Wilshire Boulevard. explatned he Is a consultant
and employee of C-D Investment Cpmpany; that he is a rt~mber of the M~erican Institute
of Rea1 EstatO Appraisers, (MAI) and spGCiaiizes in land use and feasibillty studles~
land acquisition and putting together oF development proJects for C-D Investment
Company. He stated they are very happy to be assoclated with Hilton Notels Corporation
in the development of this Hilton Convention Host Hotel and r~ferred to Exh(bits dis-
played showing tfie neiqhborhood with the Anaheim Hilton outlined in orange and Che
Convention Center replacament parking structure which they heve agreed Rn provide
to the City and explained the structure will be three stories, with one story being
about four feet above grade level done at the request of the Co~vention Authority
bacause they dld not w~nt to b1QCk the view of the Convcntion f,enter from Katella
Avenue and a total of 1500+ parking spaces will be provided and they will bc all
single space parking in conformance with co~Sc. He stated stu~ies have been done
by the parking consultant in conjunction with the City Traffic Engineer to provide
good ingress and egress and they feel with this design they can unload t!'~e parking in
less than 30 minutes. He point~d out drawings of the layouts af Lhe f1c,~rs - the
lobby level including the reception desk, restaurants~ IoungeJbar~ receiving areas
for the hotci and the kitchen, as well as the hotel parking structure. He explained
with the hotel parking structu~e and the Convention Center Replacemant Parking Structure~
there will be a total of aproximately 4800 {~arking spaces. Ne pointsd out the ingress
to the parking structures will be ~n Convention Way with two access ramps, one a speed
ramp to the third Floor;that the egress will be on "A" Street~ with four aisles of
exit~ one for valet parking. Ne stated they feel they have an excess number af aarking
spaces for the hotel and in the event of use at the Conventlon Center. parking will
be or can be by-passed when the parking structure is full and they feel there will
be at least 1000 spates available at all times tu take care of any overload in the
parking r~equirements. He pointed out the second floor, the mez2anine~ a multi-function
room, a grand ballroom and numerous meeting rooms, etc.
Mr. Holm stated certain members of the city staff have requested that theY be able
to expand the hotel from 1600 rooms a~d provision ;s made in the design of the
struciure for an additional 400 to SQ0 rooms which can be added without exceedin~
the total height of the building~ if it is determined in the future that additionai
rooms are needed.
Mr. Halm pointed aut a rendering of the hotel as seen from Convention Way looking
to the north and also the proposed design of thc i~terior of the coffee shop, lobby~
and cocktait loun~e; the room arrangements f rom the third floor thr.ough the lith
floor are standard Hilton design and they have made pro~~ision for hospitality suites
on the upper seve~al levels which Hilto~ management feels is important to the operation
of the Convention Center.
1/25/82
~ i ? ~;
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~~G COMMiSS10N~ Januery 25~ 1982 g2-25
Mr, Holm stated the multi-function rooms and grand bAllrooms wtll work in conJunction
with the Conventlon Center end will enhance ft and feel working wit~ the Hilton
architects and their own designer has provided en outstandi~g luxury facility that
will flt in weli wtth the Conventlon Center.
Don De Mars~ Vice Prestdent, Ultrasystems, and Oirector of the Environmental Studies
Divlsion~ explained the divislon was foundad tn 1973 and they have prepared over 1,000
EIRs since that date throughout Southern Californla~ tn~tuding assessments and
environmantai Impact statements; that 50~ of tMose projects were completed for
public agencles and the other 50~ was for private companies and developers. Ne
stated they h~ve 20 professlonals on their staff currently and have 30 to 40 proJects
on-going at all tirns. He stated they assisted the city in the preparation~relative
to this I60,~~room hotel proJect with ancillary uses~of the environmental (nformation
form ~ the G~aft EIR which was a full report conc~ntratiny end eveluat~ng all of the
suggested environmental issues as recammended by CEQA and also responded and asststed
the city in responding to the eleven written comments which were received on the
draft report during the circulatlon period and they have responded to those ~n a
Respanse to Comments brochure which was suhmitted to the Commission. He stated
they will bc avaltable to answer any questions or concerns relative to the environmenta)
issues of the pro,j~ct. He explained Larry Greer, Traffic Consuitant, is also present
to answer any quesrions.
Earl McOunough~ Sr. Vice President in charge of aperations~ Fiilton Hotels, stated
he covers the Western United States from San Diego to Anchorage~ Alaska and as far
east as Phoenix, Arizuna and has been in this posicion for the last two yea~s and
has been with Nilton for 30 years; that prior to caming to the West Coasc. he was
General Manager of the Washington Hilton whlch is a maJor convention hotel in the
city of Washington; that in looking ove:r this {~roposed faciiity, he thought the
Washington Hilton was very comparable ; that in Washington they have in excess of
2000 associati~ns headquartered which would be the bulk of the typo of business they
vould be going after in Anaheim; that during his 4Jashingtan Hilton tenure~ they hasted
every maJor national convention in the country~ sueh as Natlonal Banker's Association~
American Trucking Assaciation, Associated General Contractors~etc., and they were the
center of all the maJor banquet festivities which took place with a bailroom that
seats 3000 people and an exhibit ha11 with 4$,000 square feet and many ancillary
funttiar. rooms and restaurants; that they had 1200 rooms and approximately 600
parking spaces; and that he felt the proposed 3~~00 parking spaces contemplated for
this pro,ject wi i l be rtx~re than adequate.
Mr.McDunough stated basiceliy when a convention arrives at a hotet, they spend from
2} to 5 days in the hotel and have all their activities and meetings~ meals, etc.
at khe hotel and the traffic into the city of Washington was by air and once they
wers at the hotel, they stayed th~ere. He stated they hostedthe Artieri~an Bankers
Convention which they referred to as multi-housing type conventions because they
use in excess of 5000 rooms and in that Instance where they were the headquarter
hotel~ they had to move people from one hoCel to another and it was done by shuttle
buses and innovative ~itneys and noted Anaheim has something similar, but they
did not move automobiles and when they did handle che ma}or convention~ which was
the primary saurce of tlieir business, noting they did handle ihe maJor banquets for
the Congressional dinners, Presidentlal inaug?-al dinners, Congressional caucuses~
exc~ they were able to handle the parking adequately.
Mr. McDunough stated he is also responsible f~r the 1800•room San Ffancisco Niiton
which is also primarily convention oriented; that the Las Vegas Hitton is probably
the largest hotel in thc world and it has a total of 2800 parking spaces.
82-26
~ i ! f
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINa COMMISSION~ January 25~ 1982 82-26
Mr. Galb :tated thsy sre in agreemsnt with the clty stsff report recommendetions.
Jack White, A~stsCsnt City Atto rnay. stated the following documents have been recaived
In evidence: 1) draft E~vironment~l Impact Report No. 251; 2) w~itten comments
recaiv~d from public agenclas and private individuals releting to the EIR; ;) written
reapon~es to such tomments as prepared by the EIR consultr.nt; 4) writte~ ,justtfication
for parking wetver prepared for C-0 Investment Compeny by PRC Voorhees; And 5)
steff rnport prepered by ctty staff and; 6) the eight exhibits displayed on the
side well. Me scated those documents heve all been revlewed by the Plenning Commission
and are all in evtdence at the current time.
Martene Fox, Attorney~ 567 San Nlcolas Dr(ve~ Ste. 308~ New~ort Beach, CA 9z660~
representing W~athe~ Co~poration~ r~quested that this matter be continued to a later
date. She stated she was unabie to make that request sooner because she had
insufficient Information to even makR such e request prfor to the last 10 or 15
minutes.
Ms. Fox stated in October interested c(tizens were asked to submit comments with
r9lation to the environmenta~ impacts that could be anticip~ted from the current
proJect; that in response to that reques! from the Pianning Department~ they did
submit detailad written comrt-ents; that sliortly after tl~eir cortments were received,
in November~ they received the Draft Environmental Imp~ct Report which is in excess
of 200 pages~ without appendices; that they were then advised of the public review
period and told they would again have the oppa~tunity to review this douCment and sub-
mit written canrnents; that on Jenuary 7, a 30-Pagt written document signed by her
was submitted commenting specifically on varlous sections of the EIR; and in
addiCion~ thGy alao submitted Exhibits A and B which were qualifications of Mr.
Justin Farmer~ Traffiic Engineer~ and also hls approximately 3A-page report was
submitted.
Ms. Fox 5tate.d under a specific section of the State Guidelines `rom the California
Administrative Code, they er~ entitled to rec~ive and have an opportunity to review
staff comments and responses to their commr.nts; that lt wes approximetely 2 p.m.,
Friday~ J„nuary 22, i982, that her office received a telephonr call from Ms. lucado
of the Plenning Dapartrt-ent that this dacument, "Response co Written Cortments Recefved
on Draft EIR far Anaheim Nilton Hotel"~ was avaiiable. She ~tated she sant a special
messenger to the Planning Department and had the document at 4 p.m, on Friday, the 22nd.
She ~dded she wou6d like to compliment the City of anaheim on their staff because they
have ber.t ove~ backwards ta caoperate and it is a pleasure to work with them. She
stated this document purparts to be detailed responses submitted by th~m and a number
of other interested parties and she would submit that It 1~ not reasonabte to expect
anyane who is truly interested in this pra}ect to read~ understand, and essimilata
all the informatian in this document~ together with the staff report. She addad
she had received the staff report upon arriving at the meeting and it Is pages 5-a
through 5-p and contalns a lot oF conclusions which she assumed a~e based nn the
response to comments document.
Ms. F~ox referrGd to the presentation made on behalf of Hitton and stated she felt
the credentials ware very impressive and it was very interest~ng to learn at~aut th~eir
past proJecta snd success, but that is not relev~nt to this proceeding because
specific facts a~d details of the praposed proJect are relevas~t and not the success
of the Hilton Notel Corporation or its Joint venture partner,
1/25/82
~ f
~
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON, ~a~uary 25~ 1982 82-27
Ms. Fox steted on behalf of her cllent, they are present and to the boat of their
ability~ will participete ln thia hea~tng; however~ it fs thelr paint of view that
if a dectsion is mede today, this represents substantlel deniat of due process;
that they are an adJoining neighbar and in additian to the Inn-at-the-Perk~ there
la the Dlsneyland Hotel which will be stgnificantly frnpacted by the develapment oF
this proJect. She stated it is clear under the lew that this ig a noticed public
heartng and they are entttled to the opportunity to have thG facts In ddvance and
heve an opportun(ty to review those facts and m~ke an informe+d~ intelligent presenta-
tion and they ara being denied that opportunity because the facts were not evAilable.
She st~ted it would be in the best interest of the city and all parties, in her
oplnlon, if adequate opportunity was evailable for evaryone ta review all the
information submitted.
Ms. Fox pointed out that some place in sca~ning the staff report she noted a reference
made to comments that were received and the report also says that the commants and
responses to the EtR are ~ttached to the staff report. She ~sked how many members
of the Commisston recelved this staff report priar to noon today ar 10 a.m, today and
how many have actually hed adequate opportunity to review the ~eport~ together with
the responses to the wrltten comments, togethor with all the written cortments. She
stated if the Commission has not had the opportunity to receive and revlew the
documents~ she asked how an informed deciston can b~ made today on this proJect
and stated she did not tht~k that is possible.
Coinmissioner Herbst stated the Commissi~ners recetved these documents on Friday
afte rnoon~ including the siaff report, and that he has read all the comments and
studied the informatian on ihe weekend and noted Ms. Fax had the same opportunity.
Ms. Fox stated she would be inter~sted, at the convenience of the Commission and
the Chairman, in hav(ng a representation from the other member5 of the Commission
because she would have no way to know the answer without rai~ing the question.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, advised that the Commission obtain the testirtany
of all perties; that it is presumed by law that the Commissioners all received and
read the materlal that is in front of them and he did not believe the Planning
Commission is on trial here as to whether or not they have received and read the
material. He stated if Ms. Fox wishes to make conments abaut the documents, that
is her right, but as tht Commission's Legal Caunsei~ he would not advise them to
get into a debate as t~ whether or not they read the dOCUm~ntS. He stated he had
indicated as part af this hearing that the Commissioners have alt r~ceived and
reviewed the information;if any Commissioner wishes co rebut that s[atement, they
certainly can do so, but he did not think any purpose wauld be served to get into a
debate.
Chairman 9ushore exptained the Commission usually waits to mg~e their comments unti)
after the public hearing is closed; however~ if iC is necassary for a point of
clarification, he will stop the heari~g to answer questions~ and the Cortmissionsrs
cannot respond individually to the questions until aftt~r the hearing is closed.
Ms. Fox re-emphasized that she felt the time aitowed to review the documents has been
inadequate. She stated she noted in her January 7th letter that Chere were a number
of tocai agencfes which, in her opinian, should have be~n contacted prior to the
preparation of the ~rafC Eir. She referr~d to a section of the Draft EIR~ pages
203 and 204, entitled "Organizations and Persons Contacted" which is supposed to
1/25/82
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 25~ 1932 82-28
ll~t those govarnmental enttties~ organizations and pmraons contacted that might
have some spectal axpertise with reletion to any portion of the pro)ect and a pa~t aP
thla Is required by a speciflc section of thn California Envir~nmental Quality Act
knc~m ea the consultstion process. She referred to the Iist with a number of
city departmants contacted~ in addition to others and read a p~rtlon af the llst.
She indicdted sha hsd pointed out in her lette~ that because the baunda~ies of the
City of Anaheim are contiguous with the citles of Santa Ana and Gard~n Grove~
they should have been consult~d prior to preparation of the D~aft EIR since
the project ts rath~r large. She pointed out the proJoct description in the EI~
saems to have a discrepancy as to whethor they are dealing with an 11-story or
14-story hotel and whether thare are 1600 or 2100 rooms. She referred to Mr. Holm's
presentatton in which he indicated it wiil be a 160Q•room hotel, but there hes been
Interest expressed by City of Anaheim staff regariing ~otentiial for possible expansion
and st~~ted thc law is clear that wtiere thereis the possibility contemplated
of an ultimate ±r:pansion, there Is an obli~ation to d(scuss that ~expanslon from the
beq(n~ing. She stated the expan5ion from 1600 to 2100 rc~oms and ex~and~d ancillary
uses were not discussed in this report.
Ms. Fax referrod to an October 6 transcript of a presentation end hr.aring made by
the staff and praponents to the City Cou~.=I and page 6, itne 9 in Mr. Talley's
report to the City Council states: "the hotel is mastarplanned to eventually contain
as many as 2100 rooms and we have been advised that,depending upan the feasibility
study, it might be that tliey would build the s~ructure which would acconxnodate the
entire 2140 rooms initially and not finish the 400 to 500 rooms until occupancy
rates exceed 80~; however, this has yet to be determined." She stated she referred
to this statement because the EIR report Is not clear and slnce itis supposed to be
the informational document on wfitch an informed decision is based, it should be
accurate and should include the totai proJect and not just the 1600 rooms. She
stated failure to consider the entire pro}ect,including ultimate c~ntemplated
expansion,renders the EIR inadequate.
Ms. Fox referred back tu the consultation process discussed earlier and stated it is
necessary with a proJect of this scope (nutinq this RroJect is regional in nature
since guests are invited from around the state and Southern Catifornia)that it is
not possible to view the pro,ject in a vacuum and discuss the impacts without
getting together with thas~ people In the County of Orange that wouid be afFected~
most obviously the Environmental Manayement Agency. She stated the Respanse to
Written Comments document indicates there was a letter submitted on beh~iF of EMA
by Ken Smith from the E~vtronmentat Servfces Division; that Mr. Smith handles as
many EIRs as daes Ultrasystems and is quite an expert and he raised a number of
questions; however~ there is no way for membars of thr pubiic or her client to
know just what communication h~s g~ne an with EMA and there may have been a lot of
communication but there is no way to know because the County of Orange is not listed
in the Draft EIR under the names of persons and agencies consulted. She stated there
ls a rrference in the response that the county was consulted and if the cau~ty was
consulted prior to the preparation of this Draft EIR ~ why was it not listed. She
added this is information the pubtic has the right to know. She stated in addition
to EMA, the Orange County Transparation Commission and Oranqe County Transit District
should have been consulted;that the Transit District runs a number of buses in the
area end it is not possible to discuss traffic and circulation and ~ir quality a~d
emisstons without communicating with tM+e these two agencies. She stated these two
entities in tha county,in addition to the two previously-mentioned ctties,were not
listed in the Oraft EIR, although there is a comment which says they were cont~cted.
1125/82
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COtIMISSION, Janusry 25, 1982 82'29
Ms. Fox raferred to Attachments I~ 2 and 3 eppended In the re sponse document and noted a
number of these documents ar~ dated during the spring end summer of 1~80 end refer
to a 1200-room hotel p~o]ect proposed by Wrather an~1 Hlltun which was nat the same
as the currant proposel and et this time would havt no relevancy to thla metter~
only to the e~:tent that the lapse in tin~ from July 190C •o now and the increase in
siz~ fram 1Z00 to 2100 rooms hns bee~ consldored. 5he si.te d All ~f this Is very
confusing to the rr.ader a~d is very '~~rd Co follow.
Ms. Fox stated she finds th~ responees to be either a"hurry - up ]ob" or a"whit~-
wash" because there is na attempt whatsoever to yo in-depth Lo answer the questions;
that perhaps the best example is the ane signiflcent im~act which they ralsed of cum-
tative impacts of all the expans(on ~rograms currently on the books, pla~ned or
approved for the Convention Cent~r nrea; that the Draft FIR makes reference to the
new Marrlott Hotel for 750 roams, howevar~ the tiarriott has appraval for o 300-room
ex~ansion and are currently gett(ng buildinn p~rmlts,so there is ~o questlc:n thet
the expansion is g~ing forwerd,and to consider the impc~ct of the Hilton Hotel
confunctivcly with the 1larriott for 750 rooms, as apposed to 105~ raoms, is simply
inadequate. She stated in addition to the Marrlott, there a ~e a number of other
hotels wMich have either applie~! far or received ap~roval ta ex~and their fac111kies;
and in addition to the hotels~ t~ere ere expansion pians tha t~re either at~praved or
about to be approved for the Anah~im Stadium which lnvolves in e~ccess of one million
squere feet; and that All of that expansion is substt+ntial because of the proximity;
plus, there is the Convention Center expsr,sion~ the 1larriott expansi, , Sheratan-
Anaheim 14ot~1 Notel ~ the Anaheim Surrrnertree Notel ~ the ConNstoga Inn, the Hyatt H~use
hlgh-rise tower. the Noward Johnson Notor Inn and the fact t hat the Inn-at-the-Park
is anticipatin9 a S00-room cxpansion.
Ms. F~x stated to fully understand che true impect ~f the p roJect and to truly be able
to assess the environmental impacts, the Commissio~~ should view this proJect at its
full size which is 2100 rooms, in con)unction with existing facilities and all o~`
thase that are planned far expansinn. She sCated to simply loak at the ~, oposed pro-
Ject and totafly ignare all the other expansion pro,jects is not a true picture and is
not a fair picture to the public and the pe~le who are going to be Impected and
affecttd by the project.
Ms. Fox stated she understands that one very ~ireat mot i vat i ng factor for approving
the project from the city's point of view is increased reven ue to the city wf-ich
may or may not be the case. She stated they raised that is sue in thcir letter because
there are a number of questions about the revenue picture p resented In the praft EIR
and noted even if thac is a fact. that is not reason enough to ignore the substAntial
significant impacts that wiil be generated as a result of t he cumulative effect of
this proJect, togethar with all the othe~ expansion proJects. She stated increased
revenue is not Justi fication f4r going forward and iqnoring the ai r emi sstons, traffic,
cir~ulation~ parking, aesthettcs and the inadequacy of available fiousing for thr
employment generated by this hatel, together with the othe r expansion projects.
Ms. Fox stated they r~ised a number of questions with reqa ~d to ~ental rates end
comments in the Draft EIR about wfiat would happen to vacanc y rat~s as far as rental
units go for the growth inducing espects and the emplayees who would be working in
thc Nilton ~tel and related proJects and tf~e availability ef housing in the City of
Anaheim; that there is a statement in Section III of the re sponse dncument where
Meredith L. Bates sent a letter dated January 3~ 1982~ ralsing th~ question of
housing impac[s and noted sne had a1s4 raised that qur~tion , and Mr,9ates' letter stat~s
Che EiR contains a 1978 rental rat~ and he requested ~n updated rentat survey. She
stated the response to his comn~nt was, "the rates contain~ d In the EIR represent
the latest pub~ished data available fn the city", and poin ted ouc chls is an example
of the type of r~esponses provided.
1/2S/$2
i ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Janusry 25~ 19a2 82-30
Ma. Fox statod thn City of Anaheim~ the Hllton Corporetlon and the Ultrasystems
consultants hav~ access to ~ental retes and informati~n which Is not quite as stale
as the 1978 data; that by contacting the locel realty board~~ the Security Paclfic
National 8enk~ the Institute of Reei Estate Man~gement which has a chapte~ in ~os
Angeles and Orange County~ or the County of Rrange~ updated informatlon regerd{ng
iow end maderste income housing csn be obteined. She feit relying on 1978 stacistics
for 1982 needs to ~ustify a proJect doesn't ~~u+ke A lot of sense.
Ms. Fox rafer~~d to Page 17 of the response and a letter fr~m Mr. E. J. Stotereau
of the Clty of Anaheim dated December 31~ 1981~ which discusses the question of
double shift where there is some question about building the repl~cerr~nt parking
facllitY. She steted anproxtn-ately 31~0 Perking 4~ACd5 are provlded for the Con-
vention Conter and she understends that the proposed hotel wili displace 1604 of those
avatlabla parking spaces (or 50$ of khe available perking for the Convention Center)
but until she raised thet question in her JanuAry 7 letter, the EIR did not dlscuss
that the proposed proiect wlll~on ~ temporary basis,displace over 50$ of the parking.
Slu asked what witl h~~pen if ther~ is a functton at the Conventl~n Center which is
alrcady short of parking, noting thQ Co~~vention C~nter is be:~g expandmd. and with
the parking cbwn by 5~~. she askad where the patrons would park a~d what wili happen
to the adJoining property owners, ad)oinin~ hotels and nearby residents.
She statha~t~~e ~han~50~5ofSthenparkingyspacescwDllfbeElostrisncorrec~ asnraisedcbyt
to ~ay t
he r commant .
Ms. Fox stated chere is discussion abo~~t the need to have the re~ir~cerr-ent parking
facility bullt as quickly as possible and the possibility of having double shifts~
and there is discussion that there may be some ir:reasad noise and it may generate
some discomfort to people in the vic{nity. ~h~ pointed out the mc~de) displayed
prepared on behalf of Wrather Corporation and noted the proposed hotel (Hilton
shown in white) and potnted out the structure to the left is the Inn-at-the-Park
and the ane in fr~nt is the Marriott Hotel (with the existing hotel shown in gray
and the proposed addition tn white). She stated it doesn't take a noise level
expert to understand that nighttime construction activities on the proposed
parking ~tructure is going to severely impACt the guests in the Inn-at-the-Park and
if their guests are inconvenienced to the extent LilAt they have come for a vacation
thay wi11 not
or a short stay and cannot sleep because of the construction noise.
return andthe,lnne~t-thetPa~kaandtitiwillialsc~~be experienced by theCMarri~ttnHotel.
impact o
Ms. Fox read the fallowing from Mr. Stotercau's letter: "I~ for one, believe that
we should dc~ everythin~ within our power to influence "double shif:~' construction of
the parking s~ructure to reduce our (she noxed that our is underlined and rtfers to
the City of Anaheim) do~rn-time and help reduce our revenue loss. Thc matn proble~
I see wauld be the noise level to the Jnlly Roger and the Inn at the Park prope~tics.
(sh$ stated there is no mention about the Marriott) 1 do not bel;ebutWitwmight~be any
maJor aound problems with events using our Arena or meeting rooms~
wise to include a paragraph ar two concerning the develop~r's being agreeabte to
cer~si~g operations if requested b~the Ci~ on those critical time frames." She
stated in other words what Mr. Stotereau was saying is that we must take every step
feasible to see this go forward with great speed and to see inconveniencelnn-at~the-
that the City is not inconvenienced~ while be it that it may
Park Anc! the Jolty Roger. She s• .ed she wouid submit that that is not a very
goc>d neighboGim~,con~ideringithe substantials~evenuessthat are generatedybyslnn-ate
C i ty ~f Anaf~ ~
the-Park.
~ izsia2
~
MINUTE S~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Januery 25~ 1982 82'>>
Ms. Fox stated in response to the comments she raised earllcr ~egarding the need ta
addres s the 2100-room proJect~ that this is responded to tn sorts by Ultrasystems.
Shm ata ted CEQA and the State EIR Guldeltnea require not only that Ultrasystems or the
consu) ~ant propare responses to the corr~nents, but that the cl ty on 1 ts a,m must
ev~+lus ~ e both the commnnts and the ~esp~nses and it Is the Planning Commtssion~ along
with tha City Council~ who are the tndiv(duals and bodtes who must n~ake the decision
whethe r these responses to the comments are adequste and whether or not they truly
have s ufficient informatlon to enabie them to make an informed decision. Slie stated
basics ~ly the consultent says with regard ta thair commen;. on dtscussing the antlre
proJac t, that it is not necessary to do so at thls time be~ceuse if a+. any time Hilton
wanted to come i~ with en expanslo~, an EIR would have to ba prspared for the expansion
at tha t tlme. She stated that evades tha question and is not what is required by
the lavr and they do not eccept that response ~ and , in f~~ct, do not accept any of
the re spo~ses as being adeq~ate.
Ms. Fo x stat~d chere Is one thing she would 11ke to raise which waa not ralsed in
har le tte~ and that Is that it would be very tnteresting to know whether or nat en
enviro ~mental Impact report was e~er prepered origlnally wfien tha Anaheim Convention
Cente r was constructed; that they tried to do some research with the help of the
staff and learned that the Convention Center was constructed in 1967, prior to the
requi~ement of any environmental impact report procedures~ be~cause the lew was enacted
in 19 70, and also they wonder if there has baen ar if tF~ere was an EiR when the
expan s ion of the Convention Center was approved and if ~the cumulative impact of not Just
the e~cpanslon on the Con~anLton Canter, but tMe enti~e facilicy and all the space it
provi des for the number of people and number of trips generated, air emisslons ond
parking were ever truly evaluated by the city. She s~:At~d she (s not taking s position
that ~t has n~t been dane, but she is raising the ques~lon because she doesn't know
and has not been able to get an ansvrer to that questio: •?~ ~et.
Ma. Fox stated she thought they have provided the Commission son-e vary specific
docurt+~sntation with herletters dated November 16, 1981 and January 7, 1982~ toqethar
wi',i Zhe traffi~ report prepa~ed by Mr. Farmer. She addad the response to Mr. Farmer's
re~~r t was Just about meaningiess. She stated there are son~ sentences and statements
tn th~ reponses such as "this is the writers opiniori" and "this Is based on an expe~t
report". She pointeJ out in her ~omments that whl le ther recognize the EIR consultenC
had a monumental task in preparing this document~ apparentty he did rety on a number
of ~e ports prepared by experta, but the~e is no t~ble ar appendices in the Draft EIR
which lists the documents relied upo~ o~ tells whe.re these documencs are available
for i nttrested members of the public and this is a requirement of both CEQA and
Stat~ Guidelines; that +t is fine to rely on re{~nrts fram othe~ experts and on
repo r ts prepa~ed by experts~ but if conclusions are drawn from those reports rega~ding
ai~ ~missions~ traffic, circulation~ etc~ the ~~mbers of the public h~ve a right to
revi~v; those documents and should not have to come to the City of Anaheim to try and
refe r to different pages tn the EIR to see whst documents were considered. She
rafe rred to one document which she Yhought wauld be interesting if it had been incor-
pora t ed by reference whith is a report entittied "final Raport deted Jan~~ary 1980 by
JHK Agsociates - Maheim CommercialRecreaticm Area Transportation Circu~ation
Management Study". She stated probably if she represented the proJect proponent
here ~ sh•. would not want that report includ~ed either because that report does discuss
all the traffic problems,particularly the parking and cErculation problems,that
exis ted prio~ ta the c~ntemplation of this praject and that that report~ together
with the impacts of ~ 2100-room hotel~woul~d nnc be an asset to the devetoper for this
pro3~cc .
1/25/82
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P1,ANNiNG COMMISSiON. January 25~ 1982 92-32
!. Fox stated her cl ient doe' not object to the construction of another hote) in
the City of Ansheim, but does obJact ta the location of this hotel because of the
severity of the imp~cts assoclatedwith thla pro)ect and her cltent Is requesting
that the city have all the f.~cts and do thelr utmost to make sn Informed decislon.
She steted thfre ts somethinr~ about al 1 this. and she doubted that it Is intentionsl ~
whlch colors the entire proceeding~e+d thAt isthet there seems to be sort of train
running wlth this proJect and she has not been abie to ftgure out why~ but tt seems
thet tf we don't do this today~ that i t is going to be ~ terribie impact to the
Ct ty of Anahelm. She s tated the terri ble impect wi l l come from acting wi th great
haste and speed wfthout consider(ng al 1 the fa~tors and impacts th~~t should be
consldered. She stated thore has been a lot of talk for a number of years about e
convention type hotel for An+~heim and the need for suc.h a hotel and the Draft EIR
refers to one economic study which wes not incarporaced by reference norapWended to
the EIR and a number of con~lusions are Ret forth {n that study whlch talks abaut the
absol ute need for th i s hote 1; that the demand for the roams i s there; however,
Table 10 of the Dreft EIR where it discusses growth inductng ~spects and revenues,
talks about vacancy rat~s and shows that the va~can~y rates a~e sti l l there far the
year 1980~ so the dema~~i is not greate~ than the supply and~ in fact~ the aupply is
greater then the demand, She stated she supposed averyone is hoping for growth in
the aree and the abi 1 i ty ta att ract more~ di fferent and greater groups in terms of size
and volume to the ~onvention Center wh ich would be in the best interest of the city
and that Is fine as long as all the informetion is available and all the tnformation
is carefullyassessed when the dec(sions are made. She added, however~ it is not fint
to make a decision that this Is what we need~ and this is what we want ~nd this
1 s what we wi 11 have and then go out and draft an envi ronmental impact rep rt to
Justify th~ conclustons that have alr~ady beGn reached. She stated that is not
what is required by law and is not what would be in the best interest of the clty.
Ms. Fox stated it appears we are onto some fast track processing and asked the
Comnissioners to ask themsrlves what i s the p~eJudice to the City of Anahelm to
slow down Just a bit a~d get all the: facCs and figures and make sure they are completa
and accurate and giva thc intereste~~ members of the pubtic the opportunity to review
those facts and figures so they can have input from all the sources to make an
inf~rmed decision.
Ms. Fox referred to the Orange County Ai ~port and the opoosi tio~ to i ts exp~nsion and
stated a rather extenslve envi ro~mental impact report was done wi th input from al l
kinds of federal~ state and local agenci~a~ r.itizen groups. etc. and many heari~gs
were held; thac the Board of Supervisors approved che EIR; that on Jan~.~ary 6, Judge
BruceSumner in the Orsnge County Supcrior Court filed h(s mem~randum of intended
dcclsion because the adequacy of the EIR was questioned and a lawsuit was ftled;
that there were a number of bases on wfiich the EIR was held to be inadequate; one
that the court held thAt the proJect description was not sufficient tn the EIR and
in commenting on the nec@ssity for sufficient project description, Judge Sumner
referred to a Court of Appeals case and quoted, "Only through an accurate vlew of the
project may affected outsiders and public decision.makers balance the aroposel's
benefit against its environmental cest, consider mitigation measures, assess the
advanCage oF termtnating the proposal , and weigh other alternatives in the balance."
She stated Judge Sunn~r went on ta say thet "to our view that the proJect is conceptual
in nature begs the questinn." She addod to come in now and say that we have given
you al l o~f the information we heve because thr plans have not yet been ftnal ized~
begs the question; that the Commissio~ needs io know in detai I precisely what the
project is they are ccnsidering because if they don't and epprove such a proJect~
they have approved soa~ething and don't know what it is and that is what the court
is tatking abr~ut when it talks about a praJect descriptton.
~ i2siaz
~ ~ t µ~
MINUTES , ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jan w~y 25, ~9$Z 8Z~33
Ms. Fox st~ted the court also found in that case thac the dlscusslon of slternatives
to the proposed p roJact was insufftcient end tncompl~.te; thet the Environmental
Qualtty Act requirns that alte~nstives bs di~cussed in an EIR end the Guidelines
spel) out what this msans; thet she reised in her letter the fact that there are
al tm rns t i ve s t tes ava 1 t ab 1 e for the convont 1 on cante r type hote 1 that the c i ty sesks
to have constructed in the City of Anahelm; that those altarna tive sites were brtefly
mention~d, son~ of them~ In the Draft EIR, but they were glossed over; for inst:~nce,
there i s one site on the east side of Narbor~ but is prasentiy deaignated as
agrtcui tural And is the sub)ect of en Agricultural Preserve Ag reement under the
W111iamson Act; that the EIR consulCant has taken the position that there is no
possibi lity that this land~ since it ts undar a 10-yesr cnnt~act undar the W1111amso~
Act, wi 11 be daveloped; thdt what the p~oJect consultant falle d to include in the
EIR is lhat in Octobe~, 1981~ tho Govcrnor signed an ame~dment to the Willlamson
Act whith provldes that effective January 1~ 1982, any land owner whose land is subJect
to agri ~uitu~al preserve agreement wt 1) have a one-shot opportuni ty to cancel that
agreemee~t so long as thei r appl tcation far cancel lation is ft led prior r,o May 23, 1982.
She sts ted based on that where there {s growt~~ inducfng aspects and so much development.
she ask~d if the Commissionseriously believesthac the landowncr looking at this new
an~endn~nt to the W( 11 iamson Act wi 11 not look at the opportuni ties for increased
revenue to himself. Sl~e stated you cannpt assume th,~t that prope~ty will not be
devcloped for 1Q years, 5he stated she would submit that the dtscussion of alternatives
1 s i nadequa te ,
Ms. Fox sta ted Judgn Sumner also said that ,in his apinion~ the EIR in that case
was in s ufficient because of its failure to co~atder the environmental effects of
the pro ~ect that are indivtdually limited,but cumulativety considerable. She stated,
again, that to look at this proJnct as a 1640-room hotel witho ut co~sidering its
maximum slze, without considering this proJect in co~J~nction with the Anaheim Stadium
expansi on plans, the Convention Center expansion, and all af the other hotels listed
in he~ repo rt, is to considerthe impacts that are individual. but not cumuiative;
the~efore- the envir~nmental tmpact report would not bo adequate on that basis.
M~. Fo x sta ted Judge Surnner also held that the required discussio~ of growth inductng
impacts was insufficient; that unfortunately~ for those of us that have been in this
county and watched the growth since 1970, particularly the Commission and the city,
trying to answe r respons~ of people who want to live in this city and tive in
~renge County, all know that the~e is s terrible hous{nq shortage and that the~a has
been; that she d(d look at a report prepared by the County of Orange for the year i98o
dnd it did n~t have statistics for apartments~ but for residential units including
single -family and multt-family, Maheim had a vaca~cy fattor for 1980 of less then
2.89$ and of those units available~ many peaple are priced out of the home-buying
marke t and this would affect directly those indivfduals that wish to work at this
hotel and also wish to live in close pror.imity to their place of employment. She
stated she thinks we need a more adequate section dealing w(th growth inducing impacts.
1~~'r`. Fox stated also the Judge (n the airpArt case held that the air quality effects
o~ alt ernatives must be considered; that the Planning Commission has an obligation
not on ly to consider the air quallty effects of the proposed proJect, but that p~ojeGt
in can ~unction with the Stadium expansion pians and all the other expansion plans;
that i ~terestingly enough, the Judge held that during tha hea ring +there was a questiort
raise a as to the role of the conme~t and respanse po~tions of the EtR; that the
questi on p resented to the cpurt was whether o response to a comment or a comment itself
could cure a defect i~ fie original EIR; that it is this court's ruli~g that the ~esponse
and camments cannot cure o defect and that the raspo~ses to curtments must be ~s complete
as th~ proponents of the p roject ca~ make them. She stated to say that cortnwents
that +~rere submitted and raised quesrions regarding data end statistics have no value
1/25/~2
MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CiTY pLANNING COMMISSION, January 25, 1962
az-3a
because tha person who posed the questions (s not en expert 1~ the fleld,begs the
quastton and does not respond to th~e qusstion and is wholly inad~quate. She stetad
it was her opinlon that there are Gertain sections of the Oraft EIR that need to be
re-worked and sha wauld submit that agaln to this body and also th~t the response
to th~ comments doms not satisfy.
Ma. Fox steted lastly the court in the other case hald that the envir~nmantal impact
raport may ctte othe~ documents~ but whera it doe~ not summerize the contents or
refer the raeder to the locstion of a public deposltory where the document may be
found, the incorporatlon by reference (s ineffectivo,
Ms. Fox thanked the Commission far their pacience and hoped they understood thet khey :
do have soma resl concerns. She stated she would be happy ta re5pond to nny questions and
thay would like to work with the City of Anaheim throughaut thts proJect, as all Che
other praJects; that as she understands it, her cllent has done that for more than 25
years and that position on the part of her client has not chang~d.
RECESS: 3:OS p.m
RECONVENE: 3:15 p.m.
Richard 5. Stevens~ Vice President, Wrather Corporatlon, stated Ns. Fox had only
touched on about 25$ of the points they woutd Ilke to ralse: that he did not get a
copy of the resp~nse to comments untll 8 p.m., Friday night; that they are very
concerned about the traffic and did submic an extensive study by Mr. Farmer and
that he simply could not find it in the responses; and that Mr, Farmer's report seys
it very weli in that there is a scarcity of back-up informatinn to substantiate the
facts and figures. He stated this ~roJect was first started in 197~ and 1918 with the
Hilton and Wrather organizationsdiscussing Jolntly developing a hotel wher~ the new
Wrather center is going to be on Katella; that Wrather owns 26 acres from Katella to
Disneylend Notel; that subsequent to that~ the city announced tt wanted to build a
Convention Center hotel un one of two sites (Sites A and B) and they took the positlon
that Site A was short-si9htcd because it would bl~ck further growth of the Convention
Cet~ter because of ciose proximity to residenttal development and that Site 6 would be
betttr~ but they stili dtd ~oe think Site 6 was prape~; that the Anaheim Hiltan project
as was conceived, planned and approved was for 100Q roc~ms wtth the butk of tht davelop-
ment on Wrather property which is under lease from the city far the Inn-at-the-Park~
so that the actual footprint (ntrusion of the hotel development was 60 feet into the
parkin~ lot; that they made a big pointthen and make a big point now that they feel
to intrude further into the parking an~ put a hotel right on top of the Convention
Center is going to lead to some tren+endous circutation and traffic problems end is
Just bad p{anning. He stated they have not changed their position since that time
because th Gy strongly feel both those sites are bad planning.
He referred to the displayed model which they have put toqether to show the visual
impact because it is very difficult to visualize from reading the EIR the denstty
and scale of tha proposed project and its impact upon the area. He stated the scale
was taken from the EIR. Ne pointed out the parking structure is not ~hown and
pointed out the Marriott and the Narriott additio~, the Convantfon Center itself~and
the Inn-at-the-Park. pointi~g out tt~e inwnense visual lmpact and traffic and pedestrian
atcess problems which are further compounded by the necessity to have a dead-end street.
Mr. Stevens st- ~y are not agalnst Hilton co~ning i~to this cammu~ity and noted
they were going .•R partners~ but are against any hotel in this location. He stated
it is his canside~eo aplnio~ that th~s EfR wil! neve~ p~ove to htm that the~e will not
be an adverse irreconcilable negative impact of this development upon the community.
1/25/82
;
5
x
t
.~
~
i
~
:1
~
~
~
,~ I
~~
g;
1:~",+ak'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSiON, January 25, 1982 82-35
M~. Stevena stated they have been part of this community for 27 yaars~ and noted they
stepped in when the Royal Inn was benkrupt in 1977 snd invested four mtllton dollars
not only bacause they thought it was a good investment for them, but bec~usa af
the promisa that was held tn that lease which they negottated in good f~ith with the
City of Rneheim that they would be given the ~tght to come in with an additional 500
rooms. He pointed out there ts only one place to put those 500 rooms and noted the
locatlon on the m~del. He statnd looking at the shedaw pattern and the traffic
pattern~you wi11 find that astde from sll other consideretions, if this proJect is
approved, they will blasted out of the water becausa they will be cominq tn at full
rental rate and the EIR wi11 be stacked agsinst them because of thQ environmentai
impect of the 500 roonn facing onto a servic~ dock wlth guests looking at the rtar
of the truck docks~ garbaqe cans, deltvery tr~~cks in and out at 2 a.m,, etc. and
they would hava a tough time.
Mr, Stevens stated hopefully the people Involved will understend what happens on a
dead•end street with the addltion of the Convention Center and possible future g~owth
of the Convention Center, the Ma~riott addition~ thts hotel and their own expanston.
Mr, Stevens scated the summary of their posiCion is really that they are ayainst this
proJect fn this location for several reasons ; Arst~ they don't think any one hotel
should be crc~wned as the official host hotei of Anaheim; that those wlw have invested
their money long before it became proficabie and popular to invest in Anahetm and have
be~n hc~e far the full tenure of growCh, feel they have contributed in totality
to the growth of the Convention Center and its success and now to crown and annolnt
someone else as the officlal host hotel to the deeriment of the rest of the community
and those who have becn here a long time~ they think is not fair~ not rtght and noY
the Anaheim way~ and they do not think it is an equitable solution when there are
viable aitern~tives. 11~ st~ted Yhe second reason they are against this is for
environmenta) reasons - first, is traffic and second ts design and stated he thought
in a need to cram a lot of rooms in a very smalt space~ thls will be a tremendous
butlding mass that will destroy the aesthetic sspects of thet k(nd of low-rise,
spread-out feeling wl~ich he feeis is s~ typical and indicative of the style we have
experienced and enJoyed in Anaheim~ as opposed to other Htit~n Hatels at airports,
etc, He stated, hopefulty, we will never have to look like the area around LAX and
similar to other placts where Hilton and other organizations successfully operate.
He stated they a~e also against this project bscause It blocks future growth of the
Conv~ntion Center; that there bre referencts in the EIR and the responses to the fact
that no consideration has been given to the environmental impact for future expansion
of the Cnnvention Center and at the same time the Convention Center is saying we have
a great future in Anahetm and let's really support that growth; that there is a logical
extension for the Canvention Cencer and thry think the tmpact of that addittonal
expansion which has been on the books but never approved, wili come into our collective
taps in the next 5 to 1Q years and that he could imagine the city-wide impact and he
thought the environmenta) restrictions placed upon th~ conmunity by the
Hilton~ as designed~ would preclude thec future.
Mr. Stevens stated he was on khe other side of the coin with a p roJect In Marina dei
Ray which v~as stopped because the County figured out they did not have an environmenta)
impact roport on the entirG Marina del Rey and ha subsequer~tly had tn step back because
it took the county I; year~ ta come through its environmental impact report study
end itnd out thst ce~tain ki~ds of g~owth were not compatible and he was a loser an
a positive side of good planning. Ne stated he think~ Anahe~im owes itself that kind
of due diligence.
~ i2siaz
p 1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ January x5, 1982 82-36
Regarding economics~ Mr. Stevans stated the primary and oniy reason givan under
alte~n~tlves to the proJect which Is a vttal part of the EIR and the only obJection
to "no proJect" wes financial. Hn st~ted if that ts the csse, he would ask thst the
Commission study egatn the economtc Impact of the proJect; that tha six million
dollar flag waved as to why this should be done~ and if they wtll study It ~galn,
will see that over i/2 of th~t ta in bed tax snd bed tex comes from occupted roams
and thnre has been no ofPsetting calculations as ta whether they aro counting ~ooms
r~bbed from some other hotel, and thera h~s been no t~ue assessment of the t~ue
m~rket condit(ons ~hat w111 be the result of this proJect, yet the very economic
justification of thls pro)ect ts bed tax~ noting the lease income ts 1}~ of gross~ with
parking deducted~ whtch ts nothing. He str:ed he cannot find eny markoting ~tudies
although they are referred to in the report; that the teble says there will be e
drop of IQ - 17~ tn occupancy of the hoceis and future hotels 1lsted. but they da not
hsve a11 the future hotels such as Hyatt which has been epproved for expansion since
1972. He steted he feit 10 - 17~ reduction in the occupancy of some of the other
hotels will be the difference of going into a nec~at(ve cash flow. He stated the
report does not defin~ the statament that )5~ occupancy means a~ healthy hotel and
noted they will not get tA 78$ until the end of the decade. He stated the rest of
the business community wlli have to take the rep and they have been putt(ng up the
basic support for the development and growth of that Conventton Center and he dld
not think thai is fair,
Mr, Stevens stated at the very least a true in-dapth market study should be ordered
and that the offsetting bed tax potential loss curve shouid be super-imposed to
see the true economic benefit to the city and noted many governing bodtes make the
developer segregate out the bed tax and other related r~pple cffect incame into
dtfferent categories so that wfiat is isotared woulo be the teast impact on net cash
flow and least impact on the city.
Mr, Stevens stated there was not an appendix to the first EIa but now there is one
dated January 19~ 1982~ and it says the scope and time conscraints of this task have
p~ecluded extensive research analysis and quantiftcation of findings and he felt
that is saytng tt all - that we are on a fest track and are playing with the fucure
of Anahe(m. He stated the report describes possible alternatives end describes an
alternative which they put forth which was to dedicate a pa~cel of ~and where
Wrather Center is now going to be, but it misquoted the deal because it said
Wrather asked for S4 million dollars in ground lease revenues whith wouid be for-
given and this is not what was set forth - and they seid S4 millton dollars in gr~und
lease revenues would be forgiven after they developed 500 more rooms which was the
incentive for them to go ahead and make the commitment. Ne stated tf this is approved.
he did not know how they could go ahead wtth those 5Q0 raoms.
Mr. Stevens referred to page 38 of the responses which states although the Convention
Center may elect to expand their facility in the future, na definition af expansion
plans is available at this time, but he thought there were some very definitive
plans drawn for 150.000 sq. ft. of expansion. He steted he thought the first step
and prime responsibility of rhe City of Anaheim would ba to protect the future of
thc Convention Center. Ne stated he thought this is a case of an honest deslre to
see Anaheim continue to expand and grow, but that we are trying to get ft rushed
th rough withaut really examining theimpatts of 2100 rooms right on the parking lot
and hs thought it would strangle the Convention Ce~ter; thet thc true parking picture
has not been cons-~ered at the Convention Cnnter; that when they were working o~ the
i~itial Maheim HTlton, thr. Convention Center was making a potnt that the~r had
received a parking study wh~ch i~dicated that the Co~vention Center was grossly over-
parked at present and if thaC is the case~ this will be really repl~ctng the inadequate~
1/25/82
~
MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ja~uary ~S~ 1982 8Z~31
not planning for tha future and future growth of the Convention Center, He stated
ha thoughtthis is • cese of bad planntng and somn well•inta~ded attempts to provide
new firat-cless raoms~ but there are other a~lternattves and there ts no dlscusston
of the 6-acre site that Disney has right now across from the entrance of Disneyland
and no reA1 discussion of the 26 acres where the Wrather Center w111 be loceted or
the 40 a~cres -+orth of the Disneyland Hotel~ owned and contrallnd by Disneyland and
eermarked for futura expanslon~ etc.
Mr. Stevens referrrd to the staff report and reed the required finding, of fact and
stated these ftndings cannot be made on this pro)ect.
Phillip Schwartze, Vice President~ Phillips, Brandt, aeddick, 18012 Sky Park Circle~
Irvine~ statad he ts speaking on behalf of the M~rriott Corporation of Weshington~
D. C. and in partlcular~ the Anaheim Marrlott. He stated Phillips~ Brandt, Reddick
prepared thn original environmental irr~act report for the Htlton - Wra~ther pro,ject
and also the environmental documents for the initial Marriott and thelr expansi~n.
He stated Marriott Corporation would be pleased to have the Hilton Hotel built fn town,
sort~owhere fn the vicintty and that this may not be the idea) site; that Marrlott has
submitted a number of written comments to the EIR; that there are essent(ally eight
maJor concerns which the Merriott has. Ne polnted out Convention Way and the eccess
to Convention Way are certainly of concern to the Marri~tt and they wa~t to do what
they can to assure that there is not restriction to the Marriott H~tel for traffic
flow in and araund Convention 41ay; that they would like ta see Convention Way at
some point become a two-way. nnn-cul-de-saced street; that they feel the traffic
tmpacts were not adequately discussed in the EIR and they have certainly not had a
chance to revirw the response to canme~ts which was available Friday since the
Ma~riott Corporation is in Washtngton~ D. C. and it was not possible to get thcse
responses to them and get their comments back for analysts i~ that length of time.
He stated, however~ they feel that the oriqinal informatlon contained In the Draft
EIR was incorrect and inadequate. He stated regarding the parking supply, they also
felt that the information contatned in thn Oraft EIR was inadequate
and the, report which JustifieS the parking was available on Friday and chey did pick
iC up and referred to page 8 ~f that docurtient indlcating that the Marriott Hotel has
51$ smali car spaces~ and stated there are no compact car spacts at the Marriott
Hotel.
Concerning the water suppty issue. Mr. Schwartze stated they feel that was inadequately
discussed; that the water pressure in surm,er peaks is crittcal in the aren when there
are a lot of activities and that wa~ nat discussed and pointed out the letter contained
in the EIR is several years old and was addressed to him several years ago when they
were prtparing an EIR in the area; that the view obstruttion to tht Marriott is not
fully discussed in the Draft EtR and nated he was pieased the Wrather Corporatio~ had
gone to the expense of preparing a model.
Regarding the issue of double work shifts, Mr. Schwartze stated this was not
adequately discussed in the EIR and the response to corm~nts said it -vas. Ne
referred to pege 198 of the Draft EIR which very cle.~rly says that the constructton
noise may affect peopie in the Convention Centa~ and it may disturb residents in the
area, but thet it doesn't say anything about tht hoteis, either the Merriott or
the Inn-at-the-Park. He stated the conditions at approval suggsst tha double sh(ft
alternative as a means of mitigatton and he would suggest that on behalf of the
Marriott~ they are cerCainly not recomme~ding the use of the double shift and did not
think the Msrriatt Hotel would be interested in having their guests disturbed with
construction activitles taking place. He steted tha Marrtatt Corporatlon and the
hotel had some problsms with television reception interference in the adJoi~ing
area and~ in fact, is proposi~g ~p cunstruct a rt+aster ar~ten~a for the site and there
1/25/82
~
". i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ January 25~ 1982 82-38
la no dlscussiQn in Oha Qraft EIR of posstbla efFacta af this hotel onto the surrounding
area~ ~nd statad he was not sura t~ere would.be any ~ffect.
Mr. Schwart~e ststed he belteved there was soms disctiission from the proponents tn
supgesting that there wss a racommendatio~ from a~taff for app rovsl of this project and
hm dtd not bmlleve the scaff hes glve~ a reconwnendation for ~pp~ovel. He stAtad
he woutd suggest thet the Comnisalon n~ y wish to continue this ftem for some period
af time in order that the various people interestrd wtll hav~ en opportunity to
go th rough all the meteriel which fs substantial in order that th~y may mare fuily
ensly=e it from an experttse aree end then rGturn to the Gommisston with somn
additlonal camments as ttme permits.
Don DeMars~ Ultrasystems, stated he thought all the comrn~nts made here todsy have been
responded to In the Response to Cortments document. He stated when they started pre-
parat~on of this EIR~ there had been en EIR for a 1200-room hatel proJect submicted
to the city and all applicable agencles and individuels that may be interested which
~he c.ity could identify were contacted dur(ng the preparation of that EIR, and they
wara recontacted and those agenctos included were other c;ties, Orange County EMA and
other county agencies; that t1~ey were c~ntacted by written letter descrlbing in lts
entfrety tha propased proJect fo~ a 1600-room ~~otel and ancillary us~s; that thnre
was some time constraint; however~ most of those agencies contACted by tetter we~e
recontacted by telephonc and most of the commgnts by those ii~dividuals were thac
their comments remafn as tnitially given for the 1200-room proJect. He stated maybe
the EIR was lacking in explanatton of those contacts~ but it is so indicated by
~eference.
Mr. DeMars stated they did address a 1600-room hotel and presumed that if there ts
any expanslon to it that the city would request that an application be submitted, the
same as if there is any expansion ta any hotel~ and if 1t is deemed necessary~
another EIR would be prepared and the hea~ings would go farth (dentifying whatever
impacts that may have and the impacts of other approved projects. He stated ail
referenced documents in this Draft EIR and the ~esponse to Camments are on file with
the City of Anahelm Planning Departn~ent.
Mr. DeMars stated there was mention eartier that there ts insufficient mark~t demand
to warrar~t the proJect and referred to Psge 32 of their Response to Comments wherein
Ms. Fox had commented that the demand for rooms is currently exceeding the supply
and this statement appaars to be coc~tredicted by Table ; on Page 60 which clearly
shcws that at no tima durtng the perfod from 1980 - 1989 will the rooms demanded
exceed the number of rooms availabie. He stated that tablc wss only to indicate their
proJections and is not a picture of todey; that turrently from 1975 to 198o the
compounded annuai growth rate of rooms avflilable. is 2#$ per year, while the demand
hss increased at a compounded growth rate of 5.4$, sa considnring thrt it takes 2 to 3
years to devetop a proJect to satisfy such demands or needs of a first-class conventton
related hotel~ we wil) run out of spacc; that as other projects are proposed, most
developers are forecasting for the future and it is known there will be peaks and
valieys; that hopefully thls is a convention related hotel and it will b~ing addittona)
tonvention events, maybe much larger than the Convention Centar is capablt of handli~g,
and a hotel of this nature was intdnded to satisfy those needs.
1/2S/82
~ ~..~~ i ~
MINUtES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ Ja~ua~y 25, 1982 a2~39
Mr. OeMars stated thara was a report prepd~ed and Is on file with the ctty by Pannall
Kerr Forater whiah ava~luated the needa for such a pr~Ject and took into conslderatlan
other pro)acts that had been aroposed and officially recognizad by the city, and
notod there were applicatlons submtttad alther Friday or today for other pro)ects,
but they did work wlth tha city (n identifytng other potential factllties that
cauld have cumula~ttve e+ffacts along with this pro.iect. He refdrred to p+~ge 105 in the
Respnnse to Comments whtch Itsts those proJecta and steted to the Dest of his
rec~llectton~ the ones that are epprovad or are currently in the afficial approval
pracess of tha city are the Sheraton Anahelm Mator Hotei, 127 rooms; the Mar~iott
Not~el~ 300 room expansion; Howard Johnson for a g0-raom expanston and the Anahetm
Summartree Hotal for 500 r~oms; and other possible proposats were the Conestoga Motor
Hotel~ tha Ansheim Hotel~ Hyatt House, ED II nf San Francisco, 500 rooms~ and the
500 rooms for the Inn-et-the-Park, He steted all of those were cvaluated from a
cumulstive standpotnt in pages 106 khrough I11 of the aesponse to Comments and until
m~re specifics are available as to access and ingrrss and egress and when they will
be developed~ any further type analysis would really be speculetive. Ne staCed tt
ts their opinion that they adequately addressed all af that in their Response ko
Cortrrien ts .
Mr, DeMars referrod to the alternat(ve section of the EIR and stated they c~d
address all the alternat{ves tha'. were mentioned, including other site selection; that
if one makes a premise that there ic a lack of first~class convention related hotels,
they should be located as close to or adJacent to the facility which [hey will serve.
Mr. DeMars stated traffic is the number one tssue and the Dest way to reduce the
traffic is to load all the hotel exp~nsions as close to the Gonvention Center as
possible so that the large conventlons can have uses which Are on a daily basis and
having hotels around the pertmeter would ~equire use of the automobtle~ so from
a site selection standpoint, they did ~valuate that and it is documented In the
EIR and f~rther expanded upon in the Response to Comments. He stated they did not
really receive any basic new cortrf-ents which they had ~ot received in writing and to
quote that they did not evaluate the double shift and address the hotel g:,ests is
really a misquote because there is a simple paragraph which states~ "nighttime
constructi~n work however may result in several negattve impacts on the local
community and the project itself; ~,roper illumination of the construction site
requtres the utilization of very powerful floodlights which rt~y disturb the surrounding
residant~ and hotel guests at night: rAnstruction noise may likewise create
significant i~acis by disrupting sleeping residents",and noted th~y shou'a have
added~ "and resident~ of hotels as weli,••"as we11 as ta delegates atcending convention
events."
Larry Greer, Greer and Associates, Traffic Consultants, stated they have been in-
volved extensively with t~affic analysis of majo~ proJects in Anaheim and in Sauthern
California~ but more specifica~ly in chls immediate arca; that they did the traffic
studies for the expa~sion of the Convention Center and the Anaheim Stadium; that
they are familter with the traffic patterns and conditlons within the Anaheim
Commerciat Recreation Area; that the first conments deal with those agencies
contacted during preparation of the EIa. and noted all those public agenc(es~
surroundin9 cities and County, the Transpo~tation Commission and Transit Oistrict,
etc. were identified with a Nottc~ of Preparation and, in addition, they dealt
directly with Caltrans~ Transit District, City of Garden Grove and the County EMA
i~ getting data and information.He stated they respo~ded in the Response to Comments
to those agencies who did make commants and noted not all agencies contacted made
comir~en ts .
hr. Gree~ stated fo~ purposes of the traffic analysis. they hbd identified oCher
ms,jor hotel proj~cts in the area and expa~~slon of the Conventton Center itself
_ 1/25/82
~ ~ ,i ,~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Jenuary 25~ 19a2 82-40
and those impacts wereincorporatad,identified and analyxAd. He stated they did not
include the Howsrd Johnson expansion nor the Sheraton~ basicaliy because they were
sR~li pro~ects and are somewhet removed from the immedtsta aree~ although they will
impact the intersections,and he undarstood that they wera small enough that
they did not have ~n environmental impact report as such. He stated those major
pro~ects were included in the cumulativc traffic a~Alysis whtch has been submitted
because they did heva some information ebout the design, the traffic, circulatlon~
access~ etc. He stated the other expanstons mentloned are speculative in terms of
the scope and scale and wfiere they will actually be lacated and where the atcess
points n-ay be; that they dtd identify the amount af trafftc thet would be generated
from those prnJects on a daily basis and on a.m./p.m, peak hour basts~ but they do
not ha~e enough information to essign them to the street system. It stated It is
assunx d and was stated (n the Response to Comments that when those proJects actually
are approved, they will requlre an environmentat impact repart and at that polnt this
proJect wtil have boen identified,assuming it is approved~and would be included tn any
cumulative analysls for any subsequcnt proJect.
Regarding long term traffic~ Mr. Greer stattd the JHK study referred to,~The Anaheim
Comrt~rcial Recreation Area Transportation Management and Circulatlon Study; did~ in
fact, do a long range (1990) traff(c analysis for the entire area using as ~ basis what
was known for proJects that would be in place by 1990, as well es those identified
by the Ptan~ing staff and consultant for future grrrwth and land use increases in
the study area end they have Identified mitigation measures and have identified
specifically those other proJects that would be in place as p~eviously mentioned and
identified pro~ect impacts at that poinc.
Mr. Greer stated sever~l ~omments have been made as to the inadequacy of the traffic
analysis~ the self-evi~lent traffic impacts that would be generated by this proJect and
he would sub:nit that th~y have studied and analyzed in detail 14 intersections in the
immediate area under several different levels of traffic - the existing traffic
volumes~ a~d the existing traffic volumes, plus those identified as cumulative proJects~
as well as those two iPVels of traffic with the projected traffic from this p~oJect
added to it and they have identified those probiem locations predominantly at Harbor
and Kalella and liarbor and Ball and they hav~ identified the mitig~tion measures that
would be required. He stated he understands the developer has commitcd eith~r through
fees or improvements to help making those improvements necessary to make those
(ntersections work p~operly.
Regarding the problems of Convention k~ay. Mr. Greer stated they did identtfy the
problem of bus circutation on the end of the cu{-de-sa~ and they did identify
several alternatives which would mitigate that problem and have reconmended either
the extension ofConvention Way through and open to West Screet which could be done
on a part-time pasls, or the enlargement of the end of the cul-de-sac to accorm~odate
the buses.
Mr. MtDur.ough expiained when he was operating the Hilton in Washington, O.C., he
also served as Preside~t of the H~tet Association representing 38 hotels and during
that period was d~eply involved tn helping create a conventton center for the City
of Washington which coulo have bean considered as competition . He stated Hiiton
and he perso~ally took the position that a wnvention center would banefit everybody
inciuding the entire hotel conmu~ity and that they did everyChing humanly possible
Lo mske it a reality. He stated they realizad they were noi competing with each
other~ but with other cities because the desttnatian points of iarge conventions
vrere Houston, ChicaQo, New York, San Francisce, etc. He steted thls is the same
situatton ~nd Anaheim is competing agal~st thosa same ciites wtth the convention ~
type hotels. Ne stated tf this hotrl becomes a roality~ it wiil not hurt the city
and the business they will attempt to attrect wilt be brand new and will not cause
1/25/82 =;,
.~ _ _ __ _._._ ....._ .. ..,a__ ...__.,... ..._... _ ._. ~....~n,~~.r,.,~.,
~
'~ ' ~ J
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, January 25, 1982 82-41
a reduction in the accupa~cy of the other holels.
Mr. McDunou h ~eferred to the hotnl tn San Francisco whtch started out wlth 800
rooms in Ig~4 end now has 1800 and noted when they ftrst st~rttd haering about Flyatt~
Sir Frencis, etc. they werc+ a little nr,rvous~ but those new facllitias have helped
the City of Sen Francisco; that when a convention buyer looks for a site fo~ a
convention~ he asks how many first-cl~ss hotel rooms are availeble and st~ted
if he managed the Marrlott and Inn-at-the-Park, he would welcome the Ntlton. Ne
stated wlth additional business made possible by virtue of their natlonal sales
organization and reputation for handling largc conventlons and having facilitles
in proximlty to the Convention Center~ they w111 help those hotels. He stated he
thought saine of the comments m~de by thn Wrdther representattves have not been
consistent; that when they were working with Wrsther, they had the sdme marketing
strategy and it was not to hinder the other hotels. He asked why the other hotels
are wanting to tKpand if a tremendous drop in occupancy is expected. He stated
the City of Anaheim has to have first-class rooms co back up a Convention Center
of th(s magnitude or they will not be able to get canventions to come ta this city.
Mr. Gelb stat~d the great asset af having a draft EIR and the CEQA requirements is
that it forces a developer to bring to the public's attention all the different
impacts so there will be a reasoned analysis af what the impacts will be on the
community, and they welcome the opposition's conxnents because it h~lps them see
other issues; that unfortunately he thinks tl~ev have seen he~e by the corm~ents of
the Wrather Corporat(on that so~ne of the commentsrt.~y not be based on true environrt~ ntal
issues and are strictly eco~ort~ic;that it is important that the genera) public under-
stand that Wrather Corporation had negotiated for approximately one year in conJunction
with Hilton to bring a convention center hotel to the City of Anaheim,rnuch the same
as th6s proJect,in very much the same general area,and it had the same qen~ral impacts
on the community, both environmental and social and economic conditions; that a
Oraft EIR was prepare~t and certified and according to the staff report of May 6~ 19$0;
"the new hotel masterplanned for 3500 rooms which wc+uld include the utilization of the
Inn-at-the-Park" shows that the pian at that time was masterplanned for a potential
35GC rooms. He stated the Cortmission certified that EiR which contained basically
the same environmental concr:rns regarding traffic~circulation and other issues.
Mr. Gelb stated the attarney for Wrather asked for a continuance to allow more time
citing the inability to read the responses which have bee~ submitted~ and he was
sure thc City Attorney would advise the Comnissiun what due p~ocess issues were
raised regarding the speed in which these responses have been submittted; however,
the Response to Cortxnents prepared by Ultrasystems respondcd primariiy to a 50-page
report prepared by Attorney Fox a~d,in addltion, she spoke for approximately g0
minutes at this meetiny. He stated the ~equPst for a continuance is a rather curious
ona because Wrather spent approximately 18 months negotiacina for their hotel proJect
and an EIR was certified~ therefore~ they have laid the groundwork and he would ask
how the environment is adversely impacted by changing thc name from Wrather-Hilton
to Anaheim Hilton.
Mr. Gelb stated thM ma,jor issue raised by Wrather has been as t~ cumulative impacts
whiGh is a very important issue and noted courts~ Clty Pianning Commissions and
City Councils are concerned about it; r~uwever, the cumutative imp~ct was taken into
account in its preparation a~d Respo~se to Comments and tt seems they are ask~d what
wauld happen if another pro~ect is b~ing proposed. He referred to pages 25 and 26
of Response to Cvmments and a very gaod discussion of this issue~ page 26~in parti~ular~
which responds to a point raised by Wrather asking that they consider the Inn-at•tha-
Park expension and the ~esponse states tF~at SGCtion 3.Q3 0~' the leaac agreement with
the Inn-at-the•Park says. `In the event the annual occupancy ~ate of the hotet equals
80$ or more in aach of twc~ consecuCive years, Wrather shall be abligated td either~ ~~
bu:ld 500 additional guest rooms, mare or less.'br increase hotet payments to the
City by 20$~ or~retease an approximately 145' x 332' parcel of tand on the southwest
1/25/82
~~ ~:~~~ =~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Janua~y 25, 1982 82-42
corner of the leased parce) b~ck to the City." Ne stated this ,~aises the continflent
aspects of e number of the proposed hotcls;that we can have t~,a opposition put an
Artlcle in the newspeper e wery week atating thdt they Intend to develoN a parcel of
land and add 600 hotel rooms end then ask why thst was not consldered In the EIR as
t~ the cumulative impact; that he belleved the angineers who prepared the report,
bath Greer and Assoctates end Ultresystems~ bent over b~ckwards tn order to consider
those hotel p~aJects that were presently .~i the drawinq board for expansion~ those
that h~d been ~ubmitted to the city far pl~n check and those that ~ere Just merely
speculation, but ove~n those thet were merety speculation were analysed. Ne referred
to page 105 of the Response to Comments whtch indicates th~t Attachment 2 goes through
the cumutative impacts and re~d portions of that response end stetnd the cumuletive
in~pacts have been reasoned and analysed bY the drafters of the EtR. He steted this
brings up A very important point in that the oppositton continualty stressed that
this was a 2100-room hotet; and that this Is not a 2100-room hotel and is a 1600•room
hotel proposed; that the posslbtllty of another 500 rooms has been consldered with
the Clty of Anaheim ana It is subJect to the epproval of all conclittons and pe~mits~
a review~ an EIR bci~g done on that ~otential expension later on, and it is also
contingent upon a certain occupancy rete, just as the Inn-at-the Perk lease, so to
come forword and say we shoul~l h~ive considerc~d .i 2100-room hoCel Instead of 1600-
room hotel grossly misstates the evidence.
Mr. Gelb sl~ted hQ believed ~ther issues raised have t,cQn responded to by the
cngineering firm and he would urge the Planning Commission to review the other written
evidence which has brPn submitted by the propanent of this pro,ject wfiich has been
lntroduced into evid~nce by the City Attorney.
Mr. Gelb referred to Mr, 5tevens commants regarding the fact that,in his opinion,
the burden of proof had not been ~~r.t by Che applicant regarding the findings of fact
that must be reached by the Ctty Planning Commissl~oc+. He stated there are flve
basic findings of facc which the Ccnmission must make before granting any conditior-al
use p+ermit; first, that the proposed use is properly on^ for which a conditional use
permit Is authorized by the taning Code~ or that said use is nc.+ listed therein as
being e permitted use; that the Anaheim Genaral Plan destgnates Che prope~ty for
commerctal recreation land uses and provides that thP PR =one be developed in
accordance with the surrounding zoning; that the proJact is consistent and is one
whlch is prop~rly one for a condicional use permit and. ~n fact, conditi~nal use
permits have been granted in the past and cited CUP No. 2130 which was the 14-story~
157-foot high original Wrather Htltnn pr~posal; CUP No. 2265 for a 16-story, 150-foot
high Marriott Hatel, so clearly they have rr~t thetr bu~de~~ on this issue; (b) that
the proposed use witl not adversely affeci the adjolning land uses and the growth a~d
devetopment of the area in which it is proposed to be located; and noted as potnCed
aut by Mr•. McOunough of Hilto~ Na~els Ccrporatton~ this proJect wil) do wonders for
the eco~omy and ~djoi~ing land owncrs; that what they are really talking about here
is a conventlon center hotel that wlil b~ adjacent to the Gonvention Center and
ailowing for conventioneers to come and atay at either the Anaheim Ni~ton~ er the
Marrtott Hotel, or the ~nn-at-the-Park and walk over to the Convention Center and
they dc~n't have to be bused in from anywhere and dont have to make those other trips
which they wauld ordinarily have to meke tf they were staying further down the
boulevard; that they will be in one co~venient iocation and the city will have that
ability to attract conventions that they cannot attract now because of the existing
facilities.
Mr. Gelb stated regarding the enviro~mental impact, thar there will be certain impacts
when thereis any c4nstruction activity ; that the Draft EIR talks ~baut them and
talks about shading~ noise levels incrassed, traffic~ polt~ticx~ levelz~ atc., but
a10 of them f~av~ an impact on the environment y~~~hare noc significant adverse lmpacts:
' JL
~
~
MiNUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING l...r~~115510N, Janwry 25, 1982 82-43
th~t the city has dQtarm(ned th~t tt wants a convention center hotel And it is a
decislon they meEe ~nd the developer haa not made that detnrminatlon; ~1-nt whet they
are tryi~g to do ts provide pians that wil) csat tha needs of the c(ty a~~d tho
commu~lty and also comply with all state end governmenta) regulatic~:s regardtng
the anvironment ~nd other Issues and argue that the environmentel Impact of having
~ hotel directly next the Co~venti~n Center wilt have less of an edverse impact thsn
having the hotels either scAttered around or hav(ng a canventlon center facitity
somewhere else which woulc' require busing the conventioneers to the convention cenCor
and bacl: ta thet r hate) , t~ie restsurAnts ~ etc, He noted Inn-aX-the-Park i s wi thin
welking distance of the Convention Center~ thnrefore~ a hotel guest may stsy there
and attend a convention and not have to use thetr car, so this hotel w(11 not
significantly adversely affect the ed)oining land uses and the growth and development
o' the area.
Mr. Gelb contlnued that another finding required is thet the size and shape of the
site for the proposed use (s adrquate to ailow the full development of the proposed use
ln a manner not detrimental to the part(cular area nor to the peace, health, safety
and qeneral welfare; that thc EIR adequately dlscusses these i~sues with the regard
to fire~ water, police, elect~•Ical, gas~ housing and finds that chere a~~ no signif{cant
adverse impacts and they also touch the area of parking as the representative from
Hilton Hotels discussed, the unique asset of ~ multl-use convent(on center is that
It ~~rovides all kinds of uses within the building; that chGre are people 9oing there
to the restau~ents, they are sleeping there~ going to mestings there and~ therefore,
they don't nned the same amount of parking as needed for separete facilities. He
stated tha repart done by Planning Reseerch Curporat(on~Voorhees, by Mr. Gick Kalau
A~aylxes and break:, d~own and shows by statistics that chc parking requirement of the
Anaheim Mun(ctpAl Code does notieally adequately address a mulcl-use hotel; that
thay understand,and the staf~ report brings it out~that chis is under study and
there is a revtsion planned ta address this issue that perhaps the parkiny cade was
not louking to the futu~e and Inoking to the inc~eased advent of compact cars or
tandem parking; that 2~100 spaces r-ay be adequat~ ta ser~ice the hotel; ~hat they
have proposed 3266 for the hotel which is only a 6$ deviation from the code. He
stated there have bten exc~pcfc~ns i~ weiver~ granted.
Mr. Geib conttnued tt~at anc>ther finding is that the traffic genorated by the propos~d
use will not impose an undue burden upon the st~eets and h(ghways decigned and
improved to carry tF.~~ traffic in the area; and referrad to the traffic clrculatton
report studies by Greer and Assuctates and other docum,.cation which points out thet
traffic aill not create an adve~rs~ impact; and also, ri~ey will have this multi-use
concept and may eliminate s4me of the traffic; that in this area he would also
introduce into the record two letters which have been sent to the City of Anaheim
from the Ge~eral Partners nf C-D tll, written by Mr. Naftali Deutsch stati~g that
in the e~-ent there is a deficiency created !+y the tandem parking andlor waiver of
the perking requirements~ there will be parking spaces provided for the hotel; that
in acidltion, an~ther letter was written assuring the city that if this plan is put
into effect as the desig;~ has been submitted to the Planning staff, additional
engineering and construr.tion wi11 be put into the replacement perking structure to
accommodate two additional floors which can be adde~d to the roof in the event
oxpension is nceded. He staced these are offered as mitigatJng measures in the
event that there is some deficiency with the parking situation which all evidence
says there wlll not be.
i/25l82
~~
,~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ January 2y, ~982 81-44
Mr. Gelb statad tha last findtng is that tha granting of the condittonei uss permtt
under th~ conditions tmposed~ tf sny~ will ~ot be datrtmantal ta the peece, h~alth~
'afety ~~d general welfare~ of the cttizens of the Ctty af Ana~elm and stated they
have t~lked about that tn thst thare are overrldtny constd~rsttons such es econom~cs~
and the staff report talks •bout tncr~ASad rmvenues to th~ city. He stated also
in grsnting the parking rralve~~!he Commisston underst~nds the special circumstances
which must be shown, ~nd he would cite the multt-usQ of the conventton center hotel
as fer as thsir parktng watvar ts concerned end the stricteppt~icetian would deprive
the property of privllegea enJoyed by others~ a~d added on~ Cortamissioner has informed
him that the Commissianers are aware of the other Condltional Use Permits whtch have
been given tn others for parktng and for the hei9ht restr{ctlon and for the on-sale
alcoholic beverages. He ststed he believed the written documentat~lon presented
and oral testl~ony )ustifles the approval of the CUP b certificetion of the EIR.
RECESS: 4:40 p.m.
RECONVENE~ 4:50 p.m.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman 9ushore scated th~ Pinnning Commission {:nows that in the past when environmental
impact reports have been challenged~ the courts d~ want every"i'~dotted and every"c"
crossed and A short time ago a Tentativ~ Tract Map was reversed by a Judge and brought
beck to the Conmtssion for a pul~lic heartng because a neighbor got a nottce and was
told not to w~rry about it and as a resuit he was not present fo~ the hearing~ thare
was an EIR Negative Declaration and the Judge put down that his ruling would be for
a~ EIR and the develaper might as we11 come back and esk for one. Ne stated with all
the things brought up here today~ he did not see why this should not be brought to a
halt to absnrb what has been hea~d today and have a chance to answer some of the
questions; that he felt the EIR did skirt some Issues e~d th~re are some things such
as thG television recepttan which w~~s a part of other EIRs and was a problem in the
area; that there ere concerned citizens here today and he was not saying he would stop
a proJect on t.v. receptfon, but he has a whole Iist of things and he read some of
these things and marked them before hand and he thought there were a few things that
skirted ~he tssues and he thought if it gets right do~wn to it~ chat there ara very few
Commissioners who. read that thing ss carefully as they shouid; that they got it Friday
afternoon and he has to be honest and say he has not read all of it; that he read
pa~t of it going dawn to Fallbr~ok yesterday and never got to the back part of it
and briesfly re~d chrough the whole thing, but did not read it as thoroughly as he
should have and hethnught it is tirn~thc Commission tuok ~ close look and hava the
Hilton Express stap here for nothing oa re maybe than e whistle stop~ but take a close
look and he thought there shauld be a postponement at this time.
Commissioner Nerbst disagretd and stated he feit he had done his hc~mework; that
this is a project which he th=nks ~s very unique to the City of Anaheim; that the
Cammission has gone through a similar p~oject a few nbnths aqo as far as the Hilton~
Wrather group was concerned and it r~ss a sEmilar sized proJect with all the criteria
that has been talked about today and it has been discussed before; tha~t in laoking at
an EIR raport, he sees it as eve rybady trying to meet th~ criteria which tfie stato
has laid down~ but it all depends on which side of the fence you are on~ for flr
against. but you ca~ alweys ftnd some ^roblems with tt. Fb stated that is the problem
with att~~neys, that Yhey can talk for or againat; that th~ ".ommissioners are civilian~
and are the ones to finally make ttve decison; +th~t he thought the project has a lot
of n~erit ~n~ he agraes that it should be close to tha Convention Ce~terand will
etiminate a lot of the use af the automobile~ and they are meeting the crlterla for
parktng p robably g~eatcr than any oChar hotel and have agreed to suppty more parking
if ~equired depending upon the need snd thought it would be done with an sgreen~nt~
1/25/82
~
l I
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JanuAry 25~ 1992 82'45
Commissioner Bouas agreed the metter ahouid ba postponed becauss ahe falt th~ Efa
:tudy is not All that lt should be; snd that the proJact Is sorr~thing this city +ws
seeking Andts son~thing they have cert~iniy Indicated they wanted, but felt the
Cvmmisstoners should teke a better look before vc+t(ng.
Commisiior-ar King indtceted he egreed with Commtssioner Hcrbst an d steted he h~d
read the reports.
Commissioner Fry stated he has long been ~n admirer of Mr, Wrathe r and wantod to
someday be abie to say thanks for taking a chance on Anaheim 26 years ago when he put
a restaurant in a house on West Street; that the W~ather Corporation has long been
the ma(nstay and one of the foundetions that wes A catalyst to p u tting Anaheim on
the map as the entertelnment center of the worid; however. he fo u~d irony in sc~me
of their ststements regarding room supply when they say the suppty of rooms e xceeds
the demnnd; that he had road In the newspaper Just last week that the Wrathe~ Corpora-
tlon Is anticipating building thetr own rc~om additlons. Ne state d he did n~t undar^
stand why if the supply of roc,ms exceeds the demaind~ the Wrather Corporation probably
is qoing to be coming before the Commiss~on wlth a tremendous expansion on the corner
of Katella and West; that it is no secret that the Wrather Corpo ration and Hilton
Corporation were i~ negotiation5 together for over a year and fo r reasons known only
to tham, those negottations ceas~d and everythingcame ta a halt. eve~ though they had
city approval; and now the Hiiton group has con+c in on their own on the sdme site wlth
an expanded pro}ect for besicaliy the same type thing and now Wrather is opposed; that
he has read these volumes of materials; that one Co~nmissi~ncr said this project
provides better parking in numbers than anyone else and that msy be truc in numbers,
but the style is different with stacked park{ng and compar.t car spaces which ihe city
has not adopted as part of their code (and indicated he thought a code a~ndment should
bc adopted). He stated hp wtil not be oppased ta extending this matter for a period
of time in order to give more time for in-depth study to tlie res t of Che Commlsslon.
Comnissioner McB~:rney agreed with Commissioner He~bst in :hat thie is a very vlable
to the city ~nd wiil benefit the city tremendousiy; hawever~ he felt the EIR has a
few areas that need polishing and the Commlssion should take the time to address them
because this will be of trert~ndous value to the clty and he did not want to approve
it knowing the~e are areas left out.
Lommissioner Barnes agreed with ':ommissioner McBurney and stated she did feel some
of th~ points b~ought out concerning th~ EIR were va1-d; th~t some of the canclusions
in the ~esponse were nat there for the Commission to andiyze; th at shG Is ve ry much
in favor of the hotei and wants te sce tt go fnrward~ but did think that It would not
go forward anyway uniess some a~ these questions were answered; that some af tht
concerns about p~rki~g and tra~fic were not ansv,erod adequatety; that she has bsen on
the Commission seven years and she did nct think any of the Commissioners are brilliant
enough, ev~~ though they got the information an F~iday and perha p s have read it and
have read a lot of Elas, shc fett the Commission could use some addi~ionai time to go
over what they have now; *hat she has had a little bit of expe rience writing EIRs
and this has been ve~y difficult for her to assimilate in three deys.
Chsirman Bushore ststed before the Crmnission can even addrass the pro,ject itself
with respoct to tho variance needed and tha benefits to the city* thn EIR has to be
certified and asked the appticant how much time it will take to get ail the questions
prcperly addressed.
~ iz5isz
~ '}
M1 NUTES ~ ANAHE 1 M C 1 TY PLANN 1 NG COMM I SS I ON ~ J~nus ry 25 ~ 1982 82 -46
Mr. Gelb stat~d ha t~ A Ilttie confused whether the Commlsston would Ilke tirrK to
Just dtgest thc motert~i :ubmitted~ ar If ther~ are specl~l comments on whtch th~y
would tik~ fu~ther information~ and if thet ts the cese~ they would iike some gui dence.
Chal ~men 8ushora ststed the Commtssion would I ike to be abte tA absorb this meter ial ,
but would elso Iike the spectfic isaues brought ~~p today dtscussed. He stAted a
transcript wtll prob~bly be mede avAtlaAle of this heartng. He stated if the matter
is continued and addttlonel t(me is needed. the pdtittonmr can request en additio~al
continuance.
Comm(ssfon~r Bernes stated she Is taiking about some of the potnts brought up in tha
responses, and indicated she found some of the same things to be true whlch Mr.
Schw~reze brought up; and msybe that was bae~use somettmes the conclusions were based
on three pages~ but the conclusionary statements to her were la~ktng~ for axampi~
the kraffic study conclustanary stAtements were dtfficult to follow, such as (n o~+e
area there was mention thet Marbo~ a~~d Bal i is the primery problem and is pre-exi sting
and will continue to be a probiem~ but nnocher area says the primary problem is
Narbor andConventionWay and Harbor and Katella, and she felt that couic' be clari fied.
She s te ted therr! was rwt an abundance nf i nadequac i es .
She stated also the televtsion reception was not covered In the EIR and perhaps i t
should be~ in addition to the other concarns mentio~~d by Mr. Schwartze,
Commissioner Nerbst stated the ~ece~clon problem can be handled wlth a tonditic~n
of thc Conditional Use Permit,
Commi ~„ ioner Fry stated he woul d 1 i ke to knaw what i s qoi ng to happen ta the automob i les
during the course of the construction.
Conm i ss i ane r Barnes ~ tated she wou 1 d need anothe r two weeks to go ove r the E I R to
tei) the petltionr.r wh~t addittonal information is needed.
Chairman Bushore stated when the Conventlon Cereter wes expanded, we did contact
other c i t ies and that he boks at thi s as another arm of the Conventlon Center i f i t
is going to be the Anaheim Conws~tion Cente~ Note1 and we usual ly consult othnr e i ties
and some coun[y agencies; that he thought so+ne af the responses to letter comments
wer~ totai iy inadequat~~ such as~ "this is a vai id point that should ba considered
during the decision-making process," and mast EIRs make a better response than that
and offer some mitigatinn things that could be done; and a resp~nse that "this is a
writer's opinion" and h~ did not feel the r~sponse tries to rebut the writer's op inion
and doesn't say whether the writer is right or wrong or maybe that ha has some val id
points and he w~uld 1 ike to see a 1 ictle expansion on some of thpse issues; that
the nighttime co~struction was discussed and he thought the~e were specific hours set
for construction when the htarrioct was constructed to protect the rtsidents~ and it
was mentianed that there was nothing in the EIR as to the impact on the surroundi ng
hotels, be thev only transient residents, he wanted those people's stey in A~ahe+m
to be es pleasant as possible.
Cornmissioner Fry pointed out the nighttime eonstructto~ was not the Hilton's sugg~stion
but the city's, '
Chair.~an 8ushore continued chat the televisio~ reception was e~rablem with the
Marriott. He stated he wouid be happy to moke a phone cali to the applicant afte r
ha has reviewed his nc+tes and the EIR more fully. or that he Nould be wtiting to
put his cort~rnents in writing if it wi 11 help.
1/25/82
~
d ;:
MINUTES~ ANANFIM CITY PIANNING COHNISSION~ January 25~ 1982 8Z'47
Mr. Galb st+~ted b~sad an con~~ts mede here Lod~y~ and sPcer te~ikl~g with hla
tonsulta~nts and the an9tn~ertng consultsnts en~ployed by the city~ ha thoug~t
they could prapare soma wrttt~n supplert~nt~ addreaaing these iasuas.
ACTION: Chairrr-~n Bushora offered • nwtion, sec~ ~ded by Commi~atonar Barnes and MOTtON
~ES that conatderatto~ of the aforemenkianed metter be continued to the reguleriy-
schedutod meeting of February 8~ 1982~
ChAirmsn Bushora agreed with Commtssioner Bsrnes that the pualtc heert~g should not
be re-opened at the Fabruary 8 hearing unless thar~ is some new inforrt-~tion to be
submitted.
Jack Whtte~ Assistant City Attarney, s~ated the Commlsslon has held the hearing and
recetved the Input a~d e~e requesting further respanses to the comr~nts th~t were
mede today~ In additton to the conrnents previously made.
Chairma~ Bu~hore steted it is possible this wlll be cantinued beyond the two weeks
and it will not bc re-advertised.
Commiasionnr 8arnes asked that the wrltte~ responses be made available t:, all parCies.
Jack White axplainad this is n~t e contlnuing debate process; thet ofter the commenta
are mede, th~ law requires that tho agency respond to thase camments; and tf Commisslo~er
Barnes' suggestion is that respanses that are p~epared Row by the consuttant would
~esult in further comn~nts, that would result in fu~ther re~punses. etc.~ that is
not the intent. He state~ certalnly the responses that ore prepered and will go to
the Commission can be made avaflable to anyone interested with the understanding that
this hearinq is contlnued and there will not be further public hearings into the issue.
~ ~ a ~'
MINUTES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ¢ANUARY 2y~ 1982 82-48
ITE_M NO_„6: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS S, AND VARIWCE_ N_0_. 3253:
PUBLIC HEARING. AMINER: PIiILIP A. AND THELMA SCUKA~ S1F2 Vallacit~~ Westminste,r~ CA
92$04. Praperty described as en trreguleriy-shaped parcel of tand consistinq of
spproximstely y290 aqua~e feet~ 2110 Weet Sunset Avenue. P roperty p+~esently
classified RS-7200 (Rasidentisl, Sinqle-Family) Io~+e.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MiNIMUM SIDE 1fARD SETBACK~ (b) MINIMUM REAR YARD
SETBACK, (c) MAXIMUM FENCE NEIGI4T TQ RETAIN AN EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND FENCE.
There w~s no one Indiceting thetr p~esence In oppositlo~ to sub)ect request~ and
although the staff rapert w~s not read~ It is referred to end made a part of the
m{nutas.
Philtp 5cuks~ owner~ steted he acqutred this property in December~ 1'17~, without
benefit of an escrow and they were not awere of en: zcx~inq violatlons and '.~ appeared the
room addttlon had bsen there for e number of years. Ile stt~ted for the past ten yeers
the property has been rented ~d they have kept the property tn goc~d co~ditton and
h~ve been a good netghbor and have had no compl~tnts unti) recenttY; that they
dtscovered the pronerty was being occupied hy three femltles. inste~d of one and took
poasession of the property in NovembAr, 1981~ and have bee~ renovatin~ it In order to
sell It. Ile stated o~ December 10, 1981. they were rwtifled hy the Zoning
Enforcemant Officer that there had been a complaint about the re~r+ addttton end after
talking to the Ptenning Depertment. becrme aw~re thet a bulidinq permit was applled
for in March~ 1969. and a letter dated March 24~ 14~A. f~c~m the Butlding Department
indicsted there were severat items which had to be c~rretted before a Certificate of
Compliance could be tssued and swne of these items ha~ been correrted, Ne st~ted
the existing mom additian Is well bullt and is In good cenditlon and ~~e has
co~tactad ai) the adjoining nelghbors In the cul-d~-sac and h~s siqned stetements
f ~om them that they hav~ no obiectionx ta the additto~. Ne st++ted they h~ve a
potential buyer for the p~ope~rty and the listing speclfically stated they did ~ot
bellevQ the play-room had a bullding permit and the ~tenti~l buyer agreed to brinq
the sdditlon uP to code If thls varlence is app~oved~ except for the reer
encroachn~nt.
7tiE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
M~. Scuke respo~ded to Chalrmnn Dushn~e thet thn west end ~f the buiidinq was 3 feet
f rom the extsting block wall snd they can i~~ke that 5 feet which would tmp~ove the
eesthetic value of the butldtng and thet they would also include a winde~w. He
explained there wouid be no problem bringing the bullding up to standard codrs. He
also explained there wouid not be a problen+ reducine~ the he(qht of the fence. Mr.
Scuka expletned there ts ~n epartment complex to th~ reAr and none of those windows
apen or face thelr pro~erty and the closest buildtng is 35 fr..et f~cxn the block w~l)
and the block wall is alnx~st 7 feet hlgh.
It wss noted the Pla~~ing Ql~actor or his autl~orixed representative has determined
that the proposed project falla wltRin the definitton of Categorica) Exen~tions~
Class 5~ a~ defi~ed in para~raph 2 of the City of Maheim Environmental Impact Report
Gaideltnes and Is, therefore, categnricalty exempt fran th~ requtrement to prepare an
E I R.
~izsis:
~~ ~~r~' F ~.
~~
MINUTES~ ANIW~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ JANUARY 25~ ~9R2 82-49
ACTION: Comrnissloner KIn4 offered Resolutlon No. PCBZ-~ end moved for Its passaqe
an a ptto~ that the A~ahelm Cit Planning Commitsten dc~es heraby Arant Veriance No.
3x53~ In part~ gr~nting walver (b~~ on tha basis of th~ unusuel sh~pe of the p~operty
and on the basit thet the room •ddition is •xisting and hes not been detrlmsntal !o
tha su~rounding propertfes ~nd denying w~ive~t (a) and (c) on the bests that !he
petitlon~r stiAulatad at tha pubilc heeri~g to con~ly with tot+inq cede rsqulrements
and subJect to Interdepartrnental Commiteee reconrnendatio~~.
On roll ca11~ the foregotng ~esolutton w~s passed by ths followinA vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 9ARNES. BOUAS, BU5110RE~ FRY~ HERBST. KING~ McaURNf'~
NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
1 TE~ 7; E I R CATEGORI CAI, EXEMPTI ON-CLASS 5 AND VARI ANCE N0. 32~1~;
- .
PUDLIC HEARING. 04MER: NEST SNORES DEVELOPMENT~ INC.~ 103R N. Tustint Sulte 310~
Orange~ CA g2667. AGENT: PAUL ENLIt~E~ 3~5 S. 01d Brtdqe Road~ Anahetm~ CA q28f17.
Proparty deseribed as an Irregutarly-sheped parcel nf l~nd cansistina af
approximately .7b acre~ 120 South Mohler Drive. Pro;~rty presently ciaselfled RS-NS-
22,000(SC)(Restdentlal. Stngle-Femily HillsfdQ-Scenic Corrider Overi~ny) y~e.
VARIANCE REQUE5T: WAIVER 0~' NINIMUH LOT AREA TO ESTA6LISN A 2-LOT SUBOIVISION.
Thera ~ves one person lndltsting his presence fn opposltlon to subject raquest~ and
although the staff repo~t was not rnad~ it is refe~red to and rr~de a~art of the
minutes.
Vfnce Duboi~~ (secreia~ry could not verify narr,~), r~p~osenti~q tt~st Shores
Oevelc-pment, Inc., stated they would request a two-week cor-tlnuance b~cause the~a are
peepie present (n opposltton and the p~p~~e (~ fav~r of the pro.j~ci h~d ta le~ve
during the p~evious long hesrtng.
ACTION: Commisstoner Barnes offe red ~ nr~tlon~ seconded by Comml~sioner King snd
~~ CARRIED~ th~t consid~ration of Lhe aferementioned m~tter be cantinued te the
regularly-scheduled meeting of February S, 1982, at the request of the octitioner.
ITE~M_NQ~ 8; EiR NEGATIVE DECLARATI_A` N ANp CON'r~~Al. U5E P~Rl11T N0. 22g3;
PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNER: FLBERT L. ANp LIDA L. SMiTN, 12921 {~heeler Place, Ssnta Ana~
CA 92705. M~f.NT; BUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF pR/1h~GE COUM;Y ~ 4~G0 C~mcws Dr( ve. trewport
Beach, 92660. Property d~scribed as an f~rcgulariy-shaped parcel of land conslsting
of approximetely O.y acre, 24~A South Harbor lioutevard. Property presently
clss~tfied RS-A-4;~p(~ (ReStde.~tle1, Agriculiu,•e) Zone,
CONpITIONAI USE REQUE5T: TO R~TAiN AM AUTOMOBI~E RENTAL AGEMCY.
It was noted Lhe eppllcant was nox present.
ACTION: Chairman Bushore offered a no~lon, secanded bY Cornnissioner Dsrnes and
T~TT~ CARRIE~~ that co~sideretion af ti~ ~fQrer~entianed matter be contin~ed to the
ragula~iy-scheduled meeting of Fabruary a, 1982~ tn ordRr for the apDlicant to be
prese~t.
1/Z5~2
i
::
MIHUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P1.ANNIHG COMMISSION~ .lNNI1ARY 25~ 1~1R2 8Z-~+9
ACTION: Comnisslone~ King otfe rod Resolutio~ No. PCB~•7 e~d mov~~ for its pasaaqa
en~adoptlo~ that tha Anahelm Cit Pl+~~ning Commissicx~ does harc<<y qrant Varlance No.
32S3~ in part~ gra~ting w~iver (b~~ on th• ~~sis of the unusuai shape of the property
~nd on the best~t that the roo~n •dditlo~ (t existing snd h~s not hee~ detrln+~nts) to
the :urrounding propertles snd denying w~lvers (a) ~d (c) a- the basts tha~t th~
petitioner stlput~t~d at the public h~aring ta comply wtth zaning c~de requira+++ents
and :ubJect to Interdepartnbnta) Can~mitt~e ncon+rne~dations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the follawinq vot~:
AYES: COMMf SSI ONERS: BARNES, 90UAS ~ 8US-IORE . FRY ~ NER65T ~ KI NC, McDURNEY
NOES: CONMISSIQNERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ITF.M N0. 7: EIR CATEGORICAI. EXEMPTION-CLASS ~ ANQ VARIANCE N0. 325~~:
~wu`~~. ~~..~ ~ ~~r~~. ~ w~~~~.~+.~~
PUBLIC NEARINC. OMJER: WEST SNpRES DEVELOPMENT~ INC.~ 1038 k. Tustin, Sulte 310,
Orange~ cn 9a667. AGENT: F~AUL EIILINE~ 3~-5 S. 01d B~tdge Road~ Anahetm~ CA 92807.
Prope~ty described ss an irregularly-shaned pa~cel of Ibnd consl~tin~ of
spproximately .7h ~c~e, 120 South Mohlar Drive. Property presently classtfled RS-HS-
22~000(SC)(Reside~ttal, Single-famtly Hitlside-Scenic Co~ridor ~ve~l~y) 7.one.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT AREA TO ESTABLI5f1 A 2-LOT SUBDIViSI~N.
There was one person indicating his presence tn opposttioR to subject request~ and
although the ataff report was not read~ it Is referred to and msde a part of the
minutes.
Vince Dubolse (secrQtary could not v~rify name), representi~g West Shores
Development~ Inc., stated they would requtst a two•week continuance because there are
pe:ople prose~t in op~ositlon and the people in favor af the nroJtct had to leave
d~~ring the prevtous lonq heartng.
ACTION: Cammiss'~ner Barnes offered a entlon~ seco~ded dy Commissioner Ktng a~d
t~~ CARRIED. tt,st consideratl4n of the aforementloned matter be co~tTnued to the
~egul~rly-scheduleo meeting of febru~ry 6~ ~982~ st the ~aquest of the p~ti~ioner.
ITEM N0. 8: EIR NEG.\TIVE DECLARATION AND CONDiT10NAl U5E PERMIT Ntt. 2293:
.___~._...__ .__.~.__ _.~_ ~..
PUBLIC HEARiNG. OMIER: ELBERT l. ANO IIDA L. SMITH, 12921 Nheeier Ploce, Santa Ana,
cA 9z7o5. IIf+ENT: SUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF ORANG~ COUNTf. 40G0 Cempus D~iv~, Newport
Beach, 92660. Property described as en irregularly•shaptd parcel of land consisting
of approxtmately O.S acre~ 2~00 South Narbor Boulevard. Property presently
ciassifted RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agriculture) ~ene.
CONQITIONAI, USE REQUEST: TO RETAIN AN AUTONOBILE RENTAL ACENCY.
it w~s noted the applicant wes rat prrsan~t.
ACTION: Chatrmen Bushore offered a rt+Qtian~ seco~ded by Commisstoner Harnes and
~Iaf1~N CARRIED, that caRSideration of the aforema~tioned matter be continued to the
regut0rly•scheduied meeting of February ~, 1982~ in orde r for thc appticant to be
pfesent.
~ risrgi
! :
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 25~ 19$2 82~5~
T~t1 N~~: E I R NEGATI VE pECIARATI 0N AND CONQI TI QNAL USE PERMI T N0. 2?,44:
PUOLIC NEARING. OWNER: RQdERT K. AND MARY L. NONG~ 1200 westmont Drive~ Andh~im~ CA
92a01. AQENT: BANARSI L. APARWAL~ 137Qy f~anno~ Orive, Gerrttos~ CA ~1Am1. Preperty
de~cribed as a rectangularly-sh~ped pa~cei of land con~tsting of approxtrtu+tely t1.72
ac~s, 263x•31+ ~1eat Le P~lm~ Avonus. ProMrty p~esently clessifled CL (Canmerclei,
L 1 mt ted) Zone.
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SAIE B~ER AND WINE iN A PROPOSEO RESTAURANT.
Thare was no o~e tndicattnq thelr presence tn oppositton to sub~ect raquest. and
although tf~e staff report wes not resd, It ts referred to and mnde a~art of the
minutes.
Banarsl L. Agerwal~ agent~ explalned he -s t+ra~osin~ an unlque restaurant serving
food from Indla and tn arder to insure the pleasure and canvenience of petrons, he is
requesting a permit to sell bee~ a~d wine. Ne oxpl~tned there is sufficlent parkino
avaiiable.
THE PU8L1C NEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Nerbst suggested the hours of operatlon shcwld be chAnned to 11:M1 a.m.
to 11:QA p.m.
ACTION: Commlaatoner He~bst vffered s motlo~~ seconded by thatrman Bushore end
MO Of~ CARRIED, that the Aneheim City Planning Commission h~s reviewe~ the propose)
to permit o~-sale bee~ and wine In a proposed restaurant on a rectangulariy-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approxlmetely 0.72 ~cres~ having a frontaqe of
approximately 130 feet on the south ~ide of La Palma Avenue. approximately 29~ feet
west of the c~nterline of Magnoli+~ Avenue (2G32-34 West la Palme Avenue); and doea
hereby approve the Negative Declar~tion fmn~ the r~quiren~ent to prepare an
envtronmental impact report e~ the basis that there would be na significant
indivtduel or cumulative adverso envtra~mental impact duc to th~ ~pproval of this
Negative Daci~ratian since the Maheim General Plan deslg~,~tes the subJect proparty
for general commerc{al land uses commensurate with the pror~osal; that no sensittve
environmentAl impacts are Involved in the proposal; that the inltia) Study submitted
by the petitione~ fndicates no signlficent f~dtvidual or cumulative ~dverse
envtro~n~tsl impacts; snd that the Negattve Declaration aubstanttaxinq the foreqoi~g
findings is on ftle in ch~ City of Maheim Planning Departn~ent.
Commtsstoner Nerbst offered Resolutton No. PC82-8 and moved for tts passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planntng Commission does hereby grant Conditivnal Usm
Permtt Wo. 2294 s=bJect to InterdepArtmental Conmittee recomn~endatlons.
0~ roil cell~ the foregoing ~esoluticx~ was passed by the fallowing vote:
AYES: COMMI SS I ONERS: BARNES ~ BOUAS, BlJSHORE, ~RY ~ HERBST, KI NG * NcBUR~~EY
!lOES: COHMISSIONERS: NONE
A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
t/25/82
,
r
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUAR~ 25~ 1~82 82-51
ITEM N0. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DECIARATION wAIVER OF COCE RE UIREMENT AND CONDITIONAI
U E " M~ ~N 0 . :
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER; RAYMONO T. TROLI.~ 13Q11 Enterorise~ Garden Grove, CA A2fi43.
P~operty described es a roctanpularly•shaped ps~cGl of tand censistinq of
app~oxim~tely 10.6 acre, 1400-145~ North Lekavlew Avenue. Property prasentlY
Glasaified ML (Industrlel~ Limited) Zone.
CONOITIONAI USE REQUEST: TQ PEItMIT CENCRAI, f1KFIC~S AND RETA;L SALES IN THf ML 2ANE
WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKINC SPACES.
There were twa persons indiceting the~ir presence In oppositton to sub]ect request,
a~d although the staff report was not resd~ tt Is referred to end mtide a part of the
minutes.
Ch~rlie fellagher~ W590 Macllrthur, stated they are requestinq th~ conditional use
permit to provtde furthe~ se~vices to the industrtel complex thoy are currently
developtng and feel It wiil be beneficiel to the compiex as well as the surrou~+ding
industrial uses to heve aa~dwlch shops~ c~nventen~e stares~ etc. 11e pointed out the
staff report shows this type of use hes been gr~+nted befQre and everything in the
staff re{wrt Is correct except In parag~eph 5 Nhich stAtes thts Is a~ 4~~Q26•square
foot bui tdinc~ and neted it Is onlY 14.~~OA square feet.
Dean Sherer~ Assistant Plannar~ clarified the parklnn ass calculated on the ib~4A0
square feet.
Waiter J. Sfitth~ 6571 Paseo Greco~ Anuheim~ st~+ted he (s reP~esentatinq the Mahelm
Economic Develepment Corpc~r~+tion and ~oted he had appeared at the last Plannin4
Commission meeting and introduced the Comprehensive Pian s~d would Indicate that the
Anaheim Economic Oevelo~ment Corporetion hat concsrns over wh;.~ gaes on in the
indust~i~l parks and thcy aili be appearing befare the Comnisslon from time to time
as propased developmentx are brouqht up end they are perttculArly concerned with uses
requtrt~g condttion~l use pe nnits. He stated they have examined thls eR~llcatto~ and
ar~ someiwhat conce~ned bncause this Is not an i~dustrial use. He referred to Page f1
of the ComPreNenslve P1~n whlch states that withln drt~nge County~ Anahelm has
approximately iJ~ of the total amount af avallahle land for tndustrial developmant
which is approxtmately 4.600 acres and that Is tn tha Canyon Industri+~l Area~ Stadtum
Industrial A~ea, Centra) Industrial Area a~d Freeway Industrlal Area~ and of that
acreage, approxtmately ~$ is curnently avatlable and ts elther undeveloped ar
undarde~-elaped and of the epproximste 1367 vacant acres ln 19f~1, approxtmately 480
acres are owned by publlc agencies o~ Southern Califarnia Edison Campeny and may
never be avallable for ck velonment. and In addition, GQ~ acres arc betng held by
firrns for nxpansio~ or tong-terr~ dispositinn; and therefore, it could be assumed that
there are 3~+~ acres in the four Industr(al areas which could become avatisble efter
1981. He stated there ts a scarcity of industrial land in l,naheim and mos~ of this
acreage (1t-5 acres) ts In smail parceis. Ne stated they ha~+c had l~tarested
industrlal orgenizatfa~s looking for larger parcels and have not been able to find
them. He stated they a~ concarned as they see m~re ~nd mere industrial property
turned into corm~e~cia) uses in the industriel aree and stated thTs conditional use
permit may not be in the best Interest of those co~cerne~ wtth the tndustrial area.
He referred to the stsff report which tndlcetes the sble purpose of the waiver is to
prevenlt disc~lmination snd none s~all be aporoved which wlil heve the effecc of
~rantin9 a sp~cial privllege ~ot ahsred by other simtlar properties. He stated he
„25,aZ _J
t
MINUTES~ JWIINEIM CITY PtANNING COMMISSfON~ JANUARY 25~ 1~Ax 82-52
would submit the g~enttng of thls pennit to be con~idered as gr~ntln4 a s~eclel
prlv{lege •nd sugqested the Commisslo~ de~y this roquest.
Mr. Gallaghar str ed the building in question is iust e small f~actton of the tota)
p~oJect s~d rop~esents mayb• 10~ of thn total t6n~~~o-square fc~ot corr~lex. He atatad
th~y ere trying to croate e se~vice for the surroundinq buliding~ in the pro_~ect to
enhsnce the potentisl development of thst aree tn draw n+ore peOple for busineases.
Ne stated (t is thetr feeltng that It wtll be a benafit rath~er th~n a detrimQnt.
Regardl~g the conme~t about e special privlieqe~ he noted there are other p~o)ects (n
the surrounding aree which enjoy simllar type uses.
Caorga Ktllshek. Generel Menager, 1larner lembert Company~ ;115 E~st La Palma~ stAted
they are oppoaed to thls request; that he is en interestad industrielist from the
ares and they find the~e are adequete cortxnerclai uses whtch provlde servtces to the
(ndustrlal area and did not thlnk this use woutd sdd snythinc~ to the indust~lal area
thet Is not already svellable. Fle potnted out thQre ~re con+n~rcl~l facilities
evallabte o~ Orangethorpe wtthin on~ block tn both directlans and there r~re
commerclal facilittes at the corner of L~keview and La Pa1mA. Iie staced thc
Northe~~t Industrtal Ares is very pr~ciaus and should be preserved an~1 used for
industria) purposes and shouid not bn f~ittered ewry in sn+atl submarine sAndwich shop
type uses .
Mr~ Kllishek stated qutte recencly the City Council deelt with th~ nroblem of traffic
congestlon on Lakeview and la Pairna, ebout one block from this l~cation and durinq
the caurse of those discusslons. the City Treffic Engineer polnted out th~t the
Intersectlon at Lakevlew n~d La Pelme wes far Getow the d~slgned ca~acity and does
not have ade~luate capacit~~ t~ handle th~ existing treffic and he felt a~y additional
c wrmerclal uses could o~l~~ add to the existin~ trAfflc problems.
Mr. Gallagher stated ther~ ere a lot of carone~ciel uses in the area~ however, they
are askt~g to provtde certatn service type businesses and this wtl) be a small
percentage of the tot~l pro.~ect. He: stated the~e ts more tht~n adequate lr~nd
~vaileble and the developer ~f this proJect has ontlans on atx~ut 75 acres In the
surrounding area whlch he p1an3 to develop Into more t~d~str(al buiidtngs for ~ew
buildings in the aree within the next two ysars and tn the long run the commercial
uses exlsting wlll not be adequate end laoking at the overatl plcture~ they feel this
w~l) benefit the sur~ounding a~ea.
Conxnisslonsr Herbst stAtrd it appesrs this partlculer bullding was desic~nRd
Intenttonelly for cammerc(ai us~s whtch is one of the thinqs discussed by the
Planning Commt~~sion many times end the Commisslon does not always see the Dlans. He
stated thc Canmisston has diSCUSSed haw much conantrciei is going to be a„ owed In the
tndustrial are~ and he has been opposed to any commerclat uses in the industrial area
and he felt a stend h~s to be taken someplace end noted a certatn emount of
commercial uses has been allowed on Kraemer and on Lal:ev~ew~ but every a~er Is not
entitled by right to hbve conwnerctal uses. He stated indust~tal land is a very
precious conKnodity and we have f~r too little to provide Jobs this ctty ne~ds. Ne
stated he thouc,~ht the Commtsslon shoutd be wery hard nosed ~nd he would recam~end a
denial.
Commissionar Barnes ag~eed and stated it is ttme to put a stop to comnerclel
devClopments in the industrla) =one. She stated there srQ islands tn the tndustrial
zone where corm~rclal uses have been alla~rad. but in this area, conxnerctal uses are
t/25/A2
ti k
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 25~ 1~82 82-53
not needed end pointed aut that slmilar uses were In the shapping center on Rtverdate
and wen! out of buslness. She polnted out there are a lot of commerctAi uses on
Orang~tharpe. Lakevlew and Imperial.
Chnlrman 6uahore atsted meny of the exlating usea were allowed by the Clty Council
and that he would agree with the othe~ Commisslonera that he does not see eny purpose
for these uses in this locstlon.
Jack White, Asststant Ctty Attorney~ pointed out in 197q the City C~unci) adopted a
specia) ~rovisfon relattng to the Canyon Industrtal Area concerning the grenttng of
conditio~el uae permits that rolates to the uses for which CUP can be grented and It
is ve ry ltmited end the only one that Is close t~ being app~oprl~te ts Sectian
18.51.050.605 whtch Is for commerclal sales whtch primertly serve and ere compatible
wlth the tndustrlal custome~s and thore Is no provislon in the code for uses such as
general office butldings.
AC~_ ON_ Commissioner Bern~s off~red e motlon~ secorded by Commissloner Herbst a~nd
MOTIAN CARR1~0~ th~t the Anahelm City Ple~nninq Commtssi~n has revtew~d the pronosei
to permit general offices end retail seles in the ML (Industrlal, Llmited) tone with
watver of minimum number of parking spaces o~ t~ rectangulflrly-shaped parcei of la~nd
cansl~ting of approxim~tely 10.6 acres, having a frontage of ~pproximntely 7QA feet
on the east side of ~akeview Avenue. appraximatcly b4Q ftet south of the centerllne
of Orsnqethorpe Avenue (140Q-1450 North Lakeview Avenue); and does hereby rpp rove the
Negative Declaration from the requlremont to prepere an environmental tmpact report
on the hasis that there wou{d be no slgniftcant indlvtdual or cumutattve adverse
environmental impact due ta the approve) af this NegAtive Declar~tion stnce the
Anaheim General Plan designatos the subJect pr~perty for generel industrial lan~ uses
commensurste with the propasal; thet no sensttive envi~onmental Impacts are invoived
tn the proposal; that the Initi~i Study submltted by the petitic~~er indicetes na
signlficant indtvidual or cumulative advtrse e~vironmentel impects; and that the
Noyative Decleratlon substanttattng the foregoing findinc~s ls o~ f11e (n the City of
A~aheim Planntng Depa~tment.
Commtsstonor Barnes offered a motton, secondod by Commissloner Bouas and MOTIAN
CARRIEO, that the Anahelm City Planntng Conxntsslon daes hereby deny the request for
wtive~ of co~e ~equtrement on the basls that there are no special ctrcumstances
applicable to the proporty such as size, shape, topography' locatian or surrounding
which da not apply to other identlcaliy zoned propertles in the vlcinity.
Commissioner 8arnes offered Rcsolution N~. PC~'-g and n~ved far its passage and
adoptlon that the Mahetm City Ptanning Conm~Ssion does hereby deny Conditiona) Use
Permit No. 2291 on the basis that Industrial iand is llmited and should not be
utlllzec! for c~mmertlal uses +~n~+ appruval could set an undestrable precedent in the
Canyon Industrlal A~ea.
On roil call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BQUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KINr, McBURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIOIJERS: NON~
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Jac.k White~ Assiscar.t Ctty Attorney. pr~sented the written riqht to appeal the
Pla~ning Commission's decision rrithin 22 days to the City Council.
t /~c~~l~
MINUT~S~ ANANEIM CITIf PLAHNING COMMISSIQN~ JANUARY 25~ 1982 82-54
ITEM N0. 11: EIR NEGATIVE DECLARAt10N ANO CONpITIpNAI USE PERNIT N0. 229~:
_...`....._....... ..__.---
PU6LIC ~iEAaINr. 0'WNER: SONFARREI. INC.~ 3t100 Fast La Jo11A Street~ An~hetm~ Cq
92806. AGENT: BUSINESS PRAPERTIES~ 4b4Q Von Karman Avenue~ Newport Beech, CA 92G(~A.
Property described ds e rectangul~rly-shap~ad percel of land ccx~xisttn~ of
appraximatelY h.n~ ecres havin~ s f rontage of ~~proxtmetely ?.AA feet on the north
slde of -Ilrsloma Avenuc~ approxtmately 7~5 feet east of the centerltne of Red Gum
Street. I'roperty presently cls~ssified M~ (Industrlal~ Ltmfted) Zone.
CONDITIONAL U5E REc-,UEST: TO PERMIT A TELEVI51o~i ~TATIO~~ ~,~iTfi n 25~•Ff10T NIGII
BROAOCASTING TONER IN TIIE Ml. ZOt~E.
There was ona person ind-cating I~ts presence in appositlon t~ subJect request~ and
although the staff re~art was not road, tt Is rcferred to anA made fl part of the
ml~utes.
Wayne Nouser~ Starer Cable TV~ stated they prapose to provid~ ~per~ttonA)
headquarters and will fully Jevel~r a 14~00~-s~u~re foot building which wfll contatn
office~, televlsion stud(o~ Wa~~~use faciltty.and headquarters for thetr
~perattona) personnel. lie edded thev are proposin~ a 25~•foat htgfi tower which wf11
be a~fixed micrawavE: and televislon antenna and wlll be the hesd-i~ site for the csble
televiston service throughout the city. I~e stated he believes nll the requirements
of tho industrial zone have been met and dc~es nc~t believe that they would infringe on
the Future growth and development of the adJacent propertY•
Walter Smith~ representtng Anaheim Economic Develo~ment Corparatlon, stated they are
concerned about the 25~-foot high tower and althou~h the applicatton indicates that
there are certain FAA requlreme~ts~ therc is no n~ntion that the FAl1 has been
contact~d; thet some .6 mtles dc~m the street there is a company headquarters which
has a six-story, 212-foot high affice building where their helicopter lAnds many
ttmes during the day a~d the filqht path to that facility 1~ over thls area where the
antenna wouid be located. Ne stated in additton~ as the~ industrtel area of the
canyon is developed,there wil) be furth~r acttvity with helicopters and he thouc~ht
that would be a safety hazard. Ne stated if this is to be a broadcast antenna, they
would suggest that the proper p1FCe woutd be oFf in the hlils someplece where there
is not too much helicopter or small aircraft activity.
Mr. Nouser stAted they did contact the FAA and are tn th~ proce~s of submitttng an
application to that body whtch would precise thG location of this facility. Ne
states thts 25~-foot high towe r would be the antenne on which the receptio~ of the
off-hours signals from the Los Angeles area would be picked up and also on the tower
there would ba microwave dishes which would intercept and beam slgnAls to strategic
points wtthin the city to microwave receivtng gtatlons which would enhance the
distribution of their stg~:~ls. Na stated the FAA stlpulates that many safety
provlstans be adhered to such as the tower be painted airplane orange and whito and
that the tawer is lighted in accardance with their speclfications and that he
understands once the tower is in place~ all the appropriate parties are notified as
ta tts extstence which tirould include the helicopter traffic.
TIiE PUBL I C t1EAR1 NG WAS CLOSEQ.
1/25/82
~ i
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ JANUARY 25, iq82 82-55
Commisstoner King clarifled lhat en FAA permtt (~ requtred with Mr. Nouse~ Inc~icating
they ara making •~ e~plication far a+e at this time And notod thet the ne~rest
al rport was 7 ml ies away.
Chatrmsn Qushore asked if this 1s to Im~~~ve th~ hroedcestinq stgn~l especlelly fo~
the hill end canyon Area end Mr. Nauser Indicated thet is correct And the entanne
will provlde a clean atgnal all tt~e way to west Anaheim b~cause there wiit b4
microwavc+ receiv~ng sltes throughout the ctty.
Mr. Nouse~ responded to Chairman Bushore that this tower will net he made availeble
to any other cities and It w11.1 not ceusR any interfQrence In !he Industrtal erea
with baae stattons~ radios~ e~tc.
Commtssloner tlerast agreed that there is a safety h+~zard involved hecause of the
heliports approved in thax aren and stated he would itke to ~ee the FAA appraval
bafore votin~.
Commiasianer Fry auggested approvsl subject to the FAA a~proval and stated eny
hazerds that gn in anywhere where there is ~ir treffic. wi11 be pinpointed on the
flight maps within 30 days and eny pilot will have thosc maps and can see exactlY
what ls thera and the height and locatton. Fie stated as that aren 'buiids up~
probably there will not be any helicopters ll+ndin~ in the area.
Commisaloner Norbst stated large corporaticx~s ltke to use heltcopters f~r
transpo~ting employees from one locatia~ to another and they weuld be flying over
that area.
Commisstaner Barnes stated the Rockweli helic~pter fllght path was supposed to be
dc~m the river to the freeway but the questton she would have is +~+here such a tower
would be permitted if it ts not permitted In an tndustrlal area~ noting it could not
be pleced in a residentia) or commerctal brea.
Commissioner Herbst statGd he hes no ob,jectton to the tower bein~ in the i~dustrisi
erea but he~ did not want to supe~ceds the FAA's authority.
Commissioner McDurney asked if staff had tc~oked int~ Che flight peths of the
Fullerton or Orange County Airport to see if there would bn any conflicts or
t nta rference.
Qean Sherer, Assfstant Plan~e~. stated part of the asscssment of the lnitial study
submitted by the appltcant tndicates thst ataff contacted the FI1A and got the same
Information concerning the ~equlrements of the tower but dld not recelve ~ny
informatton regardt~g the fiight p+~tl~s; however. he would assume that before the
towe~ cauld be oonstructad, it would be sub}ect to the app~oval of the FAA and that
tl~ere aauld ba no interfere~cc of eny fllght paths.
Commissioner Fry polnted out there are fou~ similar tawers within .6 of a mite of the
site, and that they are transmisslon towers and that this would bG for recepttcx+
only.
ACTION: Commissianer King offered a motton. seconded by Cartmissioner Bouas and M~TION
~D~ that the Maheim City Pianning Cam~'vsston has r~vi~d the proQossl to
permit a televison statlo~ with a 250-foat high broadc~sting tower In the ML
1/25/82
"` MINUTF.S~ ANAHEIM fITY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ JANUARY 25~ 1g8~ 82'S6
~;.
(Induttrial~ Limtted) 2ane on a ra~t~~gularly•sheped p~rcel of lend consisting of
,`~ +~pnroxim~tely 4.0!1 acres~ having a frontege of appraxtmetely 2~~ feet an the north
:: side uf Mi~aloms Avenue~ ap~roxtmatoly )05 feet e~~t ~f the cGntertine at Red Gum
Strtrat; and doea~ hereby a~~POVa the I~egative Declaretlon from the requtroment to
p~epare ~n envt~Qnn+~nt~) Imp~ct report on the beals that there weuld be n~
slgnifitc~~; indtvldual or cumulative adverse environma~tei impoct due to the epprovai
af this Neg~tlve: Declaration aince the Anahotm Caneral Pl~n deaianatea the sub)sct
property for g~neral industrlai land uses co~m~ensu~a~e with the proposel; th~t no
sansitive onvirc~mrntat impacts s~e involved in th~ ~:,~nnrs~i; thAt the Inltial Study
° submitted by the petitloner tndicetes no sle~ntficent individuel or cumuletlvc adverse
envtronmental (m~ccts; and th~t the Negattve tM clerr~tlon suhst~ntlating the foregoing
ft~dings Is o~ file tn the Clty ~f Anahetm Plann~n~ [k pertme~nt.
Commtssio~er King offered reaolutlon No. PC82•10 end maved for tts ressn~e end
adop~ton that the Anaheim City Plann(ng Cor~mtssten do~s her~by nrent Con~'itonel Use
permlt No. 2295 subJect to approval of the Fedcr~~i Avtetton Administratlon in
compliance r~~th Sectlons 18.03,030: .~J31; .032~ .~33; .~~G and .035, Title 13 of the
Aneheim Municlpa) Code and subJe~ct :o Intardep~rtme~ntal Commit~tee recommendetions.
Commissioner tierbst tndicated he will support the reaolutlon because from revteri+inq
thn plan~~ he felt th~ huildings and lendscAping wtil be an asset to the tndustrl~l
area, except for the tawer.
On rot) call. the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the foll~wing v~te:
1YE5: COt1Ml SS I ONERS : E~ARNES ~ DOUA5 ~ 3USHOP,E, FRY ~ NElt[35T~ KI H~ ~ McBt-R!~EY
NOES: COMMISS IOMERS: ~tONE
ABSENT: COMMISS!ONERS: NONE
I TEM N0. 1? ; Et;Vt RO~IMEHTAL I MPACT REPORT N0. 24A ANU GEf~ER~+i., r~,AN AMENDMENT r~Q, tb7
=~~~CH 0'bC
PUBLIC N~ARIi~G. Tc~ consider alternate pr~posals of ulttmat~e land uses (ncluding~ but
not limited to low-medtum density residentlat~ medtum dens~ty residential. and
g~neral cammerciai desic~nations and any cc~mbinetlons thereof.
There were ~p~roximately thtrty pc:rsons indicating thetr presence in o~position at
the puhi'c hearing, and although tho xt~ff ~epori was not read, tt is referred to and
made a~•~rt f the minutes.
Chelrma~ Cushore explained Iter~ Plo. 12 pertains to tne Fremo~t School Site and item
No. 13 pertains to the Fremont Playffeld Site and that there is a request to ~stpone
I tem No. 13 unti 1 the oneeting of February 22 ~ 1~82, and thet there are twc~ separate
environmental tmpact repo~ts. 4ie stated the oniy discussion today could be the
actuai school site. He stated he could take pert in the discussion pertaining to the
Playfirid Site but does have a p~oblem wtth the School Site because hls office ebuts
the praperty and he would llke to express an opinion on that. but in o~der t~ be fatr
to Pacesetter ltomes. wauld not takr pa~rt in the dlscusslnn.
A persan fn the eudience dsked if this meetinq ~-ould be the first on the a~end~ tf tt
ts ccm tinued and Chairman Bushora responded it could be a~ranged to be the first one
on the agenda or there even could be an ev+ening meeting (f tha~t would be more
canvente~t.
t/25/g2
j ,r
MINUTES, ANAHEIM C1TY PLA~ININC COMMISSION, JANUARY 25~ 19~2 82-57
Dart McCaul~ rapresa~ling Pscesetter Homes~ st~tRd they had esked for e conttnuance
on the Playfleld Stt e becruse they are currently tn negotietions with the city
regarding the posstb ilttY of ~elacating the Police fleliport. fle stated they ere
prepa red to go ahead wl th the school s i te d i scus s lon heceuse they fe~e 1 m~ny of tho
issues they witi be encounterine~ cx~ the northRrn site versus the ~outhern site ere
somcwhat u~related; that thare has been e tot of t~lk about the hiqhest and best use
of tho northsrn ~elte as well as circutetlon as tt relates to Lincoln and Citron;
whereas~ the PldyftelJ Site is currently ac~r~ed medlum residenti~l and thelr proposal
will be s dawn-zone and they really feel th ey would tike to ~roceed with thetr
presentatlon tt~~ight . lie explained their present~tlon includes a narrative with some
slfdes and tt they p~oceed naw on Just the northern site. he woutd i~vtte the publlc
to stay because tt t s an (nformatlve pre4ontation and there ha~i' been sort+e rea)
misconceptlons abou ~ wi-st thelr proposdl, Ne stated they would like to continue
tanight wlth the northern sit~ and if the Commisslon f~eis aftGr they hsve rr~de thelr
prese~t~tion that they would ltke to contlnur. tht n~tter, thev -~uld agree.
Chelnnan 9ushore stateci the Commisslon has the proposal ot the Syc.~r*nre Creek which
tal ks about both s i d~s and even though there are two EI P.'s ~ thr t~t ~) pro,iect
tncludcs both sttes and he did not think the two could b~ seoarar.ecf,
Commissianer Herbst sugg~sted that tl~e prosentatton be made so the t~~~~lence can see
the proposal with thc (ndtcaxion that the hcerlnc~ wo~ld 5c contlnuec: and they cnn qo
homa ond thtnk about the ~roposal wlthln the ~~ext f~w weeks.
Mr. McCau) stoted after the prasentatlon fie could answer any questlons and woi~ld like
ta give the rest of the audtence thc ~rM~rtunity to contaci htr~ ~^tcr,
Chai rman Bushorc tu~ned the n+eetinc~ over tc~ Chal rrt~n pro Tempore fry due to a
conf) ict of tnteresi as defined by Anahelm City ('lanning Co~~mission Resolutlan No.
PC76-157, ado~sting a Lonfilict ~f Interest Code for the Plnnning Commission, and
Guv~rnment Code Seclion 3F25 et sM., In that his property a~f.ioins the subiect
property and. purs~•ant to the provislonsof the above codes~ declared to the Chairman
th~t he was withdr~ring fra~ the hnarlnc~ tn c~nn~ction with GPA 1/7 and 1f~l~ and weuld
not take part (n either tne discussion or the voting therr.on, ~nd has not ~Iscussed
thls matter wtCh any member of the Planning Cortmisslon.
Chairm..~~ Pro Tempor~ Fry A,sumad the Cha{r.
Mr . NcCau 1 stated thei r i nvo 1 vement i n these Mo s 1 tes i s rather extens 1 ve and 1 n
August, 1930, th~ C ~ ty of Anahetm Redevelopment Aqency requested a proposal fo~ a
cumbination affo~dable a~d market rate residential proJect on these sftes in order to
provlde additionai affordable housing. Ile stated they submttted a proposal besed on
tha RM-1200 Iontng which wouid fac(iltata 5~0 dweliing units on the twa sites; that
their proposai wa~s far a hfgh-rise o~ mid-~i*e renral projtct on the northern site
and condomi n i ums and ren ta 1~rn 1 ts on the southern s i te ~ toia 1 1 nq 42~ un! ts ~ we 11
belaw the anticipat~d density of tha prope~ty; tfiaL the Redevelopment Agency did nof
buy the propsrty an*~ Paceset ters did buy 1 t. He stt~ted the 3 i te has some ~n ique
praqsibi 1 tties because of its locatlo~ close tc~ the dowr~toam nrea as woi i as its
ac~;ess to three ma,jcr freeways.
Mr. McCaul expiained they decided agalnst eommerciai for the ne~rthern slte for
several reasons, one being the-y would bo In direct competitton with the downtown
bus inasses a~d Aiso they di d not th ink oo~.~niercial vwuld lend 1 tsel f to the
~lz5/82
~ ~.
MIIIUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION~ J/lNUARY 25, 1982 82"S8
~esidentiot character of the nelghhorhaad. f1e st++t~d they did not h~ve that dt lemms
on the souther~ :Ite because it la zo~ed fer ~esidentiai uaes snd they declded to apt
for a lower dhnsity. hlql~er amenity~ water e~ iented pro)ect which would actusily be a
dawn-xo~A from the current zaning on the pra~rty. Ile explelned the actua) number of
untts p~opoaed for the nerthern stte Is A~ co~dominium unita and 1G9 on the southern
s 1 te which i s ebout one-hal f t-~a dens i ty tha t could be developed. Ne steted they
wil~ hsve to build under the RM-;OOQ Zone anct the maximum density allowed in that
zone would be 1~i unl ts per ~+crG ~ wFeress, th~ actuel un) ts Al lc~wed under the cu~~ent
zaning is 36 unita per ecre~ but thut would rr.ren apertn~nts end tliey would i lke to
p~ovtdo ownerahlp untta.
Mr. McCau) stated they had gene to the Citron Neighborhood Council and preseneed
thel r project and thet some af those residents' concsrns and comments were
Inwrporated into the proJect. Ile ~tated a rsumber of the residents complalned ebout
the nalsa f rom the hel iport and thRy have: be~~ workinc~ dt 1 t~ently In nn effort to
reiacate the hellport. Ile stated Another cor•tnant had been regarding the wall and
that some uf the resldcnts really fclt the wal) would create a fortress and they
wanted the proJect to b 1 end t nta the ne 1 ghborhood so they coul d en joy the
l~ndscaping. Ile st~ted the pro)ect wes somewhat redest~ned te accommodate wrouqht
I ron fQncing throughout the proJect. Ile e~cp~ Alned thare wl 11 be a tremendous
landscap~d Area near ilarbor en~1 Lincoln whtch wil) Appear ta he a pr~rk. f1e stated
one ~eighbor ~oas concerned because a wail would he 30 Inches fmm his property and
that they were able to accorrx~x~datr some of I,ss concerns by redesi~ning tha northern
portion Anci extending the lAndSCApCd area to 1~ f~~t ond nutttnq th~ fence ~+ or S
feet on their prope~ty and the fencing will be wr~uc~ht imn end th~~ will provide
acc~ss to Che side of his house ~nd y~rd.
Mr. McCaul presented a slide presentation shvwing the ~,roject.
Jack lfiite. Asslstant C(ty Attorney, stated the Conmission can gRt further input from
the roa (uents and th~ appl icent if they so dicq( ~e witl~ the undcrstanding that the
matter wil) be continued or the entire matter c~n be pe!~t~esed at this point.
Commissto~er Ilgrhs*. statcd he ~+ould like naw to conttnuc the h~aring In arder to her~r
all the input At the s~n~ tin-e so It is not l+PCess~ry t4 rspeat it.
Cornmissioner Bouas asked if the at~piic~nt had anything to edd.
r:, NcCau) stated they are prepared to disc~s the desiqn and ?ayout of the projzet
tf the f:ommlssfon so desir~s. tle stated they did Ask for a ccntlnuanc~ on the
southe~n portlon because Lhey are r~evtewinc~ their alternatives as to rolocation of
che hellport and what mltigation measures wt 11 he necessery. Ne stAted they wi l l b~
anreeable if the Commission wants to hear ~i 1 th~ testimony and ask questtons and
then cv~tinue the mettcr.
Commissto~e~ Qarnes st~+ted she felt looking at the proJect together wauld beneflt the
~ortxnission acsd also that th~ audlence would iike to cc~tnient on both proJects at the
same timc and that the~ woui~ be limited tan ight to di~cussing one site.
Cammissionar Nerbst sugqested thst this matter be cantinued and be the first itQm on
the agends for february 22nd at 1:30 p.m.
t/251b2
~.~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION~ JANUARY 25• 1992 8Z-59
Ch~l~man P ~o T~mpare Fry stated th~ Commisalo~ Is sug~esting th~t now etnce tha
eudtence- has h+~d an opportu~ity to ttes the prelimina~y presentation~ it ~eems
fes:ibla fo~ the applicant to reqwst a cantinuance and thst will provfde them with
mor~ tlme to get thet ~ cemments toqethe~.
Mr. McCaul stated th~y ere enwureginc~ more people ta contact them r~nd they would
request s ccnt~nu~nc~.
ACTION: Co~nmisaloner Barnas offered a moLton~ soconded by C~rt~+iss!~ner Herbst end
~~ CARRIEO, that conslderatlcx~ of the afore-ment ion~d metter he contlnued to the
maeting of February Z2~ 1~82,; including Item 13~ GPA tJ~. IbB.
JaCk Wfiite stated no further notices wi l l be Rent concerning thts matter er 1 those
(nteroated should call the Planning Depertment on Fridey aftErncx~n er Mond.,~ morning
to determine whether nr not the applicant has re~ues~ed en4ther continurnce.
IT~M N0. 14
RECOMMENDATI Of~S
The fallowing Reports and Recorm~endetlons staff reports were presented hut not road:
A. PROPOSEO CODE IIMENDhtENT - Chepter iR.86 of the Anahelm MunlCip~l Code
p~~ta ning to types o property thet ,v~y ba included in the PR (Pubiic
R~creAtlonal) Zone.
AC_TIQN.: Comm-ssianer Fierhst offered e motton, setonded by Commfssione~r
BouAS and MOTION CARRIED. that the Mahelm Clty Planning Comnisston does
h~reby recomnend to the City Councll amendme~t ta Sections 18.66.Attl and
1~3.f~6.02~ of Chapter 1A.8G of Titie 1n of the Anaheim Munitipal Code
p~rmitting ndJacent prtvate properties In the PR (Pub1lc Recreatlonal) 2one.
B. CdNnITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. 1 64 - Request from James W. Huish, Fsmtly Fun
C~nters, Inc., or approva o revised plans on pro~erty located in the
Canyon Industrl~) Area. at the southwest corner of Cs~pe~~ter Avenue and
Shepard Street.
AC710N: Chairman ~usfiare offered a motion, ~econded by Commisslaner
Me urney and MOTIQH CARRIED (Commissioner I~erbst voting na), that the
Anehe'~^ City Planr+ing Commis~ton daes hereby approve the revised plans for
C.~ndtttonal Use Permit No. i564 to include ~"roller silde" on subJect
p rope r ty .
1/25/$2
~ ,
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING CQM„iSSiQN. JANUAaY 25~ 198x 82-60
C. CONOITIONAL USE PERMI_T N0. 22 6• Raquest for re-hearing to consider
app~ovaT~ravfsecT p ans.
Annfka Santalahtl~ Assistant Otrector for Z~ninq~ explalned subiect petttlon
waa referrod back to the Planntn4 Commtssion et the Ctty Counct) nrettng of
January 12, 1982~ because the e~pltu+nt ml~und.~~stood his atipulation to a
6-foot high biock wall loceted 50 feet fram thr pranertY line adj~c~nt ta
Miralcw+~a; thet he thought he was +~c~reein~ that the getc woul~ be toc~ted
back 60 feet and wanted a narrower setheck to a 6-foot fencQ ~t 3A feet;
thst after he ssw the resolution, he realizod thet the Corr~isslon hed denled
the setback request end appeatcd that dacision to the City Counctl. She
stated when the Councll ccroslde~ed the metter~ they felt it should corr~ back
to the Commtsstan sl~cn thetr actt~n hid been taken witho~it cftscussion of
the setback issue t,acausa of the mtsu~~derstrndinc~ and the Councll be'Ic+~11y
wanted t~ know whethor the Comnlssf~n would havo approved the 3~•foot
structural sntbACk ~s propased hy the apPllcant. She explalned the Council
wented to know if the Commissior~ requlred hlm to comt~ly with the setback
requlrement of the ML zo~e on Miralome l~ecruse tt wss an outdoor recycling
use.
Commissloner Ilerbst st~ted the 50-foot sctback is requircd ato~g Miraloma~
but parking Is allowecl withln thet 5~ fcet. 11e statrd he would not want to
set a p edent (n allowing structura) sethacks recogniring there are seme
extsting whlch were xhere prlor t~ the widentng ~f MtrAlort+~~ but he dtd not
think any vartances have been qranted~ and hG `elt this would be: setting a
preccdent.
Chairman Bu,hore staced he th~ought the Commisslon's intent is quite clear
that thcy dtd r.oC tntend to qrant a setbsck watvrr.
liwis Denner~ owner~ 21q SouCh lemon~ Anahclm~ stat~d F~e appiled for the
variance due to the nature of the business and the flow of trAffic through
the busines~ dictates that in order to have the trucks effectively get in
ar:d out wttP~out causinq a trafffc prabiem~ che fence setback needs to be 3A
feet. Ile stated prior to this prpperty coming Int~ the clty, there were
somc existlnq building wlth setbacks and two were aprroved efter that,
specifically 3QQ0 East Mlraloma was granted a walver for a» feet
s~tback Tar ~ 8•foot hlgh btock wall fence.
Mr. t3enner stated he contacted Anahelm Eca-omic Development Corporatien~
Dick Darbo~ and he mantioned if there (s a probiem tocontact him because he
~ncourac~~d the 3o-fout satback tn thls case due to the traffic, He statec'
he agrees with C~ty 7rrffic Engineer Singer ~s to where the gate shoutd be.
Chairman 6ushore asked how long Mr. Denner expected to operate at thts
locattan with the thought that rnaybe this could be tied to a ttme 1 irr.it
undor the Condttionat Usc Permlt.
Commissioner Herbat stated a waiver ould stay with tha praperty and th~t ts
the prablQm.
Cha'rman Bushore dis.:uss~~~ the propQrtles menttoned in the staff report and
(t was noted some Here thare prior t~ widenl~g of Mir~lo~na and the property
1/25/82 _ . .,... ~~~ .,...~
\
' ;
82 -61
MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 25~ 19~2
at 30~"1 Eaat Mtralome wa~ granted bac~uue the Commisslon felt the esrlhern
berm mitigated the problom.
Mr. tla~ner stated he would be willing te lands~capa 30 fe~t and mova the
pa rk i ng te thd roa r.
Commiasloner Herbst stetr.d the eppllcant would hev~ more ftexfbillty on the
proparty adhe~ing to the cnde, nrting e go~d percantege ~f the setback cauid
be uttll~od for narking.
Mr. Benne~ statGd the~e ts not much requlrement for perking In this business
and they need enough room in the re~r far the trucks to turn around and
becauae ~f the storage nature of the hustness~ praviding the 5R-foot setbeck
makes an elmoat tmposstble situetion And he was cancerned that t~•ucks would
beck out.
Cammissioncr tlerbst was concerned there would be a bACk-u~ of vehicles
trying to get In and Mr. Elenner re~llRd chat ts the reason they need
stralght through tr~ffic.
Commtssionar Uarnes referred to the eddresses dlscussed tn the ~t~ff report
and M nikA Sentalhati explnined these addresses ware based on photogrepha
submitted to Clty Councti by the appilcant and sx~ff investiqated them and
tha resutts are listed.
M~. Santalahti statecf the 3~ feet is measured ~rnm th~ pr~per-~r line which is 12-13
feet from the curb and Mr. Benner noted the well r-~uld be about 4A feet frem
the curb.
Commtsstoner Bouas was concerned that if the waiver is granted for a fenct,
tn the future tt could be interprcted as d structure and Jack White
explained that would not be a Droblem sinca a~pro~al would be in accordance
with plans submttted~ an~d approval wvuld be a wall and not a part of the
buliding.
Commissioner Herbst stat~d the problem is th~t it ~5 forever and a 8-foot
high wall is constder~d a structure.
Chairman aushore steted recycifng fectltttes have speclal problems.
ACTION: Ghatrman ~ushore offe~red a motlon~ seconded by Carrnissioner Barnes
an M~TIDN CARRIED, that ihe Maheim City Pisnning Conxntssion doRS hereby
reco~mend denial of Watver of Code Requiren~nt, submi~ted in conJunctton
wtth Cond{tionat U~e Pern~lt No. 2276, theroby reefffrming thetr dacisio~~
denying Walver of Cucle Requt~en+ent at the Nave~+ber ~0, 1481~ Planning
Commtssi~n meeting.
Commissior~r iiarnes stated she vated for denial because she felt It is
consiste~c with other acttons the Cammissio~ has taken~ other than pre-
existing c~o~ditlons.
Mr. Benner clartfied th~e permtt has been approv~ed for Lhe retyciing center
with the normal setbeck~ ss previously approved. Jack Nhite clarifted t1~at
thi s raatter is before the Ci ty Co~,r~c i i~nd they wi 1 1 dete~mi ne whether or
not it is approved.
1/2S/8?
~~
~
i, .
' ~
MINUTES~ ANANElM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 25~ 1982 82-62
D. A9ANDONrENT N~. 81-Z1A - Request from R~lph~ Simp~son and Foster to ib+~ndon ~
ormer outhern • ornia Edtsar: Cu~~~pany Public Utilir.y E~+seme~t ~cquired
by tha City, s~ succe~sor~ lacated on the weat sida of Da1e Ave~ue~ south of
Llncoln Avenue.
ACTIONs Cortmtssloner King offered a mocton, aaco~ded by Comm{s~ion~r
~Rc~u ney and MOTION CARRIED~ th~t the Mahelm City Plannt~g Commisslon does
hereby reoommend te the City Cou~cil epproval of Abandonment No. 81-21A as
recomm~ended by the City Enginoer.
E. R~CLASSIFICATIQN N0. 80-81-~k end VARIANCE NO_.~~~ - Request from Jerl
Kep ne e or epprovaT o~ specT~r ~Te~s: '
Sevtn Mexson w~s p~esc~t to a~swee any questip~s.
Dean She~er~ Aaststant Plann~r~ explained the Planning CommisaTor+ first
heerd thi~ project tn May 1~81~ and the mtnutes Indicated no o~~sltlon~
however~ the Comntsslon ~rould iike to see the plans proposed fo~ the ather
pe~cel. lie stated staff has reviewed their plans and they do confo~m to the
zoning code.
ACTION: Commlsstoner King offerad a motton~ seconded by Cornmisslontr ~~orhst
and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anehetm City Planning ConKnisslon does hereby
epprov~ speelflc plans for Parcel 2 tn conJunctton with Reclasslficatlon S4c~.
8A•81-3N and Vart~nce No. 3215•
P,OJOURNMENT Thare being ~ further husiness, Commissioner He~bst off~red a moticm~
secondec! hy Conmtssioner Br~rnes and NOTION CARRIEb. that the meettng be
pdJourned.
The meeting wss adjou~ned at y;1p p.~-.
RespectfullY ~ubmi'tted,
~~ .~ • ~4~~~:,
Edith L. Nu~ris, Secretary
Mahelm City Planning Co~miOsslon
EN