The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1969/06/18~ _. ; . , -- ~.~."r ...~. ,:.:: o'~ ,.... ~ :a _ 0 ~ ~ ~l-ty Hall Anaheim,Californis Junn 18, 1969 A REG}ULAR MEETING OF Tf~.ANAf~IM CITY PLAIJ:~7:JG Cf1MMISSION REGULAR ~EEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City PlanniLig Commission war .tilled tc~ ~rder by Chairman-Allz•ea at 2000 o'aloak F~.M~, a quoruQ bc _e p~esent. ;J PRESENT: - CHAIRARAN: A].lreo. - CON~LISSION5;?u: r'~,rano, ~auer, fIerbst, Rowlw^.~i, Tho¢~. ABSENT - CO~ISSIONERS: Camp. . ` P.tESENI' - Development Ser~+' as s Direntor: Alan G Orsoo ~ . rr. Ass_stant Development Serviaes Directn-: Ronald Thoutpson a~si~~t ant City Attorney: John Dawsou '~ Offi~e Eng3~eer: Jay Titts Zoning Supervisor: Charles Aoberts , ;~~ A~~ooiete Planner: ;faok Mulqueeny . , Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Fa.t Brown "~. Plc:aiing• Commission Senretary Ann ,K; ebs ?, ?< PLEDGE OF -,r ;:;~; ~ ALLEGIAN;E - Cormnissioner Gauar 1Rd in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fl ';;~~ ag. , APPROVAL ~F - Commissioner Faru.nu ,~ffered a motion to approve th.e Minutes of the THE MINUTh ~ '~ ~: meeting cY Juns 2, 1;•69, seoonded by Commissioner Thom, and MOTION CARRIED s i t ' "~ '~ , u i,jao to ~.he Yollowing oorrection: ' ` C Page .4537, peragraph S,s:~ould read: "Commissioner Thom is s;it;ng o" " 1~, N indioated that the people in oppositicn asking Por a ooniin- `~ uanae to review plans were slready gusre,nteed their eppeal ri~hts sin M :~ oe r. knisely offered to file the e~?pea7. fee; i;herefore,the peiiti-on should nct b e oontinue3 ~or thzs reason.° ~ ~ RECLASSIFICATION- CONTx1d[JED PIJBLIC HEARING. GAS d WASH. INC., 165 Ravenna Drive N0 68_69 95 , ;~ , . - ?~ong Boaoh, Cal.ifo.rnie, Ownsr; CHARLES R. HILLER 421 North "~ , Brooktt=irst Street, Suite 216, Anaheim, California; requesting tY at , pr~~~~rty desoribed as: A reotengularly ~haped parael of land lorqteri on the northwest corner of Euolid Street d ' ` ~ an Gldn Avenue, wi :h ~pgloxi- mate frant~ges oP 342 feet on Euolid 5traet and 248 feet on Glen ,Avenue and fu th d ~ , r er esoribed as 1135 North Euolid Street, be reclsssiii~d £rom the C-1, GENERAL COI~R- CIAL, ZONE to the C-3 HEAVY COM~ ~RCIAL Z ^ , . , ONE, to estnblish an auto servioe aanter selling and installin~ tares, ta±tdries, auoessories, eto. ; Sub3eat petitiion was aontinued from ~he meeting of May 19, 1969 et the .request of the petitionor dna to hi i ~ ~ , s nability to be present ~,t the hearing. ; ~ Zor.ing Supervisor Charles Roberts advisod the Plannzng Cammis~ion tha~ the ~et3tioner had submitted a lette ~ ~ r requesting that subjeot pet3tion be terminated, sinoe et the gresent time, he no longer desired th ~ e proposed roalassifioation of the property nor the de~alopmeri. ~ ~ Commiss'oner Thom offered e, motion to tarminate all Proaeedings oP Petition for RealassiPioati~on No. 68-69-95 i ~ ~. as reques~ed by the petitioner. Commissioner Herbst seoonded the'motion. MOTION CARRIED. ;- ~! ?Si VARIANCE N0. 2095 - PUBLIC HEARI2JG. LE~92S AND NDITH E. SCHMID, 1401 Smoke Wood Drive ~j ~ , Sante Ana, Californie, Owners; GEORGE ARGYROS, Arnel Development >i Company, 415 West 4th Street, Suite D, Tustin, California, Agent; °' FROM A STANDARD STREET4u(2)i~~~ ISTANCE1B E ~ U S ~ ETINEEN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND THE SIDE , PROPERTY LIP1E; (3) MINIM[Jy( DWELLING UNIT SIZE; (4) MINIhIUM D S -'~ ? I TANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS; ~ (5) ~AXIMQM HUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF AN i + R-1 ZONE; (6) idAX:CMUM N[JMBER GF j MAIN BUILDINGS ON A SITE; (7) ~~ DISTANCE HETWEEN DVCELLIIVG UNITS AND PA ; RKING i STALLS; AND (S) MINIMUM NUAqHER OF COVERED PARKING STALLS, TO ESTABLISH A ONE ~ND TP10- STGRY 108-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLER ~., on property described. as: An irregu7.arly ..haped -4550- ; ;;;'i F , `'. i ~' ~,`r S y Nry ~~4''~* w ~ ~ ~ ,. '~ '4 . l _ \V ~.. S ~ ~~~ ~ q ~s . 1 'e y ._"~, t' _ [' '` . y T ; f ` ': AV ' / „ ~Y ~ i~. .'~ i . , 2 ~.~.~e,'s~,.~~'. ' _.G'~~... _ `~ +~ .r :r. '~_t~. . . . . `. .. .,~ - ~ ~ F y ''~`i'"-~P n . . .- ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINU~'ES, CITY PLANNING COEd~EISSION, June 18, 1969 4551 VARIAIZCE V0. 2095 - paroel of land located on the west side ~of State Colleee Boulevard, having a frantage of anproximately 310 feet and a depth o~' approxi- mately 711 feet, and being looeted approximately 350 feet north of the oenterlin9 of Ba11 Road. Property presently alassified R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the looation of sub~eot property, aoreage involved, existing zoning of the property, and the petitioners request for eight waivers from the site development standards of the R-3 Zone, whioh was four more than had been requested and grantad in Varianoe No. 2069 in April, 1969 by ~the Planning Com- aiissian;and thet the petitioners now stated they would not be eaeraising Varianoe No. 2069 due to finanoial diPfioulties. - Mr. Roberts then reviewed the proposed development noting that four of the requested aeivers were teahnioal, sinoe previous R-3 Zoning aations were granted these waivers; however, with redesigning the development waivers e, f, g, and h aould be eliminated; that a short cul-de-sao street was proposed for aooess to sub3eot property from State College Boulevard; that two portions of the original R-3 property were not proposed to be developed at this time, sinoe they uere labeled for future use, and the peti- tioners hsd indioated they were oonsidering C-0 zoning for the northerly portion and general ~ommeroial for the southerly portion; that a 25-foot drive with oarports or open perking stalls was proposed along the northerly property line whinh did not provide for peripheral aooess deemed neoessary to provide eaoessibility for fire truaks, trash piokup, and other emergenoy vehioles; that the petitioners were pro- posing emergenay fire aaoessways whioh would meander thru the so~itherly portion whioh would be wide enough for fir~ vehicles to reaoh dangerous areas; and that tha 8-foot rear walls of the aarports would appear to satisfy the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall between the R-1 and R-3 properties. Furthermore, the possi- bility of future oommeroial zoning adjaoent to the single family•traot to the north whioh baoked onto State College Boulevard, and in view of the already established large oommeroial faoilities at the northeast aorner .of State College Boulevard and Be,ll Road might sbem to be inappropriate, nor were there any plans for the develop- ment of theso two paroels as:part of this request, therefore, this could result in further'waivers or Code violations at some future date. Mr. Kermit Dorius, arohiteot of the proposed development, appeared before the Commission and presented revised plans for Commission oonsideration, noting that o;.e of the ma3or problems facing them in the design of the pro,jeot was the size of the paroel, its proximity to both R-1 and M-1, that for eaoept one unit the n:ie story height limitation ad3aoent to R-1 had been maintained and the line of sigh•i was ri'+ioed sinoe this one unit had oarports between it and the R-1; th at attempt had bee~ m~de to isolate the R-3 from the R-1 with osrports; that landsaap- in~; snd trees would be planted elong the southerly property line to shield the R-3 from the M-1; ihst the development of apartmsnts along State College Boulevard was oonsidered undesireble b~soause of the traffio noises, therefore, the two lots indi- oated as "for future use" wiwre eliminated from the plans for R-3 with ultimate use to be for oommeroi~l purposes; that an attempt was made to utilize the present street aurb return, sinos a left turn poaket had been installed southerly, and the presant street looatioi: to sub3eot property was oonsidered safer sinoe it was farthor removed fru.u this left turn pooket; thet beaeuse aonsiderable money had already hee~ axpended for street aaoess it wes desirous to eliminate any Yurther expenditure by utilizing the existing curb cut; that there was still some oonfusion as to the siza of the units, however, the size of the units had been discussed with the staff at the time of filing the petition, said units wou7.d be similar to those oonstruoted by RSN Development in Tustin, where incidentally 70 of the 118 units were already rented; that it was their intent to use the ssme design in the proposed development; that subsequent to the disoussion with the staff, thep had been informed that the minimum size of a one bedroom apartment was 700 square feet, therefore, they had increased the units on the first floor to 712 square feet, however, the seoond floor units were still 689.44 square feet, or an overall average for one bedroom units of 701 square feet with measurements being made to the oenterline of the exterior walls whioh may have acaounted for the differenae in size as measured by staff; and that the drawings may have been out of sosle when the staff did their oslaulations and did not use the printed ~figures as indinated on the plans. ~;v,_,. ,:., .~`~ ..,r;7,~ tt5 `~~p`~Y~~1 " - rL~ x.', a1+~+~ °'P"~ft` ~~ Y F ~~'~ ~ . ~ „ . , ._ ~ _ ~, ~ _ ~ ~. ~ r' -z'° ~ -cr- ..~ i a ,::, ? K,',,w~~ i;f ~ ~.J 4~ MIN[1T'aS, CITY PLANNING CONIIdISSION, June 18, 1969 4552 VARIkNCE N0. 2095 - Mr. llorius, in response to Commission questioning, stated that (ooniiinued) the i•evised plans on the reduoed saale submitted tu the Commission had taken oare of tr•is problem; that the dimensions inaluded the stairoase w;?.th one stairway on eaah side; that a11 units would have patios or be,l- aonies •primerily looated ad3aoent to the kitahens; that che developers were attempting to design a.faoility whioh would allow for privaay and livabilitq in the apartments; and that for these reasons the. plans of development needed sll the waivers requested in order to rillow for suffiaient separation between the R-1 and R-3, give an open spaoe appee-z~ioe, and provide for guest parking or any additional off-street parking for tenenta with more than one vehicle. A aolored r•endering was then presented to the Commission with the oomment that the proposed development would be similar to the development in Tustin. The Commission noted that beaause the two parcels were held out for future aommeroial development, the developers had oreP;ed their own hardship and was the basia reason why so many waivers were neoessary; that if these paroels were inaluded in the cverall development, redesign of the plans aa~ld eliminate a ma,jority of them; that tha state- ment made that apartments ad3aoent to State Cnllege Boulevard were undesirabld beoause of the heetvy traffio oould not be taken as a valid reason, sinae there were many R-1 homes immediately to the north whioh backed onto said street with only a masonry wall separating these homes from the traYfia noises; that if the paroels now proposed to be held out were later development, in all likelihood additional waivers would be neoessary due to their possible oonfliot with the residential properties slready developed to the north to permit less desirable uses such as on sale liquor, etc.; and that peripheral oiroulation oould be aaaomplished if these parcels were inoluded in the overall development for multiple family residential use whioh would also re- duoe the wslking distanoe from parking faoilities to the apartment units. Mr. Dorius noted that they would be faoed with similar w~39.vers beoause of the narrow- ness of the parael looated between R-1 and M-1 properties. The Commission inquired whether or not the owners-developers of subjeat property had been the developers o£ the R-l traots to the north? `~r. George Argyros, agent for the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and aduised them that the petitioners were the dasghter and son-in-law of the developers ~f the R-1 traots; that it was intended to develop an offioe-professional building on the northerly "not-a-part" paroel with a possible restaur~nt,whiah would be opposite the Golden Pheasant restaisatit,on the southerly paroel, and that the previous varianoe also had a number of wgivers approved due to the size and location of the parcel. The Commission noted that the p.resent proposal ass further oompounding the problems of development of the parcel that a better plan of development oould be presented; that the developer had areated his own hardship in the division o£ the property; and that there was no logioal reason for nonsidering commeroiel uses for the frontage aoross from a larger shopping oenter, espeaially sinoe it would be immediately ad,jaaent to single family homes. Idrs. Ann Madison, real estate agent for the Wagner proparties, appeared before the Commission and stated that the original plan was for R-1, but to satisfy the lenders the proposed development was presented; that many of the waivers were of a teannical nature, and the staff was in the prooess of amanding the oode requirements; that the property to the west was granted similar waivers beoause of the size and shape of"thc propert;,, therefore, favorable oonsideration should also be given this request. Continued disoussion was held between the Commission, staff, and the developers as to the aooeptable type of airaulation, proposed oommeroial use of the frontage property, and at its oonolusion the Commission inquired whether the City Engineer would permit 20-30 foot drives having aooess to State College Boulevard, and whether the Fire Chief approved the proposed emergenoy aoaess.; Of.fiae Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission the the City Engineer would not look favorably on two curb outs to State College Blvd., due to the heavy traffio and inacaess- ibility from subjeot progerty during peak load hours, an3 maintenance diffiaulties. ~Li^. Roberts noted that the Assistant Fire Chief had stated ;hat the proposed emergenoy ea~ess altho not the most desirable, it oould be lived with if the petition we,s approved. Comm:~ssioner Herbst ofYered a motion to aontinue Varianae No. 2095 to the meeting oY July 14 1969 in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans whioh showed c~evelopment for the easterly portion, peripheral airaulation, and units a minimum oP 700 square feet. Commissioner Thom seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. j•'`P<if~t~ 'M' , . ~ - : w` ~ ~~ 1~ '"e~' ~+` q ~ ^~'~Fh~J's~T, ~ 1 . ~r ,~«« tyl f'~ ~l rc 'i .- 'k 1 .s .;~ ~~ y ~~... C ~ ~ •.j! i .` { ~ '. ~. ' ! ]~. U'^ ! F~ J I %r. . . . . , . . ~ . . . . . . . --' -- -'------ - 4 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~IS3ION, June 18, 1969 4553 Commissioner Rowland entered the Counoil Chamber at 2:35 p.m. TENTATNr~~LAP OF - DENELOP~R: WESTPORT DEVELOPMENT, 914 East Katells Avenue, ~ TRACT N0. 5501, Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anecal Engineering Company, REVISION N0. 3 222 East Linaoin Avgnue, Anaheim, California. Sub3ect trect, looated at the northeast corner of the interaeation of Miraloma Way with tha Riverside Freeway and oontaining 7.24 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 19 R-3 Zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Charles Ro3erts presented Tentative Map of Traot No. 5501, Revision No. 3 to the Commission, noting the loaation of sub3eot property, prev- ious zoning eotion, and surrounding land uses. It was also noted that sub3ect traot as Revision No. 2 enaompassed 39 lots, and it was now proposed to subdivids into two traots, therefore the plens indiaete no appreoiable change in the street layout, lot design, lot widths and areas from that originally approved. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve Tentative ldap of Tract No. 5501, Revision No. 9, seoonded by Commissioner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED, sub3ect to tha following oond3tions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative Porm for approval. 2. That the owners of sub~eot property shall pay to the City of Anaheim park and reoreation fees of $75 per dwelling unit, as required by City Counoil Resolu- tion whioh shall be used for ps~rk and reareation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the Bui3ding Parmit is issued. . 3. That in eaoordanae with City Counoil polioy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be oonstruoted on the southerly property line separating Lot Nos. lA thru 8A and 9, Ediraloma Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, exaept that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said walls where cul-de-sacs abut the planned highway rights-of-way line of an arteriel highway, Reasonable landsaaping,. inaluding irrigation,ieoilities, shall be installed in the unoemented portion of the arterial highwaq parkwap.the full distanae of said wall, plans for said landsaaping to be submitted tio and suh3eot to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenanoe. Following installation and aoaeptanoe, the City of Anaheim shall sssume the responsibility for maintenanoe of said landsoaping. ;4. That Lot Nos. lA thru 8A, one foot in width, shall be looated along the southerlq line of alley "C" for tho oonstruotion of a masonry wall. 5. That Lot Nos. l0A thru 15A, one foot in width, shall be looated along the northerly line of alley "A" for the oonstruotion of a masonry wall. 6. That all lots within this traot shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of sub3eot property shell be disoharged in a manner that is satisfaotory to the City Engineer. 8. That all m!j,sonry walls ad3aaent to slleys shall be designed to resist damage from automobiles. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: WESTPORT DEVELOP6dENT, 914 East Katelle Avernse, TRACT N0. 6972 Anaheim, California. ENGINEER: Anaoa~ Engineering Company, 222 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, CaliPornie. Sub3eot traot, looated east of the northeast aorn9r of the interseotion of Miraloma Way with the Riverside Freeway and containing 5.11 aores, is proposed for subdivision into 20 R-3 Zoned lots. Sub~eot traot was aonsidared in oon~unotion with Tentative Map of Tract No. 5501, Revision No. 3. Commissioner Thom offered a motion to approve Tenwative Map of Tract No. 6972, seoonded by Commissic~ner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED, sub3eot to the follcwing aonditionn: ~ _ ~ J tr~ q .. ~ ^. ~F ,~y :.~ -P?r *~~~T~+'a~ 7'+ ~ a~a ~ .37 r ~, 5 ~ ~ .r ~a + 'f.~ "~ } - ~ ' ~ ~ MINi°"ES~ CTTY pLANNIN(3 CODAMISSICN, June 38, 1969 . 4~~q TENTATNE•MAP OF - 1. That should this subdivisio: te 3eveloped.s~ more •chan or.e TRACT NO., 6972 subdivision, eeah subdivision the:eof she~ll be subs3tted in (oontinued) tentative form for approval. ~ 2. That the owners of sub~eot property shall pay to the City o~ Aaaheim park and reoreation fees of ~75 per dwelling unit, as required by C;ty ios::ail Resolution, whioh shall be used for park s.d reoreation purposes, sai3 amo;:.nt to be paid at the time the Building Permit is issued. . 3. That in aooor3anoe with City Counoil polioy, s 6-foot masonry wa11 shall be aonstruoted on the south property line separating Lot Iv'os. 16A thru 20A ar_3 Miralome Avenue, ezoept that pedsstrian openinge ahall be nroviiled in said walls where oul-de-saos abut the planned h3ghway rights-cf-way line of an arterial highway. Reasonable landsoaping, inaluding irrigation faoi"lities, shall be installed in the unnemented portion of the arteri~.:. highwa,y parkway the full distanoe oP said wall, plans for aeid lar.dscaping to be submitted to and sub3eot to the approval of the Superintendent of Parlcvvay dlaiatenance. Following installe~ion and aooeptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility £or maintenanoe oP said landscaping. 4. That Lot Nos. 16A thru 20A, one Poot in width, shall be located along the ' southerly line of alley "C" for the aonstruction of a mascnry wall. 5. That Lot Nos. lA thru 4A, one foot in width, shall he looated along the north- erlq line of alley "A" for the oonstruotion o.f a masonrq wall. 6. That all lots within this traot shell be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of sub~aot property shall be discharged in a manner that is satisPaotory to the City Engineer. • 8. That ell.masonry wells ad~soent to alleys shall be desigr.ed to resist damage from automobiles. ' TENTA"'IVE MAP OF - UEITEIAPER: RINRER D~TELOPMLfil GORPGRATION, 10600 Katells Avenue, TRACT N0. 4241, Anaheim, Californis. ETGI:VEER: Anaoal Eagineering Company, REVISION N0. 1 222 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Californie. Sub~eot traat, loonted on the west side of Orohard Drive, generally north of Ornngethorpe Avenue and smsth and west of the Orahard Drive Elementary Sohool, oontaining approzimately 20.2 aores, is proposed for subdivision into 104 R-2-5000 Zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Charlas Roberts presented Tentative Map of Traot No. 4241, Revision No. 1 to the Co~ission, and noted the looated of sub,jeot property, aoreage involved, uses established in olose prozimity, existing and resolution of intent zoning on the property, the latter not having an ordinanoe beoause conditions had not been met, and the faot thnt this revision oombined Traot No. 6286 with Traot No. 4241, making a totel oP 101 lots 9vith 3 additional lots having been added as a result of the saquisition of an oil well pumping site looated at the s4uthwest oorner of the property. Therafore, sinoe this represented essentislly the same as two previously approved traots, the proposal would be oonsidered reasonable. Mr. Roberts Yurther noted thnt iP sub3eot traot was approved, an edditional aondi- tion would be needed to satisfy a requirement of the Orange County Flood Control Distriot, namely eithsr a ohain link fenoe or mnsonry wall to separate the ohannel fro~ Lot Nos. 14,'15, 16, 17, and Nos. 86 thru 104. Commissioner Herbst oYPered a motion to npprove Tentative Map of Traot No. 4241, Rev,sion No. 1, seaonded by Commissioner i'hom azd MOTION CARRIED, sub~eot to the following oonditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, eao}i subdivision thereoY shall be submitted in tantative form £or approval. 2. That the owner oP sub3ect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim park and ; reoreation fees as required by City Coi:noil Resolution of 3~25 per dwelling ! unit, whioh shall be used Yor par~ and reoreation p•,u~poses, said amount to be paid at the time the Building Permit issLed. ~ o c~ MINUTES, CITY PLAIVNING COL~dISSION, June 18, 1969 a555 TENTATIVE MAP OF - That in aooordanoe with City Counail poliay, a 6-foot mssonry wall TRACT N0. 4241, shall be oonstruoted on the east property line separating Lot No. 1 FiEVISION N0. 1 and Orohard Drive, esaept that se,id wall shall be stepped down to a (oontinued) height o£ t~e3rty inohes in the Pront ycard setbaok, and~eaaept 'that pedestria-,t c~i9nings shall be provided in said walls where aul-de- saos abut ~:;'4:a planned highway rights-of-way line of an arteriel highway. Reasonable landsoaping, inoluding irrigation fanili~ies, shall be installed in the unoemented portion oY the arterial highway .,; parkway the full diste,noe of said wall, plans Yor said landsoeping • to be submitted to and'sub~eot to the approval of tha Superintendent of Parkv~sy Maintenanoe. Following installation and eooeptanoe, the City of Anaheim shell assume the responsibility fo3~ me,intenanoa oY said landsoaping. 4. That all lots xrlthin this traat shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That adequate storm drain faoilities shall be provided from the existing Atwood Flood Control Channel to Orohard Drive, as required by the City Engineer. 6. That the vehioular aooess rights eaoept at street and~or alley openings to Orohard Drive shell be dedioated to the City of Anaheim. 7. That publio utility easements shall be provided as required by the Direotor of Publio Utilities. 8. That a 6-foot high ohain link fenoe or masonrq wall shall be oonetr•:oted to separate Lot Nos. 14 thru 17 and 86 thru 104 and the Orange County Flood Control Channel. STREET 1VAMFi - PUBLIC HEARING. IDTITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COt~dISSION, 204 East CHANGE Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis to aonsider a street name ahange ORCHARD DR. ' for Orohard Drive lying within the 3wrisdiation of the City of Anaheim to Kellogg Drive. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed for the Commission previous Commission and Counoil aotion of proposals to rename Orohard Drive, the most reoent aotion being on Maroh 24, 1969, in which the Commission stated there was no justifioation for a ahange in their previous reaommendation and urged that the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors oonsider giving appropriate reoogni- tion to Mr Kellogg by naming some Yutura, me,3or street in the Yorba Linda axea Kellogg. The City Counail again sustained this aation. However, on April 30, 1969 the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved the renaming of Orohard Drive to Kellogg Drive, alth~ugh a member of the staff was at that meeting to present the reasoning of both the Planning Commission and City Counoil as to the retention of the existing neme. ~rthermore the Ci.ty of Yorbe, Linda had aonourred with the Board of Supervisors' deoision azrl had already ohanged their street signs. There- fore to avoid ~y further oonfusion with street and freewaq signing, and to mein- tain a oontinwity of street names through the various 3urisdiotions involved in this aotion, 3'st,~ novv reoommended that those portions of Orohard Drive, existing and proposed, wi~hin the oity limits of Anaheim, be renamed Kellogg Drive. No one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING YVAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No: PC69-135, end moved for its passage and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Herbst to raoommend to the City Counoil that Orohard Drive within the 3urisdiotion of the City of Ane,heim be renamed Kellogg Drive, on the basis that other County and City 3urisdiations have ohanged the. name of Orohard Drive, and in order to avoid aonfusion of street signing through various 3urisdiotions by the retention of oontinuity of one street name.(See Resolution Boo1t~ On roll aall the foregoing resolution was passed 'uy the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEF3: Farano, Gauor, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred. NOES: C06LOLISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CODLadISSIONERS: Camp. f.r T. A,. L ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~'~''Sr ~~ P~N~NG COb~ISSION~ June 18, 1969 4556 AREA DEVELOPMENT - PIIBLIC AEARING. IlQITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLA.~TNING CO~ISrION, PLAN N0. 102 204 Ee,at Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, California, to consider oiroulation and aoaess for the area generally bounded by Lakeviea Street on the west, Orangethorpe Avenue on the north, Trinidad Lana (a private street) on the east, e.nd la Pslma Avenue on the south. ~o P ~~:~ _ Assiatant Develo ment Sarvioes Direotor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission thst ~ two ezhibits were posted on the east wall oP the Counoil Chamber whioh depioted two { ', ' rvays o~ providing looal street aooeas to those properties presentlg lendlooked; that fi''`~`''~:; the staYf had met with a number of the property owners to disouss the tteed ~or a ~ system of loosl oiroulation, and both eahibits indioate a possibility of eatending tr,.+.,, a street north of Le Palme, Avenue whioh would provide for ssid oiroulation Por the . g^ :t . y lendl•aoked p8roels; that the eahibits also indioate i~he possible looation of the ,~ eztenaion of Miraloma Avanue, however, the preoise alignment was noW being studied ;~ to eatend it from Jefferson to Lalceview Streets; that a ma3ority o3 the properties "' idy; were under the ~urisdiotion of the County oY.Orange, therefore, the studq as to the i ~j preoise alignment was being made by them;aidtliat~.t2~e ezhibits did not indioate any ~:' possible eatension of Miraloma Avenue east of Lelceviem Street, beoause if this were ~~ "~~ done at this tlme it might oonYliot with the axterisl hi hwa 7"` ~ g y plan of the Countv. i 1, A Assoaiete Planner Jaak Mulqueeny appeared before the Commission and noted that sia ~ of the paroels east of Le,keview Street were landloaked, and the staff had attempted ~' to find some means of alleviating this problem so that in the future these paroels ~ would have a ohanoe to develop, whioh wou13 not be possible iP eooess to a dedioated ; street was not available; that no aooess was proposed northerly beoause of the Santa ~, {' Fe Railroad main line treaks over whioh 40 trains passed eaoh day, and the State ~ ~ Publin Utilities Commission would not rant g permission for an overorossing to the 4, ~ north, therefore, a oul-de-sac street extending from La Palma Avenue was proposed; ~ ~ that when and if the County of Orange determined the ~ s'~ preoise alignment of Miraloma ~ Avenue betwaen Jefferson and Lalceview Streets, the City of Anaheim oould then deter- ~~y, mine where the extension of Miraloma Avenue easterly oP I.elceview oould be looated; and 3z ,~~ that the exhibits prepared by the staff indiaated on "A" joint dedioation for the ~ ~ looel street by abutting property owners both to the east and west, while "B" pro- ~,~~ posed all dedioation to be aoquired from the six westerly landlooked psrnels in ~~~;~ the event the large paroel to the east did not desire aooess to the street. ,',;~6 Mr. Jaok Edmund, ovmer of the A3ax Cement Company, looated on La Palma Avenue at the terminus of the proposed north-south street, appeared before the Commission and noted ha wes not opposed to the proposed street and would try toco-operated in • e~ery wsy possible, however, his oompany needed every inoh of their propertq; that his oompany was looated at its present looation prior to the eatension of La Palma Av~nue easterly from Jefferson Street to the Yorba Linda Freeway, and at the time of the street oonstruotion had lost oonsiderable property; that the property where tha proposed street would have its terminus e,t La Pelma Avenue was now used for parking their truoks and amployees automobiles, therefor9, the Commission in their deoision should weigh the i~plioations if the :itreet out thr~u the easterly portian of his property, sepsrating the manufaoturing c~eration from the parking faoilities, and further reduoing the parY.~ing needed to almost nothing; and that they were already ~~nneriencing the problem of having a street separting part oY their property. ld~ Ee+rl Niohoia; represer.ting the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company and the ATd,SF. Ra:..r~oad, appeared bafore the ~ommission and stated that they were not opposed to Exl~it~2.i "A", however, they would like the option of dedioatir.g for street purposes now an~3 street improvements delaged until another representative oould be present to d;isouss this at some future time. Mr. Thampson noted that Eahibit "A" proposed equal dedioation from both the properties eas•b and west of the proposed street. Mr• Hawn, owner of Paroel No. 5, whioh Would be affeoted by the proposed street, appea•red before the Commission and stated he oonaurred in the statement made by the repr,•esentntive oY the Sante Fe Companies as to dedioation now and improvements later; ar.d that he aas desirous of lrnowing whether these properties would be served with water and other utilities. Mr. Thompson noted there there vvas a water line in La Palma Avenue whioh oonld be eztended northarly when the looel street right-oY-way was developed, said extension oould be used by both properties to the east and veest of the street e,nd payment would be by aoreage fees at the time street d~evelopment ooourrad. ~.:~ f . _ -~ ~' ~ , ,~ , ~~~'~, .,~ ""' '~ ,~ 0 ~~ V MINUTES, CITY PLANDiING COMEdISSION, June 18. 1969 4557 AREA DEVELOPMENT - Five persons indiaated their presenoe as owners who would be PLAN N0. 102 aYfeoted by the proposed street. ~ (oontinued) Mr. Don Pierotti, 501 S~t. John Plaoe, Pleoentis, appeared before the Commission and noted he owned Paroel No. 4; that he was interested in some type of aooess, sinoe development of his property would not ooour unless oambined with other paroels already having aooess to a street, and then inquired as to the oosts for street improvements, wster eatettsion, sewers, and whethgr or not these la.ndloaked paraels would be assessed any damages if the street's terminus at La Palma Aver.ue iato the property fronting on said street was affeoted? D~r. Thompson adpised the Commission that these items were dis,oussed with the City 'tiY Engineer and the Publio Works Direator, and it was their opinion that the north-south street would be to the advantage o£ both the Santa Fe I,and Company and the landloaked paroels, as well as those paroels fronting on La palma Avenue; that if the Commission deems Exhibit "A" as aooeptable, the ad~oining property owners should be responsible for paying for the property needed for aoaess to Le, Pe,lme, Avenue, as well as instellation ' of the street anross the property fronting on ?,e, Palma Avenue; and that the Offioe ~ Engineer oould giva some basia oost data. Offioe Engineer Jay Titus advised the Commission that street improvements would aost $10 per iineal foot for eaoh side o£ the street, whioh did not inolude sidewalks •=+``;'` normally waived in the industrisl area by the City Counoil, nor aurbs and gutters; that the extension of sewers would be $350 per aore, however he did not lmow the oost ~ of water faoilities. Mr. Thompson then noted that the $350 figure for sewers was where the property was flat le,nd, and the savings by not installing sidewalks normally waived by the Counoil was substantisl, however, he also did not have oost figures on the water foes but since it mas available at La Palma Avenue, the eapense would not be too exaessive. Idr. Thompson further noted that in all fairness to Mr. Goodman,who would be losing some of the property at the terminus of the street proposed and La Palma Avenue, some form of aooperation oould be worked out with the other property owners as to land czohange,onoe the alignment was selected, an agreement whioh would be satis- faotory to all o£ the oavners of properties who would benefit by the proposed street, and the City aould act as liason. Mr. Wesley Collier, owner of the northernmost parael, appeared before the Commission an stated he was in favor of Exhibit "A", and thus he would be having the neoessary aooess to his property. A showing of hands indioated four persans were in favo: of Exhibit "A". THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC69-136, and moved for its passage and adcption, seoonded by Commissioner Farano to reaommend to the City Counoil the adoption of Area Development Plan No. 102, Exhibit "A" depioting equal strset dedioation by the six le,ndlooked paroels to the west of the proposed street and the large paroel to the east.(See Resolution Book) On roll oell the foregoing resolution was passed bq the following vote: AYES: CObID6ISSI0NER5: Farano, Gauer, Rowland, Thom, Allred. NOES: COI~LISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COA~LISSIONERS: Camp. 113STAIIJ: COlul~2SSi0NERS: Herbst. ~~ ~ C~ ~EINUTES, CITY PLANNING COt~ISSION, June 18, 1969 4558 A1~+NDMENT TO TF~ - CONTINUED PIJBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY Tf~ CITY PLANNING COI~dISSION, ANAHEI~L DdUNICIPAL 204 East Linooln Avenue, Anaheim, Cali£ornis; proposing to oonsider CODE-TITLE 18 an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Muniaipal Code, Chapter 18•28, R-2 Multiple-Family Residential, Zone - Off-street parking, aooessways and airoulation. Subjeot Code amendment was oontinued from the meeting of April 7 and May 5, 1969, in order to allow time for the Orange County ChaptQr of the Building Industry Assooiation. of Californie to subm~.t data on studies made of apartment developments regarding parking, number of one, two, and three-bedroom units in the study, number of vehiales per unit, and number of compsat cars. Rssooiate Planner Jank Mulqueeny reviewed for the Commission past Commission publio hearings on the parking requirements for multiple family residentisl developments, noting that the Building Industry Assooiation of Southern Californi8 - Orange County Chapter (BIA) had submitted data requested by the Commission whiah the staff had diligently studi.ed, and the Report to the Commission indioated tl~at the studies made by BIA, the Sohool of Business Administration and Eaonomios of Californis State College at Fullerton together with that made by the staff was in substantial agreement in one area, a slight differenae in statistios betweea BIA and staff wa~s not~ad in another, however this aould tae attributed to the faot that BIA's data avas basad on large apastment developments while the staff's was based on an overall multiple family development survey aherein 50~ of these units in tMe aity were duplea, tri-plea, or Your-plex developments; that in the £uture rss larger oompleaes were built the smaller developments would ahange some, and in this regard BIA had some reoommendations. A aomparison of the differenaes between BIA a.Md staff reoommendations was then made as set forth in the Report to the Commission was made by ~r. Mulqueeny. It was also noted the.t 43,~ af all hauseho7.ds had two or mos~e vehioles, aooording to the survey made by Cal. State - Fullerton, and an inarease in this number was ooourring at the rate of 2% per year; that a studq me,de bq the University of Miohigan indioe,ted that by 1974,oities with large oonaentrations of apartment developments would generate two or more vehioles per dwelling unit for 53 peroent of the units; tha~ staff's proposal referred to the need for suffioient spe.oes for aampers, travel trailers, boats and trailers' storage as Well as tenent automobiles and guest parking; that BIA was also requesting oredit be given for ourb or on-street parkjng where dedioa- tion for street widpning or streets Was made, howaver, the staff did not feel this was justified, sinoe the purpose of a atreet was to move traffio, aaoess needs Por apartment developments and emergenoy p~rking faailities. Thus if aredit were given for on-street pasking, then adequate of4-street parking would not be eaoomplished. Fhrthermora, by giving oredit for on-street parking, the City would relinquish the right of movement of tra£fio thru a oity. It was also noted that BIA stated resi- dents of apartm~ent oompleaes preferred open parking and aurb side perking by tenents; that the survey also indioated 20$ of the parking stalls were empty, however there were some very plausible eaplBntions to this, namely that some of the tenents worked nights some apartment managers 8ssessed a rental fve for parking stalls whioh tenents did not want to pay and aould aooount for the considerable amount of on-street parking; that mhere no stall was provided as a me,tter of right when renting s; unit, tenents pre.ferred on-street parking, thus aooounting ~or empty stalls. Mr. tdulqueeny slso noted that in aon,junation with the parking requirements, several teohnioal ahanges were proposed as to number of oovered or open parking spaoes; oovered parking spaaes should be within 200 feet and readily aooessible to the dwelling unit it served; thst the parking should be eoreened as previously required; that eaoh dwelling unit be looated within 200 Yeet og or served by a publia or private acoessway ahioh would provide for adequate airoulation Yor pedestrians and vehioular traffio, inoluding fire, utility, trash oplleotion, and other essential servioes; that all vehioular aaaessWaqs have a minimum turning radius of 25 feet; and that an eovessory build~ng or oarport may abut a side property line between the required front setbsak line and the rear property line. Mr. M. Dpuglas, 524 Waet Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, representing $IA and owners- operator3 of large apartmettt oomplexes eppeared before the Commission and reviewed the study made by BIA in detail,, and related the manner in mhioh the figures were compil~ed namely, that figures mere obtained Yrom developers and manager-ownars of apartment compleaes who were not intarested in speoulative motives, sinoe persons making the stat~ments would have to live with these oonditions.(Copy of the data submitted on Yile) yyl ~ ~ Y~ MINUTES, CI'LR PLANNING COM~ISSION, June 18, 1964 4559 A~ENDMENT TO THE - Mr. Douglas further noted that the vehicle and apartment count ANAF~IM ~iTNICIPAL were aatual rather than estimated aounts taken on peak days CODE - TITLE 18 when parking problems seemed to bs most serious, said oounts <oontinued) indioated in almost every instanoe Prom ell souroes the same \ count which added to the validitq of the studq; that the on site and aurb pexking oombined never exoeeded the 1.3 vehioles per dwelling unit ratio in Anaheim; that no more •than 95% of the vehioles were on the premises at the peak period; thet habits of tenents seemed to be universal in that oonvenient parking was always desired; that the meaning of oovered parking should be liberalized to permit open sides and resr or free-standing; that the requirement of 100 aubio feet for storage purposes is essential; that aredit should be g~ve~for on- street parking sinoe most developments are primarily R-3 with streets serving these developments rather than a miature of uses or aoted as thru streets; that tha banning of parking on streets in these developments will be mast harmful, as an eaemple the City of Flillerton bans parking, snd many of the residents of the apartments were given parking tiokets every day; that no mention was made by stsff as to the effeotive date of the proposed amendment, however, he did not feel anyone ~ho was presently developing or those already oompleted should be required to meet these new standards; and that to require more than B 2 A recommended would be a waste of land. ~r. Douglas then stated that the study made by Cal. State - Fullerton aould not be oonsidered valid sinoe only s 26% return to the inquiry made the peraentages oonsider- ably less soourate than those presented by BIA. tdr. Douglas slso stated that the BIA was flattered that the Commission asked them to partioipate in the study, and he hoped this would be the trend in the future where problems ooourred in the multiple family development standards wherein the Commission would take advantage of the vast experienue of the industry. The Ccmmission eapressed their appreaiation for the aooperation of BIA in aaking the study o£ apartment developments as to parking, type and number of units, ocaupanay faotor of eaoh unit, average vehiale per unit, and the number of oompaot vehioles. The Commission also noted that the differenoes betpeen the three studies was not too great, and in given instanoes this difference wouZd be less; that the request for oredit for on-street oi• aurb parking was aontrary to polioy in the pest, and then inquired whether in the studies made of other oities, were these aities giving credit for street parking. ~r. Douglas responded that to his lrnowledge none of the oities ga+~e tnis ormdit, however, in making the vehioular aount ourb parking was included i;i tho overall 1.3 vehicles per unit. ~r. Douglas also in response to statements made by Commissioner Gauer on the parking problems of several apartment developments in the City, stated that these developments provi~ed only 1~ spaoes and in some instanoes the oovered parking was inoonvenient to the units; however, in some insta~oes where 2 speoes for 1 unit were provided the on street parking was ~ust as muoh a problem, sinae this was typioel of many residents who did not utilize the speae provided. The Commission then noted that the City Counoil was oonsidering prohibiting p~rking in some ereas whioh might foroe these residents ta ixtilize the par~ing stalls whioh the developments provided. ~r. Douglas then noted that where 1} spaaes were provided there would be no trouble, but where 10,000 units in Anaheim had been built with only 1 or 1} spaoes were provided, these developments would be penalized, however, no statistias had been obtained on the smaller apartment compleaes below ten units, and the parking requirements wouli~ be entirely different. Commissioner Rowland, in reviewing the evidence submitted by BIA and staff, ststed in his opinion all baohelor, one and two-bedroom should provide 1-1/2 parking speaes, f while 3-bedroom should provide 2-1/4 spaces; that apartment developments presently ~ being constructed or which aro oonstruoted would not be affected by the new require- ments, however, in the future this would be very important; that open oarports as ~ reaommendad by BIA would only have a roof shelter, and if 100 cubic feet storsge speae were required this could encompass the entire rear of each oarport, but ~hat he had no opinion as to open or closed carports. ~ ~. ~i 7~3~'~1 `lr ~' ,~~9 r In'Fr ~~ +Ma~° [ t f ~e f,~~C~ ~ l3 m~ ~~ C ~~.-: .3 y 1~:'r i~.•" . ~ ~lINUT~~S, C~TX PLANNIbTG CdNAL~SSION, June 18, 1969 ~~ .~~ \~ 4660 A3~ENDI~NT TO T~ - Mr. Donglas advised the Commission thet the BIA wanted the liberty I~NAHEIM 6dUNICIPAV to haye free-standing oarports for aesthetios; however, their ~ODE'.- TITLE 18 eaperienoe in 3-bedroom units was minimal, but if teenagers would '(oontinued) ~ be part of the resident aount of these units, perhaps there would be some diffiaulty in providing suffioient o£f-street parking; and t€~at the ratio of 70-30 one and two-bedrooms was their exper3enoe. The Commissimrt noted that the Code amendment was to provide for long range planning, ezad it would not be praotioel to amend the Code every year. THE HEAEtING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was then held by the Commission of the evidenoe subutitted, ststistios whiah were based primarily on large developments, ahile staff's pro3ections were based on an overall small and large unit development; that the ordinanoe was not designed for highly speoialized developments suoh as the South Bay proposal; that oonsideration may be given to permitting oarports with roofs only so long as the required storage spsoe is provided; and that it would be neoessary for the developers to design the aarports with said storage speoe plaoed at their disoretion. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commis.sion that where oarports were plaoed ad~soent to a propertq line the developer would be required to snolose the struoture on three sides this then would eliminete the possibility oY oreating an unsightly situation; however, iP the oarports were proposed behind the front setbaok along the front oP a parael it would not be required that these be enolosed, thus it would oreate open spaoe from the street. Commissioner Rowland then noted that the Building Code would require the carports ta be enolosed in some areas, while others oould be oonstruoted with the roof only, thus it was quite possible that oarports along the Front property line with a roof only would be a possibility. Mr. Douglas, in response to Commission questioning, stated that their basio reason for proposing the alternative of a roof only was to esaape the monotony of blank baok walls, sinoe the automobile was far more attractive than a blank wall. Commissioner Rowland offered Aesolution No. PC69-137, and moved for its passage and adoption, seoonded by Commissioner Thom to reoommend to the City Counail the edoption of amendments to the site development standards of the R-2 and R-3 Zone requiring 1-1/2 perking spaoes for eaoh baohelor, one or two-bedroom unitr and 2-1/4 parking spaoes for three bedroom units; that eeoh uriit be prbvided'with a minimum of one oovered parking spaoe with minimum interior dimensions of ten feet in width by ':wenty feet in length and having a oleer aooess width of nine feet; that open spaoes may be provided for the balanae of the required parking which shall be Eight and one-half (8}) feet wide and nineteen (19) feet long; that eaoh dwelling unit shall be looated within 200 feet of,and be served by, suoh publio or private aooessway that will provide ade- quate aooess and oiraulation for pedestrian and vehioular traffio, inoluding fire, utility, trash oolleotion and other essentiel servioes; that all vehioular eaoessways shall have a minimum turning raciius of 25 feet; and that an aooessory building may abut s side property line betaeen the required frontsetbsak line and the rear property line. (See Resolution Book) On roll aall the Poregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COI~ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred. NOES: COM~dISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMIdISSIONERS: Camp. ANAE~Ild GENERAL PLAN - COI~INUED PUBLIC HEARING. IDTITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, 204 Esst Linaoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californis; to oonsider the Publio Faoilities Element of the Anaheim General Plan. Assistant Development Serviaes Direator Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that all but the sohool segment of the Publio Faoilities Element of the General Plan were oompleted, and would be submitted to the Commission st the evening session. Commissioner Herbst ofiered a motion to oont3nue aonsideretion of the Publio Faoilities Element of the General Plan to the meeting of June 30, 1969. Commissioner Farano senonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. _ !'f~ ~;~ •_:':i ~"v j ~:I ,i '~ ~ ~ l l :; . ~ , .j ~ ~ :..:.._ . ~ , `,:~ ,;7,- /~ ~ ~ ~ •' V MINUTESr CITy PLANNING COl~ISSION, June 18, 1969 4661 REPORTS AND ITEl~ N0. 1 AECOA~!lENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT N0. 1114 (Harmetz and Shoemaker) ;:. Reviaed plans - eapansion of Travel Trailer lodge - southeast oorner oP Ball Road and YYalnut Street Zoning Supervisor Chsrles Roberta presented revised plans oP Conditional Use Permit No. 1114 proposing the ezpnnsion of the originally proposed trailer park from 3.5 aores to 5 eores; 74 spaoes to 156 spaaea;20x40-foot spaoes to 20x32-foot spaoes; 30-foot drives to 25-foot drivea; 40-foot wide saoess drive from Ball Road to a pull-out area in drive~vay Por registration ofP Ball Road; and 10-foot offioe setbaok from Ball Road to a 20-foot setbaok. Flirthermore, a deoorative wa11 was also being proposed~as well as reorsation rooms and a barbequs area. Commissioner Thnm:: ofYered a motion to approve. revised plans proposing the expansion of s travel trailer perk granted Maq 19, 1969 in Conditional Use Permit No. 1114, and sub~eot to the same oonditions. Commissioner Herbst seoonded the motion. MOTION CARAIED. RECESS - Commissioner Thom ofYered a motion to reoess the meeting for dinner and to permit the Coc~i.ssion to board a Plight on a DeHavilland "Otter" airplane at Fullerton Airport destination to be the parking area e,long Orenge~vood Avenue of the Annheim Stadium. Commissioner Farano seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Tkte meeting reoessed at 3:35 p.m. RECONVEIVE The Co~ission reoonvened in the parking area of the Anaheim Stadium at 6:00 p.m, to permit the Commission time to observe and hear at close range lnndings and takeoffs of the proposed planes for the Metroport~ and to further observe and hear overflights at vQrious looBtions within a perimeter of 2 miles oY the parking area. ly." ` I A!Y_ ) I:V.i:~. ~\\ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ ly/ . ~,rZ~ ~~ + blltdUTES, CITY PLANNING COid6dISSION, ~une 18, 1969 4662 ~~~.''~ ~i,,;:' RECONVENE: Chairman reaonvened the publia hearing by the Planning Commission in the G`~;- • _. Stadium Club at J:'45~~D.m., Commi~sioner Camp being the only Commissioner ~_~_, . absent. ~;:,;:: b~~;s.;. ~t~;;': ~:,~;; CONDZTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING.. I1~TITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, 204 East Lincoln '""" PERE4IT N0. 1120 Avenue Anaheim California to oonsider the ESTABLISHMENT OF A ,~s;;;: ,_ , i ~;,;.; I~TROPORT WITH RELATED FACILITIES on property desaribed as: x~~;~, t r:. ~.? Paroel 1- An irregularly,shaped par,cel of land consisting of approximately 42 acres, ~;;;;::' having approximate frontages of 2600 ~eet on the north side nf Orangewood Avenue and "d~" 615 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and &OO feet elong the west bank of the Santa Ana River, and having a maximum depth of spproximately 750 feet ;~; ,;:5 ~'~ £rom Orange~vood Avenue. ~~-,,,,; : .;~; ~~ Paroel 2- An irregularly shaped parael of land cansisting oY approximately 43 acres, i having approximata frontages of 1900 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and r;,_, i., 1000 feet along the west benk of tha Sante Ana River, and having a maximum depth of ~t,;~: approximetely 1070 feet from Orsngewood Avenue, the westerly boundary oi su'~ject property being approximately 750 feet east of State College Boulevard. 1~ ?roperty presently classified M-1, LIGHT IICDUSTRIAL, ZONE« _ ~ `'"''> Chairman Allred addressed the audience as follows: The purposa of this hearing a•: ,'* is to consider one matter, and one metter only: whether or not the proposed land ~,,,,,~ use of land looated in the City of Anaheim is appropriate for NCetrpport purpa~es, ';'~ and would serve the best interests of the City of Anaheim and its citizens. ~, ~ = Unfortunately, the establishment of a new street, a school playground, e park or a t h. ,,,~~ freeway, or any other sourae of noise or confusion infringes upon the quiet comfort ~-'~ of someone. No one of us is immune to this exg~osure~. nor is ther'e ~tny one of ~.~..~~ personally guilty of at ~iimes iafringiag upoii the privacy of another. #~'~~~~"~ us who is not J~~`; ` h (~': . , ~"i~~ In tne final analysis, if we are to live in an urba~i atmosphere, x•e simply mnst give j~~~ thought~ul consideration to those things found to ba essentiel in socommodating the f~~~ ever inoreasing need~ of a rapidly expanding papulu'Lion. Transp~rtation certainly ~~~, ~~~" qualifie~ in this regard. Although the matter before the Anaheim Planning Commission is primarily one involv- iag the City of Anaheim, we are not unm:ndful of the interests of our neighbors. The Cammission will be pleased to listen to constructive observations made first by citizens of Anaheim, together with parties interested in the construction of the proposed Metroport. Following this phase of the evening's activities, it will be our pleasure to listen to the remarks of those of you who are guests of the City of Anaheim this evening. We would ask, however, that in allinstanoes, an individ- usl's remarks be limited to no mor•e than five minutes, that they be pertinent to the sub,jeot at hand, and that they not be repetitive of remarks already made. We further ask that with the exception of the aitizens of Anaheim, residents of neighboring communities limit their spokesmen to no more than three people. The Seoretary of the Commission will sound a bell when an individuel has addressed the Commission 4-1/2 minutes, thereby permitting the individual to conclude his remarks withir. the next30 seconds. Would you also •~~.ease give your name and address for the reaord. I assur~ you that e deoision made in this matter will be based upon faats and observations presented in an orderly and construative menner. The deterioration of order or the use of derogatory or acrimonia~as remark~ will in no way be toler- ated since if such oocurs, I will, as Chairman of this Body, close the hearing. I repeat: following the staff presentation, the firsi: people to be heard will be ths ci~izsns of ~he City of Anaheim together with those interested in developing an Anaheim Metroport, following whiah citizens of adjoining cities will be heard, the numbers to be limited to three from any one community other then the City of Anaheim; and in sll instances the time limit shall be five minutes. No one shall be heard twioe. These limitations are placed •~pon the meeting in oi•der that we might,proceed in a oonstruotive manner and so that we may conclude the meeting in ~ a reasonable time. I ask your forb~earance, however, ]. assure you there will be no deviation. Dsvelorment Services Director Aian G. Orsborn addreQsed the Commission and the interested persnns as follows: In the matter before you tonight, you will judge the appropriateness ~f the proposed land use for Metroport pui•poses. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 7une 18, 1969 4663 CONDITIONAL USE PERI~GGIT N0, 1120 (continued) "You are well aware of the detailed study made by the Development Service~ Department in consideration of the possible establishment of a Metroport facility in tl~e City of Anaheim. "Despite your knowledge, however, I shall presume tu emphasize two pertinent facts: First, that exhaustive studies were made of all pos.sible locations for such a fao- ility in the City of Anaheim. Following these studies it became quite apparent that if the facility were to be loaeted so as to best serve the interests of a12 ,.~ the aitizens, with the least possible inconvenienae and maximum safety, it should ~ be in the Southeaat Industrial zone. "Our conoern was not limited, I would 1ikE to point out, to the interests of the aitizens of Anaheim along, despite rumors ~co the contrary, we also considered our neighbors. The proposed site is located ir, the very he~rt of an industrial zone yet olosely adjacent to the confluence of the Santa Rna, Orange and Garden Grove Freeways, thereby reducing to a minimum the use of and the extra t:affic that might tie generated on local streets. The flight pattern is such that 95$ of tha approaches and take-offs will be over the industriel area of Anaheim and the industrial area of Orange to the east. Such a usa is quite logically an industrial one and should, therefore, be confined to areas designated as suitable for industrial development. I seriously doubt that there is another location in ths greater Anaheim area better suited for the proposed use. I can certainly assure you there is not one in the City of Anahei~ better suited. "The second point I desire to re-emphasize is related to authorized governmental agencies and ~heir standards. "The Federal Aviation Administratioi, concerns itself with air clearance, safety and noise as does the State Division of Aeronautics. It is proposed that the operation of a Metroport facility in the City of Anaheim will conform to all requirements of these two duly constituted and properly oomposed agencies. "With that preamble and introduction I wuuld like to call on the staff of the Development Services Department, so thet you can hear the report verbally as you have read it, and so that those in the audiance may also be aware of this." Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the Report to the Commission on Conditional Use Permit No. 1120 in detail as follows: Sub,ject property consisting of appr~oximately 85 acres of land is ].ocated on both the north and south sides of Orangewood Avenue between State College Boulevard and the Santa Ana River. The portion lying northerly of Orangewood Avenue consists of approxi- mately 42 acres and has frontages of approximately 2600 feet on thP north side of Orangewood Avenue, and approximately 600 feet on the east side ~of ~t;2te College Boulevard. The portion lying southerly of Orangawood Avenue contains~approximqtely 43 acres and has approximatel•3 1900 feet of frontage on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and is loaeted from the Santa Ana River to approximately 750 feet east of State College Boulevard. The City of Anaheim has initiated a conditional u~e permit under authority of Section 18.64.020(3-a) for the purpose of establishing a Metroport with related facilities on subject property. Adjoining land uses inalude the Anaheim 5tadium to the north, the Santa Ana River and the proposed Orange Freeway ta the east, some small industriel firms and State College Boulevard to the west, and the Orange Drive-in Theater and undeveloped land located in the City of Orange to the south. P_s Mr. Orsborn indicated, in January, 1968, the Development Services Department pub- lished a repo-~. entitled "Anaheim Metroport". This report is part of a comprehensive air and surface transportation study for the greater Anaheim area, undertaken by the Development Services Departmont of the City of Anuheim. This study points out that due to the phenomenal growth of air psssenger travel in Southern Californis, and Orange County in particular, and due to the projected demand .f.or air service in the g*eater Andheim area, there is a definite need for an air transportation facility in northern Urange County, and specifically in Anahei.m. ~ ~ a ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COtd~dYSSION, June 18, 1969 4664 CONDITIONnL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) The existing Southern Californie regional airport system is presently overtaxed and, therefore, cannot adequately serve the future demand of air psssengers e,nd air cargo. An expanded regional s.irport system presently nnder oonsideration will inoorporate both long-haul (satellite) airports and short-haul facilities (metroport). The short- haul system (metroport}' is primarily intended to provide for the expeditious movement of persons and commodities between speaifio destinations under 400 miles. Metroport deslgn requirements are considerably reduced from the aonventional airport because aircraft using suah faailities utilize a shorter runway and the air passengar requires .,: minimal terminal service. §~,;%'>•~~ The Metroport is a new type of air faaility, sub~ect to Federal and State regulations _~ concerning aircraft noise level limits, hours and frequenay of operation which malces '°;~ its presence compatible with the loaation near centers of urban concentration. It will generally serve destination cities within 400 miles, and should be looated within 10 to 15 minutes driving time of the population served by the terminal. Thi~ urban and ~ inter-oity servioe will utilize airaraft designed for very steep approaches, departures, '~'; and for relatively quiet operation, Airorafti util:.:'..ag a metroport ~ill have high-lift '~ capabilities whioh in effeot offset the need for a'..-:~ runway. Therefore, the site design requirements for short-haul airoraft are consiuerably different than for conven- tional aircraft. As a point oP comparison, the runway length for an international air- port such as Los Angeles (LAX) is 12,000 feet; runway lengths for regional facilities ~ such as Long Beach is 10,000 feet; the average length for general aviation Pacilities ;:,;~; is 4,OOa feet; and runway length for metroports has been established at 1500 feet by the Fs•ieral A~•iation Administration. ,; H thorough examination of possible site locstions was conducted throughout the City of :~~ Anaheim. A site lo~ated in ~he southeast industrial area appeared to have the greatest potentie,l; therefore, particular consideration was given to a number of alternate sites z~ ~;~ within this area. The site now being aonsidered appears to have the greatest number of , favorable aharacteristias. The proposed Anaheim 4letroport would be located northerly of Orangewood Avenue anc. would consist of a 1500 foot landing erea, terminal facilities and employee and pass- enger parking. An exhibit on the board indicates the proposed landing area together with the land uses in this area. The runway design conforms in every respect to the aurrently published guidelines provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. The terminal bui~.ding size will be direatly related to the annual number of eaoh t.ype of air passenger• using the facility; therefore, a phased program of development is antic- ipated with terminal construction expected in 1970, 1975 and 1980. The site under aonsideration displeys a number of favorable quelities such as: 1. The proposed site is located in Anaheim's Southeast Industriel Area and the Metro- ~, " port flight pattdrn will be oonfined over areas either zoned or planned for indus- triel use in the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. i ~1 .-.~ 2. The proposed site is in close proximity to traffic generating centers, i.e., com- meraial-recreation area, city industriel areas, oommeraie~l centers and population ~: i' centers in Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Fullerton. i~,' 3. The proposed site has exoellent acaessibility, sinae it is locuted Et the apex of ~<< : . `; several freeways, and has adeqvate vehiaular eaoess in ell d3rections. The Orange ; , ;, Freeway will.connect tha site to the Northeast Industriel Area and communities to ~ a the north; the Santa Ana Freeway will connect the site to all commu~ities located `;; northeast and southeast; and the Garden Grove Freeway will provide ac;cess to the west ` ~Kj . Studies conducted in conjunotion with the Metruport report have indicate3 that the '' ~~` proposed site located southerly of Anaheim Stadium would adeqvately accommodate s ~~ metroport. The question aight be asked, "Why should the City of Aoaheim consider developing a " ` ~~ t; mdtroport? The ar,swer to this question would be two-fol.d: ,:'' ~~ ~ 1. The d9velopment of the Anaheim Metroport ~uo~iid help ^atisfy an er'_sting demand ' fc.• edditional air tratisportation servies foi• tl~e oomm~~nity and the area; and };;: 2. The proposed metroport would provide an economic stimulur., to business and industry ~ f vithin the great%+r fanaheim area, ~Hhich incliide, Ana}ieim, Garden Grove, Fullerion ` , Orange and porti!~ns of Santn Ana. I, t ~ ~ . . . . ~ ' _ - . . .. ~ ~ ~ .: '~; ~ ~~' 1~ ~1" ( .~_ "__~__.~.__" ~~y~ ~INUTES, CI'1"i 1~I+AivT;?NG ~OMbl.ISSION, J'une 18, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (oontinued) ~ 4665 _ To demonstrate the sir passenger deme,nd for the graeter Anaheim exea, a parallel growth pattern oan be drawn between population growth and air passenger demand. Population,of the nine county Southern Galifornis Region has inaressed from slightly under six million in 1950 to nearly twelve million in 1967. Regional population growth is expeoted to reeah thirteen million by 1970 and sixteen million by 1980. By a~apari- son, Orange County population inareased from 220,000 in 1950 to 1.25 million in 1967. Pro,jeations indiaete that by 1980, whioh is only eleven years ewaq, the population of ~ Orange County will be 2.5 million. A similar pattern of population grox~th is antiaipated within the area of influenoe oP the proposed Anaheim Metroport. This new air faoility serving northern Orange County - or rather the greater Anaheim area - would primarily attraat air passengers generated by the City of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Fullerton, Orange and a portion of Santa Ana. In 1967, the population of the greater Anaheim area was slightly over 600,000; this figure is expected to increase to 710,000 by 1970, and 1,015,000 by 1980. This population growth, coupled with the resultant inarease in business activity, and in the aese of Anaheim an expanding tourist, convention market, will certainly be eacompanied by an inareased demand for traasportation facilities. ~ Air pessenger growth for ths Los Angeles region is expeoted to increase from the twenty million figure in 1967, to over eighty-six million in 1980. Air passenger demand for ~ the greater Anaheim area is expected to inorease Prom the 1967 £igure of 36Fi,000 to 2,400,000 by 1980, only eleven years sw~y. Air pe,ssengers oan be apportioned between air facilities on the basis of peroentage of population within the market area of each air facility. Therefore, this 2.4 million passengers represents all passengers expeoted to arrive and leave the Anaheim Metroport in 1980. The antioipated population growth with the attendent increase in air passengers for the greater Anaheim area reveals e need for a facility to satisfy the air transporta- tion demand. Everyone is oonstantly reminded of the inadequacy of our existing sur- face transportation system. An alternative to the surface transportation mess is to go to the air. However, there are even problems being enaountered in this area. Existing air faoilities in the Southern California area are expected to reach satura- tion in the very near future. LAX is expected to reach saturation in 1975, and Orange County Airport in 1973. As a result of these impending pressures, a Master Plan of Air Faoilities has been prepared whiah is intended to assist in alleviating the air transportation problems in the Los Angeles Region. The Master Plan concepti suggests a satellite system of regional airports to complement LAR, and help relieve the existing burden at that feaility. Furthermore, a study done by William L. Pereira and Associates for the Los Angeles Depertment of Airports determined that a system of metroports in the regional area would be absolutely essential to support the passenger demands of these satellite faailities. Potential airoraft noise problems are significantly reduced due to the logical approaoh and departure corridor over industrial areas, and the open space of the Santa Ana River. The proposed flight pattern is designed to minimize disturbanae to ad3oining areas. Appropriete control zones between other air faoilities are established by the Federal Aviation Administration, and the proposed Anaheim Metroport would not oonflict with air traffio patterns of any other facilities existing in the area. Safety standards are determined and established by the F.A.f~. and the State Division cf Aeronautics, and the City of Anaheim will conform to all safety regulations of these responsible agenoies. Therefore the Interdepartmental Committee for Pub'l.i.c Safet;i and General Welfare and ~the Development 5erviaes Department reaommends the following if subject petition is approved: That the proposed Anaheim Metroport shall conform to all regulations as it relates to the operation and me,intenance of inetroport facilities adopted by the Federal Avietion Administration, State Division uf Aeronautics, and/or any other authorized regulatory agencies. A slide was then presen~ed whioh was explained in detail by Mr. Roberts, whioh depiated the approach and departure pattern of the aircraft from the proposed site, and the existing and projeoted uses beneath this flight pattern. ,~", ~''..'aiii y ~ '" ~ ~` J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM~ISSION, June 18, 1969 4666 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (aontinued) ~r. Robert S. Barnes, representing Commutercenters, Inc., as their attorney, appeared before the Commission and stated he would like to have the testimony of five witnesses give individuel data as it pertained to the proposed Metroport the first being Mr. Clyde Barnett, president of Commuteruenters, Ino., and then requasted that tdr. Barnett's biography be made a part of the ~Linutes as follcws: ldr. C1yde P. Barnett, citiizen of the U.S.A.,born in Kansas City, Missourion GEay 16, 1914, educated at the University of Southern California Sahool of. Business Administration. from 1934-1939; director of Commutercenters, Inc., American Air Holdings, Inc., Nationel Aviation Education Association, and National Aeronautias Association. His business experience being president of Commutercenters, Inc., 1968; Direotor of Aeronautics, State of California, 1955-1968; Director, Aviation Department, Los Angeles Cha~ber of Commerco, 1951-1955; General Manager, Napa County Airport and Bridgeford Flying Sohooi 1546-1449; his military service was as a pilot, Troop Transport Command, U.S,A.F., 1943-1446; his professional activies being: member - President Kennedy's Task Force "Horizon"; Past president - National Association of State Aviation Officials; member of Regional Air Space Committee, F.A.A.; member of Alpha Eta Rho, International Aviation Fraternity; member of ?4ational Pi'lots Assoniation; member of Aircraft owners and Pilots Association; Honorary Life Member of the Sooiety of Airway Pioneers; American representa- tive and time for the World Aviation Record Keeping Organization - Federation " Aeronautique Internationale; Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Awards given him x~ere: Californie Aeronautics Board - 1968, Resolution of Appreciation In Servioe; National Association of State Aviation Officiels - 1968, Plaque in recognition of contributions to Air Transportation. Mr. Clyde Earnett, appeared before the Commission and stated that Commutercenters, Inc. function in this particular proposal wes to furnish the private capital to iake care of all the expenditures necesssary to develop the Metroport suah as purchase the necessary property, make all the improvements - in fact the date his company talked with City Manager Keith Murdoch, he stated that the City of Anaheim did not want to pa,y one dime for the metroport. - Mr. Barnett also noted that private ownership of airports was not possible for 25 years; that these facilities had to be civic-owned in order to guarantee the continued welfare, thus they had to be acquired by civic entities at one time or another. At cne time therb were 54 facilities in this area, and of that original 54 in the consolitated Los AngeZes business district, some parts of Orange County and Riverside County, there are only 10 cY that original group. It is no longer possible for a private group to finance a full-sized airport, th:~s the need for large airports being civic-owned. But because of the reduced amount of real estate in a"STOL",short takeoff and landing, e.irFort, it is now possible for private industry to reenter this field for the first time, and we are the only company in the U.S. set up to do this. We are now coming back into the field, hoping that we can do it in a greai many places. Our primary mission, Mr. Barnett continued, was into San Franoisco and Los Angeles eirports to the present time, but his compsny became interested in metroports in this area, since it would be the nation's first if not the world's first. Up to the present time the total effort by the air industry was generated toward higher, farther, fastier, and noisier facilities, while all the time the industry neei•. to go slower, quieter, cheaper, and lower. However, in the past there were four problems why industry could not provide this shorthaul type of service. 1)The type of airplane was not availe.ble; but these e,irplanes are now beginning to appear - such as the "Otter" which ~vas used to demonstrate earlier in the evening, which at the moment is the only oertixicated by the United States to operate as a"STOL" airplane, as a matter of fact, the only one on the horizon for quite some time. The "Otter" aircraft was rather an accident, since it was not designed to do this particular joU. It was a Canadian bush airplane designed to go where such effort as they could make to fly 500-700 feet. It has a tremendous penalty built into it for it to be a"STOL" aircraft, and it can only do this because of this builtin factor, but it is the first part of a major breakthrough. It is only one of four parts, however, since no one ever~before could tacklo any one of these four until all four were ready to go at the seme ~ime. Another difficulty was the need for a new kind of navigation facility which did not require a million dollars for an ILS system for instrument landings, to get it in and out of a given piece of ground, and today ihe Commutercenter operations within a matter of two years since the first pioneers of the area started it, there are almost 600 flights a day going into LAR - almost 30$ of LAX traffic. This is only possible because the State itself has furnished us the new sy~tsm that will do the job. There will be another gentleman who will elaborate on this system. The third was the political climate ~-- ~ -~. _ . '~~~y'+a~,."f""~3~~~.~,y.- '~"~ ~ ~'~'""~ ~ 5 ~i ~....:;"~ ~rt ,~" +1 .~',..,^~ w 7 r .:;, t~t r ~.. .r;t~; 1 „";~:. : .G~: ~ « ~'~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4667 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (oontinued) itself. For instanoe, we aould not get Air California started until the State itself put its Public Utilities Commission into business to operate as a little Civil Aero- nautios Board to give convenienoe and necessity aertificates to protect private capital going into the airline business from being "gobbled up" and put eside by larger units. Th3s took a long-time to aacomplish - this too, has now been a major breakthrough. The State is in the businass and is able to do this and the Legislature just the other day aleaned up a rather "grey" law which reaffirmed the Strste's oontrol and its ability to proteot those franchises, so that there will be private aepital available for us to do this. Finally, the fourth element was the faoi.lity itself - this the job were are tankling now. *t ~~ Mr. Barnett then emphasized that it would be very foolish to try to sneak this proposed ~:~ feaility by the citizens or in any way for his company to put this into business if ,~ the company felt thgre was even the slightest chance the operation would be noisy, " hazardous, etc., that the citizens could not live with it or that it would bother any- ;,, - body, sinoe they planned to invest four million dollars, if they would be left high .;:._,,;.~; and dry because of these problems. ~ ' "STOL", Mr. Barnett noted, meant only short takeoff and landing. Nevertheless, this was a different kind of a thing for a variety of reasons, this end of aviation could ,~ ,~ end up as being the solution or ma,jor salvation for the ma,jor airports. We must ~' i originate and destinate as muoh traffic elsewhere as is possible to do. We do see ~ down the road the composite-compound machine that aould translate out in service to you ~~ ~ something on the order of Santa Barbara in 23 minutes for $5-7.00. There forty-two ~ ~; separate "STOL" airoraft now being developed or flying throughout the world, and about ~,', ,,; 103 in process. One hundred and fifty of the first ones were taken u b manufacturing t~'~~; %^~ aoncerns which ~~ „ p Y ~:~:,:;;~ proved there was a market for the Otter . Thus if the manufacturers ~ %~ csn solve the prolslem of a quieter airplane, which could actually land and takeoff in 2;,>..;,,J~ a short space whiah was not too expensive reel estate - t~nd we can find some sterile 4?~•:''-`;c~ areas in which to do this - where someone •NUUld not aotually sneak under the traffio ~~' '~1 pattern as such - and this now can be done. It was necessary that this happen for x m, ,. ~~~~ a very sound reason - the helioopter - which is a necessary machine in whioh there wi11 ~w~~l always be jobs it can do whiah fixed wing aircraft cennot - such as in and around ~ }7`,p~, where there~just isn't anymore real estate. However, STOL aircraft as suah was nec- ~,y,,sy~,:-,~,~ esserq because if we don't meet this need of getting price down we would not have a ~~ ~~ commuter service as such to offer as differentiated from "feeder or trunk" airline ',~~"',,.Y~y service. Getting the cost down as compared with the cost of helicopter flights - n ~ direat operating cost of a helicopter is 184 per seat mile - the Otter" for instance - ~~;.;,'4n1 operates at 2-42 per seai: mile - so the possibility is there. This will evolve into ~? better aircraft as we go along. Those four things oonsti+ute the ma,jor breakthrough - ,~, it is not a normal airport - it is a metroport which has a tremendous number of limita- ,~ tions. We will stand on the demonstrations which we gave, since one cannot tell people ;~. the araft is quiet or it isn't -• they must hear and see it for themselves. We went to n a considerable expense importing from the Canadian Airforce the bi r,,,,,:+ meanest airoraft at the ggest, roughest, and `~, in order to lemonstrate thatlwouldebenthealargest crafg that~couldnpossiblyXUtilizeday 1,,,.,,;~ the p~oposed facilities limited by a freeway on one end and a street on the other - r k:a. the size of the area limits what can be operating from the Metroport. The "Buffalo" was designed to aarry fifteen tons of live ammunition - thus was designed to fit that r ~ problem. Where the aircraft carried passengers only - the horsepower of the craft [ t'',;! could be cut down - many other things oan be eliminated from the aircraft in its strua- ~; ture making it much lighter and proficient - that plane was designed to land in a plowed r,~, ?~",~y field and take off within 250-400 feet fully loaded with ammunition doin it py, ~i.' and efficiently while under fire. There was no thought of demonstratinggthe 4Buffalo" ~ tU~~. }ky.,N,,~~ as an airplane which was available or which would be used for the proposed facilities. One oould ask the question why at this location in Anaheim, Mr. Barnett oontinued, since the aircraft to be used was a"STOL", landing at 28 knots per hour, vrhich ia very slow, has crosswind problems with low speeds and large control surface and an east-west configuration is needed, thereby ruling out a north-south runway. The ~eaond problem is eaonomics - where you can afford to put the metroport; and three - and far more important, it is an air umbrelle three miles in shape and 2500 feet thick that is established here and all other traffic is kept out of it - the air- craft oannot come in unless you are on aontrol. There will be a disciplined traffia situation - it is not an open airport open to the general public, it is not open to private sirplanes, it is not open to any other commercielization other than becoming the bus stop for future means of transportation for the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, it is an ideal location beoause of ideal surface travel - at the junetion of three freeway.; - this can'+. be beat in getting people to 1,he metroport and from it. One . ~ ~ MINIITES, CITY PLANNING CO1d~dISSION, June 18, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PER~IT NO.. 1120 (oontinued) f~ 4 668 next question is - Who will be the ten~,nts. IIntil we have a saund arrangement with the City of Anaheim there is no point in disnussing thi.s with anyone. There are nineteen sqndicates in California who have PUC certifiaetes whiah must be reviewed under the new le,w. To our knowledge there are 72 syndioates interested in going into this. We do not antioipate that there will be larger airaraft uses, Mr. Barnett also noted, beoause his aompany was willing to limit the size"for a very sound reason. If we are to assume - since Mr. Boeing is proposing to aonvert the 737 into a 160-passenger airaraft - in the first plsae that takes 3000 feet or better; seaondly, if we allow that, and if the City of Anelieim were to aaaept that - there would be no freqvenny - the limitations of the site in itself would limit the size. We do envision an air- oraft that might carry up to 50 or 60 persons in the Otter configuration, but we do not anvision going beyond that because of the limitetions of the site itself. ~dr. Barnett then stated he would like to reiterate the pilots would be selected ones, who will be flying the araft on sohedule, separated by radio oontrol as well as sahedule, and there is no possible excuse for the traffic pattern ever being violated, sinoe they propose to require the Deoca Navigation System a use which will allow the pilots to stay within a very small limited area. Mr. Barnett, in oonalusion, stated that he wished to assure the Commission and other interested persons that this operation would be a well-run airport faoility under a oapable management, and it is the intention of his company to spend every nickle that is possible to spend to make this faoility the safest. A gentleman in audience raised a point in question, noting that the Chairman had stated that speakers would be limited to five minutes, while Mr. Barnett has er.ceeded that time limit considerably. Chairman Allred noted that since it was important to hear ell the testimony from ihe proponents of the metroport feaility, one speaker would be given 15 minutes in whiah to present the ma,jor factors, and then advised Mr. Barnes that the remaining speakers would be limited to five minutes eaah, after disoussing this with the Commission. The gentZeman in the audienoe then stated the opposition would not ob,ject, if the Commission would give the speaker for the opponents 15 minutes also. The Commission then aaaeded to this request, but reiterated that the meeting would become quite lengthy with so many per~ons wanting to present the opposition's viewpoint, both from the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, ~Ir• Barnes then introduaed the next witness - Mr. Ceoil Knudsen, vice president of ~ Flight Safety Foundation, in aharge of that organization's west coast operstion, an organization interna'tional in saope dediaeted to making flying safer. Sinoe the beginning of that organization 25 years ago, it has exeroised surveillance over the years toward making flying as safe as possible, with both foreign and domestia carriers utilizing its services. The organization is non-profit. Mr. Knudsen himself, is an experienced pilot,has speoie,l training in all phases of aviation safety. Mr. Ceail Knudsen, appeared before the Commission, and stated that Commuteroenters, Ino. ysked the Flight Safety Foundation to review their flight saYety pattern - that the organization was non-p1 ~fit and its primary role was to keep flqing safe and keep air traPfic - that review requested was for the uetroport at the Anaheim Stadium for an aviation safety viewpoint. Idr• Knudsen noted that Flight Saf9ty Foundstion, is an independent, non-government, non-profit agency, not aligned with any organization and consequently, is completely unbiased in its viems. The agenoy's primary mission is to upgrade the state of the art of air safety, to make flying safer and reduoe airoraft acoidents. In furthering the agenoy's objective in flight safety,the agency is vitally interested in all phases of aviation development and is especielly elert that new or additional hazards to the public are not introduced as progress is achieved. In other words, we also represent the public interest. Mr Knudsen further noted that he had personally examined the plans for the Metroport at the proposed site on the south side of the Stadium,8nd was familiar with the r.eed to provide other means of transportation for people in and out of Orange County - one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. The Flight iafety Foundation is sympa,thic with the need of air transportation in this area, bui. wo~a].d be firmly opposed to an;~ action that would present any aviation hazard. . . _ ~ K} 4"'R?g~!~'~'~~~~ ~y ~~~ o ~ ~ '"~ ~ i ~ T . . ~~ . .. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CODdMISSION, June 18, 1969 4669 CONDITIONAL USE PERM3.T N0. 1120 (continued) Since we are talking about airport dovelopment tonight, Mr. Knudsen continued, I think that ~Lr. John Shafer, who heads up• F.A.A, in Washington, very olearly summed up the situation on May 20, 19~b9, when he spoke to a meeting whiah was plannirzg air transporta- tion for metropolitan Detroit. He praised them for having an airport improvement program. He said, "It appears to me that you are making big, thinking big, looking ~r, and planning wisely. Air transportation is a circle,found not only airport planning but in aity planning as well. The integration of the airport with the community it serves, and the integration of air travel with other modes of public and private transportation are twin ob,jectives deserving the best efforts of us all. The airport is usually the second largest generator of city traffic exaeeded only by the central business distrio~." Mr. Knudsen thon continued, by stating that he had examined the pl~n to develog the Anaheim Metroport from many angles. The first area examined was F.A.A.'s criteria and requirements for "STOL" ports and runways; that he would like to mention that "STOL" meant short takeoff and landing; it is the term which is interchangeable in meaning in this statement when referring to the proposed metroport. The F.A.A.'s requirement for a"STOL" port was examihed from a safety viewport and in each instance found the plan for the metroport equals or exceeds the F.A.A. design requirements. For example, the runway will be 1500 feet long, which , equals the requirement for runway length by F.A.A.; the requirement for runway width, overruns, and taxi widths were also checked; the distance between the runway and the ad,jeaent buildings, particularly the Stadium itself, is more than required by F.A.A. regulations and shows no ssfety problem. Provisions for accs~s by fire fighting equip- ment, ambulances, eta, to reach the site of any potential accident appear to be adequate• Since operation will be restricted to VFR flying and during daylite hours only, there is no need for instrument approach facilities such as ILES. It is planned, however to equip the aircraft with compu*..erized navigational equipment as a further aid to navigation aid - an aid to insure that the aircraft will not stray from its intended course. Chairman Allred then asked that tdr. Knudsen summarize his remarks within 30 seconds, beoause of the numerous people who were also desirous of presenting arguments. Although he was desirous of knowing as much as possible of the safety factor as was the rest of the Commission by adhering to the time limit, the hearing would not be too lengihy. Mr. Knudsen, then briefed the balance of his presentation by stating he would like to talk about the computerized navigation equipment that the aircraft is proposed to be using, its reliability, and with this equipment aboard, it gives the pilot more time to devote to his aircraft and traffic in the area, thereby making Plying more safe. F'urthermore, there were many "STOL" airaraft on the drawing boards today, but the one the developer has chosen appears to the Flight Safety Foundation to be as good an airaraft as can be found. ( blr. Barnes then introduced Mr. Dwight E. Bishop, an accoustical consultant with Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. of Van Nuqs, asking him if he had studied the noise patterns, and the flight patterns used for takeoff, landing and in flight operations. idr. Barnes was interrupted by comments from the audience as to the number of speakers the proponents had. Whereupon Mr. Barnes stated that in addition to Mr. Bishop, there would be a speaker on the Decca Navigational system and two speakers, nond of a~hom would take more than five minutes each to explain the need for the metroport. Chairman Allred again admonished the audience and stated that since everyone present had made an effort to attend the hearing to hear what was proposed, those who were constantly interrupting from the audience should be courteous enough to allow the speakers for the proponents to present their data without constant interruptions from the audience - if this was the way the general audience wanted it,the meeting would be closed. The opponents would have their ohanoe. Furthermore, if all the persons in the audience had taken the time and effort to attend the hearing, certainly they were interested in what was proposed. The cost to the proponents was considerable for the presentation, and the cost in time and effort on both the Commission and the audience's part was also considerable, therefore, as a Commission and the citizens of the City of Anaheim, all persons in the audienoe should be courteous enough to listen to the proponents - thus giving the Commission an opportunity to hear all the evidence and I assist them in making their decision. If this was not the manner in which the audience ~ was interested in having the hearing conducted - the hearing would be closed - and an ~ attempt to consider it at a later date would be in order. 7'* ~~~'',~~ Ii^1 '._:~4 ~ ~ ~' r ',~ . ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~Ki MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMDAISSION, June 18, 1969 4670 ~;;; ~~ .- CONDITIONAL USE PERldIT ~ N0. 1120 (oontinued) ~ ~ Chairman Allred then noted that the proponents had four more speakers, each of whom tr.:tr_._ ~:~ ~J,,,i;,.; would be given five minutes - all of whom were present to presented dooumented evidence ~r ~;~ for the propo~al, and that the Commission was just as oonoerned about the praposal as ~,~~,:,,., the oitizens of the City of Anaheim, however, it was important to he~,r the pertinent ~L'~fi!','.: date whioh the proponents wanted to present. Y ~~ , ,f, Chairman Allred again reiterated that the spokesman for a group representing the opponents would be given 15 minutes, and any subsequent spokesman wouZd be given "~ five minutes - repetitive arguments would not be in order - and reminded the "+'"' ' onents this also a pro- r~~>:;,~;~ P pplied to them. , w,,: t<; . . *: , t':;;..,. -- ~ blr. Barnes then presented the quali£ications of Mr. Bishop in order that ~hero might '" '"~ not be any need Por repetitive aomments,(Copy of these qualifioations on file with ~':..:~" this petition) to the Commission for their perusal. ; f Mr. Davight E. Bishop, then appeared before the Commission and in response to questions ~• ~ bq ~Lr. Barnes stated the his firm had studied the noise as it pertained to the"Otter" ~,-., airordit operation by preparing noise contours show3ng the estimated noise levels under - ~ and to the sides of the path ofzthe "Otte~"under"STOL"operations. These contours were based on a set of carefully controlled flight measurements made at the Los Anageles area ry r a few months ago, and this information was taken and applied to one of the major flight ~` patterns of the'~Otter'in the Anaheim area. A map~showing these noise contours whioh ~ ' indioated the maximum noise levels in peroeived noise deaibels that would be expeoted in ` ~;' typical landin and takeoff o eration at maximum g~ ti: ' g P gross wei ht was reviewed. Mr. Bishop noted that the map indicated the landing and takeoff path to and from the proposed Metroport. Around the path, the map indicated the perceived noise level con- tour. Contours were shown at 90 - 90 - and 100 PNDB - the peraeived noise level whioh is a measurement of sound that is widely used in measuring airaraft and vehioular noise, that has been developed to correspond or well-related to people's subjective reaction to the noise change of 10 PNDB - corresponding to approximately to a person's subjective reaotion of doubling or halving of the noisiness. These represent the maximum noise levels that would ocaur at the given ground position and these maximum levels would normally be attained for only a fraation of a second; most of the time, except for this fraction of a second, the levels were less than shown on the map. Mr. Bishop then continued his aomments by stating that in comparing the noise of the DeHavilland "Otter" aircraft with someother aircraft and other vehiales' noise, the "Otter compares in noise at a given distance from the airoraft similar with other small two engine piston aircraft having a gross weight of approximately 6000-20,000 lbs. In terms of noise at a given distance it produaes 10-15 peraeived noise decibals less than the large 4-engine piston aircraft, and from 25-30 PNDB less than produced by the large 4-engine jet airoraft. If the measurement of 90 PNDB were taken as indicated on one of the oontours that aorresponded also to such other vehicle noises as a diesel truak with a good muffler at 50 ldPH or a diesel train at a distanae of 500 feet traveling at a speed of 30-40 MPH. Based upon his company's experienoe, the peroeived noise levels such as indicated 90 PNDB would be viewed as not objectionable, if it occurred a number of times per day, by people residing in houses of current building construc- tion; that another item to be noted is that the Metroport was prpposed to be located in an industrial zone, and in that oount one must consider the background noise level produced by industry snd by the many traffic forces. For example, we expect in an industriel area, the background noise level to be 60-80 PNDB, and in the nearby resi- dential areas where they are still exposed to considerable traffic noise to be 60-70 PNDB. At sunh distances the noise from the "Otter" aircraft would not protrude appreciably e,bove the baokground so as to be oonsidered objectionable or annoying. Nlr. Harnes then noted that if anyone in the audienae had any questions, the witnesses for the proponents would be available at any time. Mr. Barnes then introduaed Mr. John Lamontia of ITT Navigator Systems, asking him to summarize his educational baokground, etc. Mr. John Lamontia stated he was commeroial direator of ITT Navigator Systems with offices in Tarzana, Cal.; that he had been involved for i:he past 20 years in military, generel, airline aviation navigation requireoents both in design, engineering and operation of the equipment all over the world. ; . ,` , r _ ' :' ~' '; .. . -. . .. ' „ ', -. ._, ,; . '• ~~t ~ - rrtmyj. d~ry:+-~~+lR{ :,~m " ~ wdv~~~.'j~~y ~' ~..~ ~ ^g~} v~$ ~. 5 t :'y"( er 7n i . ~ . ~~r~ ~ ~ ~:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNTNG COA~fISSION, June 18, 1969 • 4671 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (aontinued) Mr. Lamontia oontinued by stating that the Decaa Navigation System was unlike any system available in the western part of the U.S. today. Present day nevigation aids that are available to general avistion and aommuter airlines on the west coast are tt:~ standard navigation aids which requira instruments in the aockpit whioh of symbolia nature require mt~ntal gymnastias to iaterpret. The pilot must look at the instruments, mentally interpret what they are doing,and then tell himself inentally where he is. The present day systems available here do not operate down to ground level because of the nsture and freqency on whiah they operate they do cut off somewhere between 200-700 feet above the ground. This means that the utilization of the present day navigation system available to people in the area of Anaheim - it is conceivable that one oould have no navigation device from about 400-50G feet above the ground to the ground. The Deaae system is a highly accurate system, one of the most acourate systems in the world - eoouraaies in terms of yards, general navigation systems are in terms of degrees and quarters and eighths of miles. The heart of the Deaaa Navigation System - copy presented to the Commission for perusal - presents a pictorial displey, displeying a representa- tion of what the ground is like over which the airareft is flying - on the map is a bug whioh represents the airaraft and it follows every single movement of the airaraft, whether it is a cirole, figure eight or wherever it is going. On that map you a8n use suoh soales which can sh~w highways, aanals, drive-in theatres, major tall buildings - anqthing of e, major obstacle. One can outline on the chart, residentiel areas, noise abatement areas, and the stylus in the cockpit gives the pilot a visusl presentation, and he oen literally drive the stylus, and drive the a3raraft away and ~ound from the areas of opposition to his path. In eddition, with this device, the stylus inks the route of the airaraft, whioh also is a permanent reoord of where the aircraft has flown in the event of an alleged violation for having been over some area where he should not have been. This the heaxt of the Deaoe System. Mr. Le,montie then noted that he had been involved for the past 2~ years with the State of California in setting up this system, said system to be operational this Fall. Furthermore, Anaheim sits right in the aenter of the heart of the system's aaauracy. The master station will be some 40-50 miles £rom Anaheim - whioh to tne business is the absolute heart of the acauracy - there is no plaae more aocurate than this area. This system has been in use in New York for many years by oommuter airlines, and is being used to fly solid IFR in the Manhattan area, known for the many tall buildings along the.East River. Mr. Barnes then introduaed Dr. Bruce Ricks, Assistent Dean of Urban Planning at UCLA, and a director of Commutercenters, Assooiate Professor of Planning and Finance, and a oonsultant to the U.S, Treasury, Small Business Administration, City of 3ante Monica, United CaliPornia Bank and numerous other companies - he is the author of 20 books, and soon will be a member of Federal Home Loan bank as their ohief Finanaisl Consultant. It was also noted that Dr. Ricks would make a few comments conaerning the need, as he eavisions it, regarding a Metroport in the City of Anaheim. Dr. Ricks appeared before the Commission and noted that Commuteroenters, Inc. was developing "STOL" ports in metropolitan areas where the need and the opportunity for private inve~.tment is dictated by population density, high purahasing power, short haul trevel oriertation, and national and regional aviation planning. 1~S'• Riak~ then mentioned one statistio - Orange County generated 11}$ of all air traffio at 7~os Angeles International Airport - of this the northwest part of the County acnounted far 7~1~• It was estimated that air traffia demand based on actual traffic in 1967 - the most reoent date from statistios could be abtained - the Orange County Airport, as well ~,s the Fullerton Airport - ellocating an actuaZ share of present and future short haul traffic to the Anaheim Metroport based on ease of surface acoess. Therafore, the estimation effort differed and was independent from that used by the City's study made bq the Development Serviaes Department. Commuteraenters results confirmed the estimates made by said department with the City's being 2,400,OG'0 passengers,in 1980, and his companp's at 2,700,000 in 1979. Based on these estimates his oompany projected direat payment to the City of Anaheim of $100,000 in 1971, $194,000 in 1975, and $419,000 in 1980. In addition there will ba substantiel revenue from property taxes, passenger expenditures, and private and oivic establishments, new industries locating in Anaheim, and inarease in land values as a result of the inoreased aaoessibility and economic eotivity. Dr. Ricks then noted that he had advised his associates of Commuteroenters and the administrative offiaers, as well as the Development Serviaes Department his analysis that the Metroport as proposed by Commuteraenters fills a public heed. It is financi.ally feasible and economioally sound pro,jeat. - - - '~ ~ ...._ i ,i ...i.. .~ [.. _ ., . . ... . .- . . 1"T ~ ~{ ,y , .F ..;"~. _, s ry *' ..~~,+~i ::s ~' ;` `; < ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, June 18, 1969 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) Mr. Barnes then introduced Mr. Bryan Douglas, manager of the Fullerton Airport, Mr. Douglas appeared before the Co~ission and noted that he had been associated in aviation since 1945; that he had experience with the "Gtter" aircraft at the Fullerior_ Airport; that the City of Fullerton is' neither a proponent nor opponent of the Anaheim Metroport; that he was available to answer any questions by the Commission, the pro- pon~nts and the opposition; that the Fullerton Airport was the first one to have the "Otter" sircraft extensively operated in Southern California other than Los Angeles; that the complaints from citizens in Fullerton regarding the "Otter" were not due to tha noise they made, but two complaints as to the size of the aircraft which no doubt stem from the fact that people were not used to seeing that size of craft going into the Fullerton Airport; that he would have no comment as to the need of a metroport in Anaheim - however, they had ,just completed a study in Fullerton on three alternative methods of developing the existing sirport, and pursuant to that we were concerned about the commuter business; that he estimated Fullerton`s passenger projections which were taken to 1985, at which time it is projected that some 6 million people a year will depart from the Fullerton Airport, these people coming from a distance of a ten-minute drive from the airport; that he did not feel there would be any competition between the two cities; and that the two airports would complement each other, being compatible both economically and physically. Mra Barnes then advised the Commission this was the proponent's presentation of the proposed metroport, apologizing for perhaps taking more time than the Commission had allocated to them. Mr. R. J. McMillan, 924 South Peregrine, appeared before the Commission and asked that his allotted fifteen minutes be sp1iC up between two other people; that he was une of the many thousands of residents of Anaheim and the County of Orange violently opposed to the metroport site; that during the past week many residents of the city had been contacted for their personal opinion and to sign a petition which now had 1200 signatures which were collected in the past three to four days; that of the persons contacted, although a small percent of the total population;, 80% were violently opposed to the metroport, which should be an indication of the feelings of the citizens of Anaheim; that the newspapers had built this issue as one between Anaheim and Orange - Y~owever, this was primarily an Anaheim problem; that the Planning Commission and City Council as elected people should represent the desires and interests of the voters of Anaheim; that it was'interesting to note that many people, including quotes by the FAA, have stated that the City Council has made up their minds, and are solid proponents fur the metroport, regardless of the price and the opinions of the people in terms of traffic congestion, air pollution, excessive noise, danger to the families and children; that it would be impossible, obviously, for one man or one person to represent all the objections of the people of the ciey - therefore, there would be five persons to speak on various areas of the opposition, as follows: Mr. Stewart Noble, who will discuss the present proposal, its site, and Che Report to the Planning Commission; Mr. Jerry Vend, who will discuss the air traffic air routes over this area and the potential dangers of the proposed site; Mr. Bob McKay, an air traffic control expert and the terminal representative of all the terminals in Southern California and a member of the Air Traffic Controllers Association; Mr. Dale Jensen, an expert in the field of audible noise, who will discuss the level measure,ments in terms of the true meaning in a layman's terms; and Mr. Bill Woodyard, an attorney, who will discuss the proposal in terms of what it represents in the absence of the obvious necessary restrictions, in the area of, recourse open to the residents of Anaheim, and in order to speed the hearing; along each representative should introduce the next speaker ratlier than he being present to introduce them. Mr. Stewart Noble, 2526 Whidby Lane, appeared before the Commission and stated he was seriously disturbed by the plan presented to the Commission at this hearing, and especi- ally disturbed by Mr. Barne[t's statement, At one time there was an erroneous statement made in the newspaper that this facility would be strictly for the citizens of [he City of Anaheim - this was later corrected, however, and by the showing of hands of the sudience, he would like to show how many citizens of Anaheim were present to express their concern. A showing of hands indicated more than 100 present and opposed. Mr, Noble continued, that the plan before the Co.;mnission had only one recnmmendation by the staff giving cart blanc recommendation for someone to operate an airport; that he was at a loss why the usual conditions were not attached to this recommendation, not even a trash receptacle was required which he was required to provide in petitions he had before the Couunission and ~he Council. Furthermore, the plans shown indicate a 1500-foot runway - however, the zoning conditional use permit boundary is for 2b00 feet_ This brings to mind several ques[ions as to the com~leLE:ness oF this study~ With the extra 1100 feet of runway, what type oC pl~nes will he ,~SinK Ll~i.s tacil.ity? ~ `,_~ 4•672 ~'..a - :: ,.. . _ -, -::,~: .~ -. ..~ ,.. - ~, .. ' :? .. ;:~ ~ - .~.,.. ~~ . ..~~ ~~ R;,S. /. ;y t, ;:' , r, .. . . . ,. d . .. ~;~~.I ~~ . '~ + ° ^t : "'~ ~ (.:) t J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO'r1MISSION, .Tune 18, 1969 `4673 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued A newa item w~~ta d~~:,~eared recently, which was presented to the Commission, Mr. Noble continued, ;H?r~b~,~1L`~'. it~iat the Boeing planes, the 737 Jets, were being redesigned to adapt to a t'?~?~'S;':' ~,~~+~ .+~;sraft which could land in 2000 feet, not the 3000 feet as noted prev~;~~xs~~ b;: ~At~.'~'~. This type sircraft would not be a simple two-engine turbo prop whic~ 5r^-e~ y,•~-?;i C>:a• ~ Yc~nstration purposes earlier in the day,, but would be a six- enginc pur~f ;;,t2.. .:~~~;z t;h.~ reaflmmendations by the staff had only oae loosely worded condition, ~°~~ ;: r~ ,•::~; alould fall within the requirements and in kesping with the land use. Can't yax~ ;~~a~ °aL~ualize and hear a six-engine jet? It would certainly provide considerable noise on takeoff and landing when the Angel games were Ueing held. Mr. Noble also noted that the Commission should consider some of the ways this proposed airport would get completely out of hand., and the citizens would be unable to do anytning: first, the FAA has designated visual fZight operations only - what if in one year the proponenta approach FAA with a request to land wiCh instrumenCs, and this were granted? j~ith the condition as set fnrth in the Report to the Commission this would be allowed, and the opposition would have no recourse Co protesting this grant. Second, if the Boeing 737's are ccnverted to "STOL" with a 2600-Loot takeoft and approach, there would be r.o recourse again - the city has relinquished atty jurisdiction as to what can be operated in the metroport to the Faderal and State Governments. This would be poor zoning and wauld lead the way to opening up a"Pandora's tiox", which the citizens in attendance at this hearing were unalterably opposed to this manner of granting a conditional use permit. The manner in whiah the staff's recommendation reads, Mr. Noble further noted, the City would be giving away all future c;~ntrol over the use of the property - there will be no further public hearing when the ~_:~uest to extend the ruaway to 2600 feet w.+s made to FAA. However, under the condit~unal use permit, if the operators of the airport do not obey the rules and regulations of the FAA, the State Division of Aeronautics ar other suthorized regulatory agencies, as stated in the recommendation, then the Planning Commiasion or the City Council or the City of Anaheim have the right to have the condi- tional use permit revoked, and the operation will have to stop, In conclusion, Mr. Noble stated he could go on and on, but he would not. However, the requeat came from the City Council and since the Commission works for the City of Anaheim and not the City Council - during May, 1969, the City of Fullerton Planning Commission conaidered a petition initiated by their City Council, and on Play 28, 1969, the Commissinn denied it; therefore, it was his hope that the Anaheim City Plan~ni~ag Commission will also deny this request, and that he wished the Commission to be apprised of the fact that the oppoeition rejected this entire area for the proposed metroport - that these actions reminded him of the "Muaic Man" where a salesman came down the road and sold the town a bill of goods. We have had the "Space Needle" proposed and have even been offered to share a"World's Fair", and certaialy trust that the metroport will not be approved for Anaheim. Mr. G. H. Vint, 259 Solomon Drive, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission, apologizing to peraons in the rear of the room as to viewgraphs which he was to present and which might not be visible to thoae in the rear since they were designed for a smaller group, and then atated that the metroport plans were deficient in three areas: first, regulation and control of air space; second, the implicationa of growth; and third, the range and effect of noiae. The regulation and control of the proposed metroport air space, a serious problem, is noted for 1970, muc!~ leas in 1975 and 1980. The current air space problem ia basically air traffic control, density is already high, and air traffic control is inadequaCe. One must understand that this area is controlled by the Long Beach tower with radar and radar advisories from E1 Toro Marine facility located in Santa Ana. These radars are fan beam and have no height information other than that on board the aircraft. Mr. Vint, in reviewing another slide, noted that the metroport was indicated in yellow; the red squares depicted the location of the eight air facilities which contribute to the air traffic in this region> The circle representa a five-mile diameter circle provided in the event the air apace or metroport is approved. Furthermore, in January, 1969, Dianeyland was granted air space of three miles which represents a conflict with the metroport sir space. Another slide was reviewed which depicted the sir traffic currently flying over and around the proposed raeLroport - air traffic into and out of Fullerton Airport according to Air Traffic Control is 245 into and 245 out of said sirport, which is considered dense traffic; this ia not large in terms of number of pasaengers, but in terms of number of targets that planes could run into - this sir traffic is greater than air traffic out of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. There are 71 flights daily in and out of the Disneyland Heliport; 50 flights daily which are military flights from E1 Toro past the metroport site and turning; 70 flights `ar~l°~, 'r ~ 4~• _:( ,. - ~,. n:-t.: rr • kr . n-:n ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4674 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 7120 (con[inued) daily into Orange County Airport; and going fram east to west ;.here are 50 fligh~s going into Los Alamitos Naval Air Sta:ion; plus a ~otal of 13 more flights to Las a,lamitos+ or a to[al of 63 flights to and from Lcs Alamitos - all of the aforementioned fiights would be flying over the air space proposed fcr the metroport. Furchermore, tne g:cut'~ of the metroport is left wide open in number of flights and growth in size of aircra£t - evidence had been presented previousiy that the aircraft growth is unli~ited, wnich could be like the Planning Commissien approving or granting a zone to permit animals or. the property as an analogy, leaving the field open far a.ny type of animal - elephants, tigers, etc., or in other words, any size aircraft, and the implications of this growth have been obacured or sugar-coated. These are decreased passenger safety, decreased passenger comfort wich the advEnt of the larger airoraft9 inarease in surface cange~tion which this air traffic will generate by users of this facility, and increased pollstion of air and noise - increased haz:ards to people on the ground6 An overlay of pla*_e #33 taken from the Ansheia Metr.opcrt Report Book prepared by Che Develapment Servfces staf~ of the City of Anaheim - the initially proposed east-west runway snuth of Orangewood Avenue - that would be che urarge line ou the overlay; north of the orange line is the park.ing lot area - ene can see that the runway is provided adequate clearance and adequate space for possible growch - this would indicate how tightly squeezed in chle would be between the gutters of Orangewood Avenue and the walls of Anaheim S;adium - this is totally inadequace for growth in terms of the concepts initially provided with the metroport brochure,. Mr. Vint then reviewed the third effecC - the range and effects of noise - the level of noise acceptable to aircrsit manufacturers, to "STOL" sirport promo~ers, and others is from ten times to 10U0 times higher ti:an the level acceptable to residents surrounding the airport. The char~ further indicates that che air [raffic noise will enter 500 classrooms, and the orange circle surraunding the metrc~port site - incidentally, the picture of the metrcpore site whirh was handed out co everyone is a misrepresentatian because the FAA, according to LeRop Brown who is in charge of coordination of air space, because no a:r space has been granted, and that in no way can they confine the operators of the airoraft in using these rou~es. So we can assume that the flights will be circl- ing in the erea, and we can further assume chat this range will circle outside t6e limitationa shown on chia picture. The yellow ring shows some 80 decibals of sound extrapolating the figuzes used in the me=roport brochure. Were we to have the six-jet engine "STOL" in there blasting off from the runw~ay, we would have considerably grea[er naise. Mr. Vint, in conclusion, ne~ed that the last slide and article appearing in Aviation Week in Febrcary, 1969 - which states that the "STOL" £uture is keyed to noise limitations, and then read several commencs made by Frederick Hoover of FAA Office of Noise Abatement, as follows: "If we are stuck wich the acce~table noise levels, we might as well forget about it (meaning "STOL" ports) - we will be left with nothing more [han conventional airports to operate out of. We must convince the public that they should pay the social coat - that means you putting up with mnre noise - for the conveniences and economic beneEits of "STOL" so that practicai sirctaft are possible, and the first step is to get them - the public •• some form of even coken repaymenc of the social cost." This could come, Mr. Hoover suggested, in the form of a sliding scale of real estate tax reductions based on noise exposure to persons living near airports or "STOL" pores. In effect, he said, you can stuff their ears with dollar bills. Such a scheme has been quite success- ful around Dallas Lcve Field - one of the noisiest airports in the country. The final statement fs by Aver T. Beatty, of the Flight Standards Service - FAA, in which he stated that the sluw flight speed of "STOL" sircraf[ which lengthens the exposure in time to their noise was a disadvantage. Also, their high power to weight ratio means that engine noise is likely to be higher. Mr, Vint finally stated that on the basis of these three aforementioned points, the opposi~ion feels the Cicy must reject the proposed conditional use permit. ~ Mr. Robert T. McKay, 10251 Santa Anita Avenue, Montclair, appeared before the Commission and atated he was a member of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association (PATCO); that due to the time limitation he would not follow the prepared information but would briet it., First, he did not wish to involve the City in a problem which PATCO had with FAA, howeveq, since ~he City had been dealing directly with FAA, anc do, ~ indeed, comply wich che re uiremencs of FAA. The FAA s criteria - PATCO does not feel i is giving due consideracion to the air traffic system and ics present capabilities as ~ it is functioning today. Mr. McKay noted that he took i::sue with Paragraph 5 of the Report to the Co~nissian irt that his graup did not feel thac the inCroduction of a new sonrce of aeronautical activity in this partiw lar area - in discussing the specific site chosen for the Anaheim Me[roport - since the3r group feel [hat the metroport { .xnS'" "ko a , ~ f .c:~ ,?~: MINUTES, ~ Ty pL4NNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 ~ 4675 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) concept will contribute a great deal to relieving the present air traffic system problems, Mr. Vint having po:nted out some very valid points which the Commission should ccnsider very seriously - the traffic volume figures which he gave were only the figures im~alved in instrument operations, which represents a very small frartion of the total volume of traffic that is working in the immediate area of the Anaheim Metroport site since eight or nine airports within a thirceen mile radius of this particular site generate up to a total of two million takeoffs and landings each year - both instrument and visual types of operation. Until Mr. Vint came up with this particular discussion, Mr. Mckay noted, PATCO did not give too much consideration as ta how the airplanes were ~etting to and from a particular site. It is fine to have the aperacions and traffic patterns proposed, but the routes to and from the site are equally as important - and quite frankly, whether VFR or other approval given by FAA, the air traffic contrc+l system will be involved to a great extent. The Long Beach people who are now responsible for the separation of IFR traffic and for radar coverage in this area for the past several years have frequently and on an increas- ing basis stated air traff.ic has reached the saturation point, especially on weekends, so when one discusses the introduction of a new source of aeronautical activity in this area, we are getting a situa[ion where you are compounding a felony, so to speak, from PATCO's point of view. The City of Anaheim should be commended for their advanced thinking being followed in the development of the city, but this particular site is poorly chosen in terms of the volume of ai.r traffic in this immediate vicinity, Mr. McKay then noted chat a further statement in the Report to the Commission that this proposed traffic pattern wculd not conflict with any other facility in the area is aot true - it does, indeed, conflict to a great extent, particularly where the operatton is going into Orange County Airport, and by the change in procedures in September of this Year, che radar vector pat[erns fer jets eoming into Orange County Airport will be placed in closer proximity to the Anaheim rletroport site than they presently exist. Mr. McKay then stated he would be glad to help if he could be of any assistance and was available t.o answer questions.. Mr. Dale Jensen, 2018 Janette Lane, appeared hefore the Commission to discuss noise abate- ment. Chairman Allred asked Mr. Jensen to summarize his remarks on noise abzttement since the first speaker spoke at considerable length on this subject, Mr. McMillan advised the Commission that Mr_ Noble spoke of noise only, and Mr. .lensen proposed to explain noise in a layman's language which everyone could understand. Mr. Jensen advised the Commission that his qualifications were as follows: he was a registered professional engineer with the StaCe of California, with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Washington in aeronautical engineering and a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of Southern California, Mr. Jensen then noted that if one asked the question why did [he residents of Anaheim live in the homes they lived in, the answer would be [haC residents like to live in these residential areas because they are a nice, tranquil, quiet place to live. There- fore, he would like to talk primarily about the noise which would result from the proposed metroport operations and what some of this means_ That he would like to Uring it out so that it was more understandable to the average person since he felt that noise measure- ments in terms of deciUels were not meaningful to many people, Suppose iE he told you to go into a grocery store, and a can of peas would cost you [en decibels - he did nat think anyone would buy a can of peas costing ten decibels because the person would not know what decibels meant; or the same ;aay, if one went to a salesroom to buy an auto- mobile and the salesman told him the vehicle had 20 decibels of horsepower, But people do understand if they were told a can of peas cosc ten cents and the automobile had 100 horsepower motor. Suppose the next time a person went into the same store, and the same can of peas was now increased from 20 decibels to 80 decibels - this would mean an increase price factor by ten m311ion.or one million dollars. Therefore, an automobile with an increase of decibels from 20 to 90 decibels would mean one billion horsepower, Sound power acts the same way when one talks about the increase in sound power from 20 decibels to 90 decibels - this is an increase in sound power by a factor of ten million, Mr_ Jensen then noted thac in the first table - which had been presented to the Commission - the relationship of decibels, ~he price of a can of peas, automobile horsepower, and sound power - one can see thal decibels are an abstracc mathematical concept which can be applied to anything. In order to Ue able to underst~nd sound ~,ower, real world units are needed with which tlie avei•~ge person has ex~+eririice, q cn~~~~ I~as rational physical ., 4 ...t~c~; r ~.~. :t C ~ (~ . ~ MZNi;'TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4676 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) units which are easy to understand. These units are horsepower per square foot - as the Commission will note on the table, a residential area runs aUout five times ten minus 14 to the horsepower per square foot which is equivalent to 20 decibels. .An increase to 90 decibels uses the of 5 times 10 to the minus 7 horsepowe: per square foot or an increase in sound power factor of 10 million, Therefore, no one would stand for this price increase of peas on the market as previously illustraCed, nor could one coge with an automobile with this kind of increase in power, so why should we consider imposing this kind of increase in sound power on the community? Mr, Jensen further noted there was another impor[ant consideration of sound which he would like to bring to the Commission's attention - that is the manner in which sound persists over large distances - what he would like to illustrate that high noise levels generated at one noint tend t.o affect a wide area. The second table given the Commission illustrates this effect - the 18 HP sound source indicated was chosen because it repre- sents a 100 decibel sound level at 1/10 of a mile or approximately 500 feet away, The chart further shows how the decibel decreases with distance away from the sound source_ The Commission will note that five miles away from the sound source there is still an appreciable sound level of 66 decibels, and aircraft with these sound producing characteristics flying over the area at a height of one mile will produce 80 decibels of noise to the ground directly below_ Thus the noise produced by overflights would be considerable, and these noise effects on residential areas not near airports should be considered seriously along with the noise effects on adjacent areas to the proposed metroport. In other wcrds, not only is [he noise at the airport of concern, but noise produced under the aircraft on its flight path on its way to and from the landing site. Therefore, p7acing an airport in the middle of a community, the residential areas are subjected to additional and appreciable decibels of 80 or more of overflight noise which these people wuuld not ordinarily be subject to even if they were remote enough fzom an airport site to be relatively undisturbed by noise of operation of the airport, In regard to the proposed airport (metror~~.~l, Mr. Jensen continued, he had some addi- tional information which was applicable 1• che proposed aircraft effort operations, "STOL" aircraft derive their short takeoif and landing characteristics from use of large amounts uf power, and because th•ay have large power sources, they generate corres- pondingly large amounts of sound powe•., Current operational aircraft produce sound levels of 80-100 decibels at distances of a mile_ Some prop-jet and roto-craft produce as much as 90 decibels at 2~ miles away. The Development Services Department report on the Metroport Study on page 29 indicates 90 decibels produced at the Orange County Hospital and other County facilicies .38 miles away from the site originally proposed for the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and even if the proposed metroport is located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, which was not illustrated on the original metroport report, it would still produce an estimated number of 85 decibels of sound power at the same facilities.. Projected aircraft operations can be expected to'have sound power levels of above 60 decibels up to 5 miles away from the aircraft - not just from the airport but from the aircraft, Projected frequency of flight operations, as stated in the repott, page 43 - there will be 4.2 flights per hour, or one every 14 minutes, and by 1980 they project 14.2 flights per hour, or one every 2.4 minutes. These are reasons historically why airports are located at sites remote from the com- munities. Aircraft noises from low-powered planes was considered objectionable, and performance was such that large areas were needed for takeoff and landing. Technology at the present time, Tir. Jensen noted, ia such that "STOL" powered aircraft has eliminated the need for large operational spaces, but at the same time the noise level went up, directly wi.th the power. This then permits aircraft which can operate from small spaces, but the need to operate them from remote sites is even more necessarv because oF the increase in amount of noise they generate. From all the foregoing, ~ Mr. Jensen concluded that sound power noise level which would be imposed on the com- munity and the County facilities by the proposed metroport are above the reasonable acceptablc level. Commissioner Thom asked to direct a question to Mr. Jensen: In referring to the chart which was submitted to the Commission on sound decibels - during the demonstration by the "Octer" aircraft prior to the meeting - Commissioner Herbst and he, as well as other Commissioners, went to different points in the periphery of the flight patterns which might be made in the immediate area - the first area was at the intersection of Sunkist Street and Ball Road. Two aircraft passed overhead which he and Commissioner Herbst could not hear at all_ They then moved to the entrance of the stadium on Katella Avenue - however, there was so much street noise they were still unable to hear the aircraft, and I Commissioner Herbst will corroborate tl~is statement. The two of them moved down directly below the takeoFf line of the aircraft whereupon both Commissioners could hear the air- craft • because of the heavy automobile noises they could not hear the aircratc; thera- fore, how did tnis relate L•o L•he amount ot dec2bels whicii werA se[ up in the chart, or in Mr, ,7ensen's studicd opinlun was tFieir heari.n~ tJ~r~l d~~fect i ve? " ~..) ~ ~,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4677 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 1120 (continued) ~ Mr. Jensen stated [hat it did t~at relate to the chart. Your position to hear the planes was at a conflicting position - where two sources of energywere~generating sound, both of which are~~ying for attention. I have no doubt traffic noises do generate.conside-:?~le :~ noises, and the c.hart indicates 50 decibels, and that figure is very old - out of ;~ Eahbach Mechanical Engineering Handbook. Perhaps present day traffic noises such as on the freeway are well above that figure, but this is an interesting observation. One- coula well be standing in the middle of the freeway and one could not hear the_plane overhead; it is like turning the hi-fi up - you.would not be able to hear your wife talk either. I am glad this was brought up since it is a very important point. 4lhat happens to traffic noise is that it gets attenuated very heavily because all oF thaE noise ds running along the ground towards you, and it then runs into'a lot of inter- ference, fences, trees, and other barriers - the noise level of the freeway Uecomes s quite rapi.dly attenuated within a short distance of a residential community. However, this is not the case with aircraft flying overhead because when they generate noise in ~ the air space over you, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the noise and it ~ travels unattenuated through the atmosphere getting to the listener at full strength, and the only dissipation of this is the fact that the noise is spread ~ver a larger ~ surface area - if one thinks of a wave as a spherical wave coming out. So, therefore, '' I could not argue with your observations. Chairman Allred then inquired whether Mr. Jensen had made any observation of the noise from the "Otter" aircraft in the outlying area. Mr. Jensen replied that he was in attendance at the parking area during landing and takeoff; however, he had not gene 1/4 mile away to observe the noise they might have made~ but he had a copy of a survey i which he made one Saturday morning between 6:30 a.m, and 3:30 p.m. and observed aircraft ~ overflights of 100 sircraft which flew over his home. ~ Chairman Allred then inquired whether Mr. Jensen had a device to record the decibels which the sircraft made; whereupon Mr. Jensen replied in the negative. Commissioner Farano then inquired of Mr. Jensen that if two conflicting sources of noise which vied for attention - would as a result of this, the noises blend in'together to some exten[? Mr. lensen replied that one could say they blended together; however, there is energy put into the air by sircraft flying over, and energy put into the air by traffic going by - if one were at a certain point and both of the sound waives reach one simultan- eously, one would be subjected to the energy levels of both of those sound waves, but there is nothing to say that on their way to the listener that there isn't some kind of interference. Commissioner Farano then noted tha[ the noises of the aircraft and automobile traffic would add to each other, and in layman's language enveloped each other to an extent; that while noises were identifiable, they had the effect of reducing the effect of each other, and [hen inquired since he was trying to determine if these two noises contribute to each other, and if so, how did one rationablize or separate to the extent to which of these two noiaes contributed the most to the disturbance of the residents - how did one measure how or~e contributed as opposed to how much the other contributed - could this be done, and did Mr. Jensen have occasion to undertake a study of this kind and its relationship with metroport noises, or the noise of "STOL" aircraft combined with the noise of ordinary city life so that the Commission could get some kind of a measuremen[ as to exactly how much each contributed? Mr, lensen replied that this was feasible and there were ways of doing this - if the Commission referred to the chart - this was one of the factors which he was attempting to point out. Commissioner Farano observed that the noise chart presented was a lit[le misleading because it measured the sound decibels at one mile in height of altitude, and the sound decibels of the "STOL" craft coul~d not be measured in one-mile aititude - in excess ot ten times the height which the Commission was observing as it pertained to the craft proposed, Mr. Jensen then observed that if the aircraft flew lower, there would be c:onsiderably more noise. Commissioner Farano agreed; however, he was interested in knowing wheth~r one could determine what percentage of the noise cou].d be attributed to the aircraft when the level of noise was lowered where t.t bl.ended in with other ever.yday ooises; that he would like to have this data authoritated because this was an imporPant p~,int - to what extent I E . . .. . ~ . . . . - - . ~ . . ~ . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CGMAIISSION, June 18, 1969 4678 ~ s CONDITIONAL.USE`PERMIT- ~ N0, 1120 (continued) ~ each of these contributing.factors is a direct and in turn contributing factor to the ~ noises which are disturbing to the population. If you haven't undertaken this sCudy, it is obvious,you can't answer the question. Mr. Jensen stated he oould not answer the question since he did not obviously undertake these studies - no one had Faid him to make these studies which take considerable time, ' money; and effort; however, if the Commission will refer to the first chart wherein the noise`levels for residential areas are indicated - and it was important that one under- stood the significance of these numbers -- wherein it states that a residential area has - a noise level of 20 decibels which is a very quiet level, and if everyone in the meet- ing`went home afterwards and stood in their yard to listen, all would agree the area was very quiet. This did not Cake into account every time someone drives down the street in that residential area since this would raise the noise level above the 20 decibel figure - these large increases in noise level from automobiles going down the street, children yelling, garage doors being slammed, someone operating an electrir. saw - these are all exceptiona and are not the general rule. Commissioner Farano then inquired whether Mr. Jensen had studied in any way the produc- tion of noise decibels or any other manner in which one would put this technically - the "Otter" sircraft as it is or would be situated at the metronnrr i~~~ri,,., l~:r. Jensen replied that he had not made this study - his figures were only general. Commissioner Farano then stated his second observation - so that he understood the chart correctly - is that an increase in decibels produces a disproportionately or substantially greater amount of noise. Mr.. Jensen replied in the affirmative, noting this was a point which he was attempting to make - a decibel level is a very compressed scale.- the reason Dr. Bell invented the decibel in the first place when he started to work with noise when he found out that he could_not plot noise because he was dealing with such a wide range, in order to get it down to where he could plot it all on one piece of paper - he converted it to a logarithm, but unfortunately he decided to keep the logarithmic units instead of staying with horse- ~ power per square foot, which he felt was a more understandable physical unit where the °:average person could have some feel as to its size. Mr; William Woodyard, 2753 Strong Place, appeared before the Commisgion and stated he would like to have the Commission consider another point - however, not to implore the Commission to deny subject petition - which has been overlooked up to this time; that under the proposed Interdepartmental Committee fot Public Safety and General Welfare < recommendations attached to the staff report there were no conditions as to restric- tions and apparently no plans that would limit the operation of the metroport facilities being discussed. However, if one referred to Section 18.64~105 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, once a conditional use permit is granted, that permit can be revoked under certaLn conditions. Subsection "d" of that ordinance states that one of the conditions for this revocation is that the permit is being or has been exercised contrary to the terms of its conditions of approval, which means if you gra7t the permit and those conditions are not complied wi.th, you or the citizens of Anahpim have an opportunity to request an additional public hearing to consider revoking the permit. This has only occurred in one instance that he could recall, and that was when Melo~9yland proposed to have topless entertainment. ~ Mr. Woodyard then read the ICPS&GW reco~mnendation in i.ts entirely, and at its conclusion staCed this condition was very vague, and the Mtizens oC the City of Anaheim have a 'right to a much clearer definition as to what the l.imilations uf this facility might be. He thought the "investor class", the people wil.l.ing to come in and put up the money to operate this facility, would also be interested in knowing just what limitations they : have to work under if there are any; that he did not think that the citizens of Anaheim would want the Commission to divest itself of their authority by granting a conditi~nal ~ use:permit that would allow the FAA to determine what the rules are going to be that ~I govern the operation of this facility. All o~ the testimony before the Commission at i this hear.ing limits it to the "Otter" aircraft, Is tl~e Commission planning to restrict 'the use of this metroport facility to "Otter" aircraft? There has been a lot of testi- mony at this hearing as to noise levels. Is the Commission going co put in the granting of the petition a restcic[ion against aircraFt or the use of Lhe facility that would result in a noise level of a certain decibel level? Is the Commission going to require that any sircraft using this facility be equipped with a Decca navigator device? Is the Commission going to establish any limitations as to the number of flights, passen- gera a plane can aarry - in short, are you going to protect the residents of the city ~ .,;:J:..::... S ~' :z ~~. y ..y~. ~ ~ ....}: ,r^- r . ~ ~ j~t MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 ~~` tio79 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.~1120 (continued so that in the future if other type aircraft are brought on to this facility, and the operators propose to do something oF a different nature, we will be able to demand, request a hearing and to air it at that time? Mr, Woodyard then stated he did not think the citi'zens of Anaheim wanted the conditional use permit granted in the first place, but if they have to live with it, then they cerEainly have the right to request that the Commission establish the conditions and restrictions in the granting of the petition so that a situation does not arise where the type of aircraft, noise level, and so forth will be permitted to operate from the metroport as was presented as opposition befor.e, • An article was distributed to the Commission, taken from Aviation Tdeek and Space Technology in October 1968, pertaining to [he Boeing "737" STOL Aireraft which the Boeing Company is now working on. A picture of the "737" was also posted, with Mr. jJoodyard stating that he was not proposing that this type of aircraft would be utilizing the metroport, but in relation to the article - the Commission should examine the picture, know what type of po[ential which could be opened up wtien the restrictions are made. Mr. James Webb, President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Commis- sion and stated one comment he would like to make - he was somewhat of a country boy in comparison with all of the experts, but he would like to say as a businessman - safety is a consideration; that he had been informed by people who seemed to know that it is ten times safer to fly than to drive the freeways to Los Angeles International Airport, and he could assure you that most businessmen feel that way; that he could ass+~me that aircraft and the metroport would be about the same as any other aircraft - ten times safer than the freeway, Another point of observation - he happened to live in a neigh- borhood supposedly quiet, but a youngster down the street has a Volkswagen with a cut- out in it which makes a lot more noise than the "Otter" aircraft. Another youngster has a motorcycle which, believe him, is some problem. However, in his observation of the "Otter" aircraft, he did not hear very much noise either. But to get down to the main issue: He represented about 1200 businessmen and leaders in Anaheim employing about 50,000, and they are interested in their welfare, the economic prosperity of Anaheim, the orderly development of Anaheim through private enterprise, The Chamber of Commerce has a Transportation Committee that examines the effect of railroads, freeways, city streets, lights, access, etc., for the good of Anaheim from a business standpoinC and for the citizens, too, and we feel this Transportation Committee considers subjects Chat are vital to Anaheim; one can relate it to the circulation system of the human body - cur off some of the arteries or air passages, that body cannot function adequately, and it would have to detour or die. Thus, one can relate this same thing with trans- portation, The Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee studied this for over a year, spending many evenings, afternoons, etc., studying the problem, going out to the source, e[c., and as a result they presented to the Board of Directors Che following proposal: "After due consideration, the Transportation Committee made the following recommendation to the Board of Directors oF the Anaheim Chambar of Commerce: 'The Transportation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that a metroport be developed in Anaheim and that consideration be given to: a) the maximum use of private enterprise in developing the metroport; b) that the metroport 5ite be accepCable to the FAA; and c) that efficient ground transportation be maintained to serve the metroport."' The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on Thursday, June 12, 1969, approved this recommendation and authorized its distribution Co the Planning Commission for its consideration. Plr. S. A. Melugin, 35751 Beach Boulevard, Capistrano Beach, one ot the property owners involved in the metroport site, and just an Anaheim taxpayer, appeared before the Commission, asking that a showing of hands be asked of any oCher property owners of the metroport site. One additional person raised his hand. Mr, Melugin then stated he had a number of questions to be answered: How did the Clty ask for this zoning change or variance and not the Commutercenters, Inc.? Chairman Allred noted tnat perhaps because the City owned the land was the reason for their initiation of the petition. Mr: Melugin then advised the Cc,mmissi.on Phat tL~ ~•fi.p clu,,,1,1 i~,e~~ ~,~ve i.ocluded only the ~ land they owned and nor property nc~l belun~ink ~.., ibo~~~_ ~ ~~ C~ c:~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 46£30 COrDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 11201continued) Mr. Roberts advised *he Commission and Mr. Melugin that che Anaheim City Council directed the staff to initiate a conditional use permit for a metroport facility at the location under consideration now. The total boundaries included within the application for this petition covered parcels in addition to lands owned by the ~3ity - thera are a number of privately owned parcels includ.ed in.this petition. The metroport facility as presently proposed may or may not encompass the total area that is included in this conditional use permit petition. The total boundaries were intended to cover all those lands that might eventually Ue needed in the total development of the facility. Dir. Orsborn advised the Commission that Mr. Roberts had covered the situation very well; however, to simplify this and answer it, it is the prerogative of the elected officials of the City of Anaheim to consider zoning on any property in the City of Anaheim - in this insCance they so presumed to consider the property presently involved in this hear- ing of the applicaticn. Mr. Melugin then inquired whether the granting of the zone variance would in any way affect his continued operation in the M-1 Zone. Chairman Allred stated he could continue his operation and inquired whether his property was in the middle of the landing pattern; to which Mr. Melugin replied he thoughi his property was so located. Mr. Orsborn, at 'the request of the Commission, stated that this particular conditional use permit -• asking that the City Attorney's Office representative verify this statement - would, in fact, expand the potential use of his property over and above what he enjoys at the present time. In addition to that, if Mr.. Melugin were opposed to the zoning as proposed, he could petition the City Council to withdraw his land from the proposed conditional use permit. After having Mr. Melugin point out the exact location of his property on the map, Mr, Orsborn advised ~he Cammission that Mr. Melugin's property had no bearing on the landing strip per se. Mr. Melugin then inquired if he could withdraw his property from tl:e proposal. ' Assistant. City Attorney John Dawson advised Mr. ~Ielugin to submit a letter to the City Council asking that his property be withdrawn from property under consideration im Conditional Use Permit No. 1120, either through the Development Services Department or the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Joseph Light, 550 Bond Street, east of South and East Streets, appeared before the Commission and stated that he had spent about fifteen years in the aerospace industrp, living at the address for 7~ years; that he was driving home about the time the "Otter" aircraft passed over him at State College and Katella Avenue, at which time the pilot gunned his propelles after reaching his operating altitude to change the pitch of the propellers - this drowned out the baseball game and all the noise at that intersection. He then noticed the other "Otter" aircraft going around the general area, having just passed over Roosevelt Grade School, South Junior High School and Katella High School, schools which served his area, and he just about arrived at the hearing without the assistance of an elevator. Mr_ Light then no[ed that in his own particular specialty of system engineering analysis ; he selected seven specific items - his position in the area, as an aerospace traveler ~ flying to other parts of the world, bu~ primarily within the United States, several times ' a year it is necessary to travel to LAX, and th~re are three choices - the bus, the ~ helicopter which works on clear days, or driving yourself on the freeways - he didn't ~, know which is worst - they are all somewha~ of a jeopardy because of possible accident i conditions. This would be an additional source, and his only comment would be the ~ location of the metroport - although it is a convenient location, it is an unfortunate i- choice. The following seven items for further co^isideration: 1) Airports - from a i,; quote by John Shafer - were the second largest generators of traffic; rather than , `alleviate traffic in this general area, the traffic that will be generated by the Tetro- port will add to the existing traffic we have and will not alleviate it. The first generator of trafi•ic is the industry in this area - that is the type of thing that is attracted to an area served by such a source of transportation; in'other words, the industry that would be generated into this area now being used as orange groves, and he believes xhere are some people present who have groves very close by, one grove being just south of Ba11 Road, originally considered for the stadium site. Converting these groves [o industry is probably the most profitable use of that type of land rather than commercial or multiple-family housing. 2) The flight path to and from of air space ' was not considered and was not made clear enough by the proponents of the metroport; however, the antagonists or opposition have presented very adequate slides showing part of the conflicts wi.th commerci3l and military air trafFic in this general area. The " helicopter operation from the Disneyland Hotel to SanCa Pe Springs, Downey, finally '~' I`.,".", ~~ ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4681 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.. 1120 (continued) reaching LAX or the Ontario airport or whatever other stops it has to make and which will most likely expand, is at the same flight level in this general area: Another source was completely forgotten - that is the helicopter site in Orange just across the freeway where the hospital itself has provided fo.r helicopter ambulances on its roof.. The County Annex has provided for helicopter service from the downtown Santa Ana complex to those facilities; "The City", a commercial-residential and industrial complex, also provided for a heliport - three more facilities which will shortly he in operation, all of which will be using the same air space and will be in conflict: Mr. Light then ncted that once the "Otter" aircraft reached its operating level - he must say that the emphasis on noise was overdone - it is differential noise level - going from 30-50; however, it ia the sudden change to 80 and 90 decibel nois e level that awakens one from his Sunday nap. 3) Caution must be in conjunction with "first- itis". If Anaheim is to have the first metroport, it is a very serious mistake - there has been some'objection that the taxpayers had no vote on the stadium or convention center.. However, the stadium and cenvention center committee did go ali around the country to see other developments, costs of stadiums, etc., found out how they operated, all the costs, and came back and made very nice and very acceptable and probably profit- able facilities_ They have attracted their type of traffic, their type of busine~s, and the Chamber of Commerce and iCS people have ptofited as promised., In the case of the metroport, there are no examples whatsoever to which one could find as being typical; and finally, no consideration was given to "power-off glide". From an operating alti- tude of approximately 500 feet, what is the drop rate with "power off" condition? Furthermore, the 85 acres affected in the industrial area, with the present market value of $35,000 per acre cleared and available or in che price range of $3,000,000, together with the price of fuur airplanes and five pilots, there would be enough money left over from a$4,000,000 investment to buy a stadium hot dog. The cost of the proposed project would be nearer $12,000,000 to $20,000,000. Furthermore, he would recommend a site closer to Prado Dam. That area would be served by the Yorba Linda, Riverside, Route 71 Freeways and routing craffic out to the desert, yet this would be close enough to the Santa Ana and Newport Freeways as a source of surface traffic and is still out of general industry as it is presently existing, but it will develop from the City of Commerce to the Diamond Bar area and over. Another airplane that has not been considered is one which is being developed by North American-Columbus - the Bronco - which is being used in Vietnam now and the Canadian company that built the "Ot[er". This type of double-engine plane will probably be operational in a few years as a 40-passenger air- craft; therefare, the Commission uill also have to consider that type aircraft which would be a better example as a design type restriction of law and consideration. Mr. William Krebs, 996 Siet Place, appeared before the Commission and noted he had one coartnent and question which needed answering: Since schools are involved in this con- sideration, there is such a thing as the Field Act, and that Act is very loose. Is there any chance by the action of the Commission and City Council in favorably consider- ing subject petition that the City of Anaheim would be put in any kind of leg;al jeopardy since City property is involved? Mr. Dawson advised che Commission that up to the present time no consideratiun had been given to the Field Act. Mr. Donald E. Smith, Mayor of the City of Orange, appeared before the Commission t,o represent chat city's position on the proposed metroport- and stated: "GenClemen of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, I wish to Chank you for Che opportunity to address you concerning Che official position of the City of Orange concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 1120, by which it is proposed to establish metroport facility south oE the Anaheim Stadium "At its meeting of June 10, 1969, the City Council of the City of Orange reaffirmed its opposition to a mettoport to be located at the site proposed. This opposition of ~he City of Orange should not be construed as based on any personal animosity toward the City of Anaheim nor as based on any opposition by the City of Orange to the general concept of inetroports to accommodate shor[ takeoff and landing aircraft per se. "The members of the City Counci.l of the City of Orange were of the opinion that this site proposed for the metroport was too close to residential areas and pubtic schools in the City of Orange and would represent an encroachment into these areas_ There- fore, the opposition of the City of Orange is based on their feeling that the location of this me[roport is wholly inappropriate. ~. , ...... .. j. . . .. ...... ...._ , -- ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,?June l8, 1969 4E82 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continuedZ "The Orange City Council was of the further opinion that it was unrealistic to speak of conditions or limitations on the operation or expansion of. the metroport which might be imposed by the City of Anaheim to make the metroport compatible since such conditions.o.r limitations are meaningless as guarantees against expansion. However well intentioned the members of the political body which imposed the original condi- tions or limitations on the expansion of a metroport, such political bodies tend to often change their membership and thus limitations and conditions originally imposed can 3ust as easily be removed by these bodies. "You can understand the concern of the City Council of the City of Orange, ~entlemen. The City of Orange requests that the City of Anaheim consider an alternative siee for the metroport that does not encroach into the residential areas of the City of Orange." Mrs. Lois Bark, 2022 Spruce, Orange, appeared before ~he Commission in opposition and stated that since all persons present for the Commission's consideraCion of a possiUle issuance of a conditional use permit, it should be pointed out that issuance of this permit will be giving a privileged use to the 85,acres included in this request. The Anaheim Municipal Code indicates that in order for the Planning Commission to ~rant a conditional use permit it must make a finding of fact by resolution that the evidence presented shows that certain conditions exist, Another Code requirement states that it must be shown that this use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and dPVelopment in which it is to be located, When we are considering the adjoining land uses, we cannot limit the properties just bordering the property for which a conditional use permit is proposed - the dictionary states adjoining is contiguous or adjacent to; therefore including near, neighboring, relating to and contiguous. Mrs, Bark further noted that paragraph 3 of the staff report indicates Chat the adjoin- ing land uses include [he Anaheim Stadium, the Santa Ana River, some small industrial firms, the Orange Drive-in Theater, and undeveloped land located in the City of Orange, However, the residents of Orange contend that their homes within one-half mile to perhaps three miles of the site and also several schools located in this property are adjoining areas, inasmuch as they are related to, near, or neighboring, etc;, and they would certainly be adversely affected in their growth and development inasmuch as the tenure of the area will be entirely altered if this facility is allowed to be created, These residential areas,completely surround the subjecb property and wi11 not be allowed to develop due to the proximity of the site location of the metroport Mrs. Bark also noted that she had a copy of the FAA interim report requirements on metroports. However;;~she would like to note that these were interim requirements, and as the Commissioa is aware, the FAA findings originally submitted for the first site and which are also valid on the proposed site, indicate that the Anaheim Develop- ment Services Department would like to build an airport to be called the Anaheim Metroport. What she wanted Co clarify was that the FAA findings state this is an airport - in other words, an airport is a metroport in a metropolitan area. The terminology used by the FAA in their specifications is "The term metropolitan stolport means an airport which is designed to accommodate large "STOL" sircraft and which is located in or near the center oF a metropolitan area". In footnote No. 1 it states that metropolitan area is used in this instance to denote a built up or an urban area, not a standard metropolitan statistical area". According to this definition, Mrs Bark continued, the areas in the eastern United States that are generally deemed suit- able £or "STOL" metroports would come under this criteria. Nowhere in the interim metroport criteria does it suggest that such a facility be built near R-1, single- family residential zoning, even though non-residential areas are specifically suggested. In the St. Louic area, for instance, they are considering the area around the railroad yards because uf the lack of trains using the yards now and the tenure of the surround- ing area - the metroport concept is being considered as a stimulus for some type of urban renewal incen~ive, Waterfront sites are also indicated as being suitable for "STOL" ports or metroports, and other "STOL" ports might be considered in conjunction with existing airports to separate the regular air traffic from "STOL" craft or conventional aircraft. Mrs. Bark, in conclusion, stated that there were many discrepancies in the staff report which she could not enumerate in five minutes and which have not been substantiated, such as the metroport will have State and Federal regulations in regard to ground service. These agencies are not concerned with ground service regulations - ~his is the concern of the people on the ground, and the FAA and the State Aeronautics Division are specifically interested in fostering and developi.ng airports Therefare, we feel [his will be an infringement on our homes and rhe thirteen schonls wi.thin three miles of the proposed me~roporr. sice. 0 ~ ~.~ ~~ 4,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4633 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0~ 1120 (continued) Mrs. Mary Jane Blomgren, 139 Donnybrooke, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated that the staff report to the Commission states that the proposed metroport site is located in the Anaheim Southeast Industrial Area, and the flight pattern will be confined Co areas either zoned or planned for industrial use in the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange. She would like to see where FAA has ever stated that a flight '~ pattern could be confined to fly over certain areas. They may develop a flight patter.n that is proposed to try to alleviate some of the noise that is a disturbance to residen~s by having the planes flying around the north side of the stadium before they appr.oach the runway, but the airplanes will be coming in in all directions in order to get intu that pattern of approach. In fact, the people present at this hearing were also presenl• at the FAA meeting, and she remembers one of the questions put to the officer presiding at that meeting was how much could planes deviate from their flight pattern, and the officer replied there could be as much deviation as there are pilots. Certainl.y air- planes are not going to be confined over industrial'~reas. The only recommended condi- tion by the staff requires that it conform with FAA ari~ ~Sta~te of California regulations as it related to the operation and maintenance of inetropor`t f.acilities adopted b,y these bodies or any other authorized regulatory agencies. This co~idition does absolutely nothing to protect the land areas around subject property. Mrs. Blomgren further noted Chat the staff report further made reference to a master plan of sir facilities that has been prepared, which is intended to assist in alleviat- ing air transportation problems in the L~s Angeles region. The only rep..rts tha[ She was aware of as being prepared were for different areas in Southern California, sucli as the Pereira report - such as the first phase done by Mr. Pereir.a. If there is a master plan f.or sir facilities in the Los Angeles area - and this perhaps intends to include most of Southern Cali.fornia -• why in the past sixty days the Southern Calif~~rnia Association of Governments received approximately 3/4 million dollars from the Federal Government to develop this master plan. Therefore, even the master plan that exists, which could not be located, is not any good, or a considerable amount of Pederal money is being wasted now to develop this master plan. If there is an existing master plan, she would like to see a copy of it and an explanation why money was now being appropri- ated for one at this time. It was her understanding that 66% of the money being appropriated is being submitted by the Federal Government, and the remaining amoun[ is to be paid by the eight or nine counties involved in the study - Orange County ccntri- buting about $25,000. " t:rs. Blomgren, in conclusion, stated that due to existing and excessive traff.i.c preblems, the detrimental effects on the adjoining land uses, and the projected growth and devel- opment of the area to be included in the request for the conditional use permit, the entire plan is impractical and detrimental to the peace, health, safety and gener;:l welfare of the entire surrounding communities. We also submit that an sirport musc Ue more compatible to the surrounding community than any other type of facility as it affects such a wide area of the community. For all of the aforementioned reasons and for all the opposition's statements made at this hearing, the opposition from the City of Orange request that the Commission deny the proposed metroport request. idrs. Rachel Schmidt, 715 Amstutz, Anaheim, appeared before the Commission and inquized if the metroport is approved, who would pay for it - the taxpayer, or would private enterprise build it? If the taxpayer is to pay for it, what would be the cosC ot Uuild- ing this facility% How ~iuch would be added to property taxes and the city taxes? Chairman Allred advised Dlrs. Schmidt that the proponents had stated earlier that- ci~is would be financed by private enterpr3se_ Mrs. Schmidt then inquired would all the figures be available so that it ~oould not l~e like the stadium has been - where the general public was not apprised of any costs - however, the costs and deficits would be slipped into the taxes. The stadium c~~s supposed to bring mor.ey to Anaheim; however, she was unable to see that this had happer,ed Chairman Allred again reiterated that this metroport would be financed by private enter- ~ prise. ~ Mrs. Patricia Philpott, 1838 S•Iillow, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stal•ed that since this metroport would be limited to daylight operation, would the hours of operation change during the winter when there were shorter daylight days? Mr. Barnett, in reply, stated that at the present time they were limited by VF'R or day• light hours only, and the airporc could not be operated with less than a three-milE lateral visibility factor as a condition of the aiz space clearance given by FAA; therefore, it would be limited to daylight hours only regardless of the time of tlic year. _ . . . , ,._ ._ . .--- `' " . - 7. , -~ry;;~-t ~ . O Q c -~) MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 18, 1969 4684 CONDZTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) Mra. Philpott then stated one other item was mentioned: she and her neighbor had watched the firat demonstration aeveral months ago. However~ the neighbor left after the first plane landed, and the remark she made af~er she got home - and she only lives a half mile from the site - stated you should have come home and listened to it. It was a lot noisier at home than it was on the site. In other words, it does not necessarily mean that the sound will be confined to the site or close by. Mrs. Philpott further commented that a statement made by the proponents was the fact ~ that this was the largest plane that could be using these facilities - then later on you stated possibly later on a 50-60 passenger plane might be used. Mr. Barnett then replied that 60 passengers could be accommodated in a less size airplane - since the Buffalo could carry 55 passengers a~i3 could be certificated to carr that many, However, the "Otter" plane would pern~it l~ass passengers than the "Buffalo" plane which was demonstrated a few weeks ago. That was the statement he had made. Mra. Philpott then stated that the "Buffalo" was a noisier plane than tlie "Otter" operated today. Mr. Barnett stated that the "Buffalo" was brought down from Canada to demonstrate the very worst noise that could happen. Mrs, Philpott inquired what the comparison of one plane was as to noise, number of passengers, size, etc., over the other if the schedule was a plane every four minutes since the noise level was somewhat minimized on the "Otter". Many of the people live in residential areas and were not subjected to the noise of the freeways or heavily traveled streets,. Therefore, whatever ia put into the sir will be additional noise to these residential areas. Mr. Barnett stated that if Mrs. Philpott resided east of the site, there would be a free~+ay buil[ in 1971 between the metroport site and her property. Thus the freeway noise would be more than the airport noise, Mrs. Philpott stated her home was south and east of the proposed metroport site, and no freeway noise can now be heard in that area; however, airplane noises were heard. Chairman Allred noted that several of the Commissioners were in that area and inquired of Commissioner Rowland if he had any comments as to the noise level. Commissioner Rowland stated that the noise level had been worked about as much as it could be; that he wa3 located at the school at Sycamore and Main Street and also at Sycamore and Ash Street; however, he found it quite inconclusive as to noise because he had difficulty in hearing the planes except when they were backing off, landing or taking off, but these were also not heard when a car came rather close to the listening area„ When the planes were in the sir as he watched them circle, they came down on the down windleg and then they turned back directly in a north-south line with Ash Street, When the planes were coming toward this position, he could pick up the sound of them; however, when they turned back nnd went into their landing pattern, he could not hear them unttl they hit the trees when they backed off, which was very briefly, and that he could not hear them again until they took off'. Furthermore, he was at a slight disadvantage because at the school there were tko little league games going on at the same time. Therefore, he was not sure the noise factor is really too inconclusive - from a pure observation standpoint - this was his personal opinion. Mrs. Dee Lorance, 337 Ash, Orange, noted Chat in the City of Anaheim's original request to FAA a heliport site was proposed, and then inquired whether the heliport was still a part of this plan. Mr. -0rsborn advised the Co~iasion that under the original request the heliport site was included, and the amended request has been pending before the FAA. However, since that •" time an application by "The City" had been submitted and was also presented to the Cit~ ~ of Anaheim for comment or opposition, and the City did not oppose it. Mr. Daniel Oong, 1123 Ambridge, Anaheim, noted for the Commission that his home was located between State College Boulevard and Sunkist Street; that one Commissioner stated he did not hear the noise of the plane at Sunkist Street and Ball Road, but if the Conmmissioner was in an automobile and driving it, the noises from that vehicle would block out other noises; that the people in the area were concerned about the noise in the residential area, and this was the reason for opposing the metroport at the proposed location - thus if the Commissioner was driving the automobile, the statemen[ msde that he could not hear the plane was an unfair onservatton an<i ais~, zomewhat biased because i~ ~; ~.~ u d .-i:1~ :4 e; ~ ~~ ~.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ June 18, 1969 4685 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO_. 1120 (continued) the City officials were desirous of establishing the metroport, lie would suggesE, therefore, that experimental fligk~ts be made wi.th the airplane and/or helicopter which vere intended to be used when the metroport was in operation, every four minutes, and let the reaidents of this area know when this would take place so they can report first hand the actual noises which take place from planes at higher and lower levels which will be using the metroport, rather than uaing noise levels of other airports for com- parison of noiaes which might be emanating from aircraft; and that this experiment will be a truer picture in terms of noise than all the evidence submitted at this hearing„ Furthermore, the Americans are very experienced in experimental technology, and all this technology should be used to determine the noise factor, Mr. Oong, in response to questioning by Chairman Allred as to whether or not he had been at the flight demonstracion prior ta the hearing, stated that he had been at the office and was not aware that the flight demonstration took place; however, if the flight demonstration had been advertised in the newspaper, he was sure many of the residents would have made their observations. Chairman Allred then advised Mr. Oong that experimental flights were made by the sircraft proposed to be used at the metroport, both takeoff and landings, as well as overflights of a number of residential areas; however, no helicopter experimental flighCS were made since the present proposal was not to consider helicopter flights. Mr. P_rt Winegar, 238 North Stevens, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the "Otter" aircraft flew over their home, he and his wife were in their living I}!^ room talking and they were shocked because they did not know what it was; that their home is west of Main Street and one block north of Chapman Avenue, and they had forgotten !;~ about the metroport demonstration; therefore„ this was his reaso n for atten ding the public hearin g, a f ter t he second aircraft flew over, realizing this would be the noise residents would be putting up with if the metroport was approved, Mr. Jerry Dierking, 324 Lbrst Chestnut, Orange, appeared before the Commission and stated that he was the past President of the Junior Chamber of Commerce and wanted to go on record that although the ,TCs were participating in a flight in the "Otter", this was no indication that group was in favor or opposed the discussion at the hearing; however, he would like to summarize his feelings, since he felt he came to the hearing with an open mind, that,there were enough citizens who had brought up points that possibly were not covered in the conditional use permit; that these points should be discussed at a later date, thereby delaying any action on the petition tonight, so that the Development Services Director and his staff could have time to re-examine these ideas. Furthermore, it was his opinion that government should be lsws rather than men, that government is ; for the people and by the people, and the people have been speaking whereby they have brought very legitimate ideas and questions„ Thus if the Commission has any doubt after ; hearing these people in their discussions, any decision should be delayed to a later ~ date in order that these doubts might be cleared up, i Mr, Barnea, in rebuttal, stated that they felt they had demonstrated to the Commission the need for a metroport in Anaheim. Insofar as Commutercenters is concerned, any reason- able conditions the staff or the Commission impose will be satisfactory tu the proponents, such as the Decca Navigation System - it would be presumptuous of the proponents to suggest conditions, but there would be no ob,jection to reasonable conditions being imposed since this is perfectly proper„ normal, and acceptable. Mr. Barnes then continued that the Commission's ears were the best test a~ to noise levels as pertained to the "Otcer STOL" craft; various people hear different things - some can be motivated to hear more than one really hears - one can see things that one wants to see~ He would suggest that Mr. Sishop's testimony for the proponents with reference to the experience at the Fullerton Airport and the use of the "Otter" airplane is the best evi- dence for the proponents. The "Otter" has been used there for several months, having 20 flights a day, and they have had no objection as to noise, and everyone present knows the location of the Fullerton Airport which is in and near a residential area, as well as being close to schools; that he would no[ be presumptuous to suggest that a metroport would not bother someone to some degree - any change bothers people to a certain degree. He doesn't like change either, but change is inevitable, and if it can be controlled, whicl-. it can be, it will be a substantial benefit to the City of Anaheim, to the economy of Anaheim, and to the area in general. Mr, Barnes then stated that the atatements made by the sound engineer appearing for the proponents is eminently qualified, and in his testimony he stated that at the locations he tested, 50 decibels was the tops, which he scated was the equivalent to a truck on a freeway; that the testimony by the opponents as to danger - while he was sympathetic with anyone concerned with danger., the fact is th:it rhe ~/1~ has a+ ~ fproved this site; ~~ , ~f~~~r-~~- :~v ,~r c~.' '~`~Y -g'e;~:'~~y `~'~ ~~"7~ ~ 7_3 Y" ~ ,:' kc rK., i 'f : ` Ai; e r; t_ 5 w~ 4. ~ ~. ~ / ' ~~~ , _~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4686 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 112~continued that he was not an airport expert, and probably none of the Commiasioners were - therefore, it was necessary to depend on peopl.e who had expertise in ~he field, and certainly FAA _ should have the last word as to what is or what is not a proper sirport location; and that the FAA and the regulatory a~encies have the expertise as to what and whether a location is proper: Mr. Barnes then thanked the Commission fbr their Courteay and commended them for giving _`y of their time as was given both to the demonatrations and trhe public hearing, Mr. Orsborn was then asked to offer any additional comment by Ctrairman Allred. ~z~'~? ~* ~~ Mr. Orsborn noted that he had had the opportunity during the hearing to circulate rather freely through the audience to observe the people pres~nt at the hearing and become aware r~ of the concern that they have, He would like to, and k~e was sure that he spoke for the ~~',,;= Commission, [o compliment the people in aCtendanc•e and the tread of the courteous conduc~ { they have 4~vldencedo This is an emotional situation, and it doea create great emotional - strain. He wassure if he were in a similar si[uation, h'e would respond in a similar manner. 1f All that can be said has been said - the etaff repor•t was based upon what we considered _ to be the b~§t judgment that we could exercise based upon the i'nformation that the staff was able to gain from qualified aources. The report wae not based in any way upon emotion ~ it was based as near as the staff could make it on fact and noE on aupposition. 1 ~: Mr, Oraborn further noted t;:ac it has been said that Ghe c~Vilization of man began with the ability of man to build a fire, but the greatest eingle impetus to the growth of civilization was the inven[ion of the wheel, and what was discusaed at this hearing was directly related to that particular invention because it was at thaG tYme that man became able to transport himself or his goods from one point to another. As long as anyone of us can remember this ability has been the determining factor in our growth - the ability to provide a system of transport of goods, people, or animals. It has been the growth factor of the nation. There can be no doubt that he would ra~her have this facility in your back yard and you would rather have it in his, or if you are having something in your back yard, such as a rooster, dog, or braying jackass or a freeway -- I am not being funny -- we have had these complaints in our department all the time, and the bray- ing ass is the most prevalent, believe it or not. The aonaidera~ion before the Commission now is a determination of whether ~r not chis tranaportation system ae proposed is worthy of the c~nsideration of the 160,OU0 people of the City; whether or not it will represent an advancement for the community; whether or not Yt wtll provide a service that is defi- nitely needed both today and even more so in the future. Mr, Orsborn further noted that a great deal of hia time and the etaff's time has been tied up in studying this proposal during the past two years, and•there can be no doubt that we are prejudiced and we are guilty of pride of authorship, but he would like to sta[e there would be no argument in the area of the deairability of transportation per ae. Mr. Oraborn, in concluaion, read a letter from FAA ae followe: "This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 12 June 1969 with the accompanying charts. One chart covers the propoaed relocation of the single runway about 1,300 feet north of the aite initially proposed. A second chart indicates existing obstructiona which would be removed to provide obstruction-free airport imaginary aurfacea as atipulated in our Interim Design Criteria. A third chart indicates a propo~ed traffic pattern to the north of the runway. "We are considering this material as supplemental to the data previously submitted in this case. From an airspace viewpoint, the propoaed relocation is not so far as to require a change in our deeermination dated 20 December 1968, In the interest of noise abatement, we concur in establishment of the traffic pateern to the north of the runway, t1e therefore confirm our determination of 20 December 1968, that we have ao ob~ection to the establishment of the proposed metroport provided operacions are limited to basic visual flight rules only. "4Je have noted two minor discrepancies in our letter of 20 December 1968. On page 2, we referred to MCOLF Mile Square Airport ae "within 15 miles." The distance is actually juat over six miles, The 15 mile figure was not used in our airspace considerations; the discrepanc.y evidencly occurred in preparation of the lecter to you.. An addi[ional airport which was considered relevant to the proposal is MCAF Santa Ana,, even though it was not mentioned in our letter to you. Theae minor diacrep•anciea had no bearing on our de[erminacion and are mentionad nov only to set [h~ record s[raight. ~~ .• ~ ,, ~ a~ ~, ~... . .,. .. . ,.... _ „~! t ' .. _ . l:"_. . ..... . . . ... . . . ~ . . . - . .. . . ~ C~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANAING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4637 CONDITIONAL USE FERMIT N0. 1120 (continue~ "We will be interested in learning of any further progress in yeur proposal." THE HEARING WAS CLOSED:. Chairman Allred then expressed his appreciation to all the apeakers ar.d people present for their time and consideration to all the speakers at this public hearing of the metroport:,. Comm£ssioner Gauer then asked to be given permiasion to speak his thoughts on the matter of the proposed metzopnrt; that he was unprejudiced as co this matter; that as far as noise problems are concerned, his home on North Helena Street near the center of town, the most noise that he heard were *_he helicopters which occasior.ally strayed off their flight pattern and the airplanes fr~m Los Alamitos; that other planes also flew over his home; that in liatening to =he presentations made by both the proponents and the oppcnents the following were observed: 1) the need has been established,in his opinion; 2) that he had ridden the plane frcm the Fullerton Airport and had also raken a position on Main Street near the school in Orange watching the flight pattern; that he could hear a private plane flying over much clearer than the two "Otter" aircraft; that i: was very difficult to hear the "Otter" aircraft flying their pattern except when they backed off on takeoff and landing - that was the only noise, and he was quite pleased as to the minimum amount of noise since he felt that would be one of the major problems with con- siderably more noise, and he did not think the noise factor is one of the major problems; 3) whether the l.ocation of the metroport was the proper place or not - however, the flight pattern when flying from Fullerton was either over the freeway or the industrial area, and the only res?dential which was flowa over was on takeoff from Fullerton over their residential area, buc as far as b~ing over the reaidential area of Anaheim; from his vantage point he could see none - tae proposed metroport is to be located in the indus- trial area, and the Anaheim industrial zone permits the locatiun of airports in said zone - the industrial zone also regulates noise; 4) as to the pattern of flight, this should be given more study - he felt if there is acute danger in that respect, further consideration should b~. given; the flight pattern presentation by the opposition seemed to be fair and one of real consideration, and, furthermore, Mr. Wood~~.:rd mentioned the fact thai the conditional use permit could be'turned down and possiuly terminated if regulations are not put into it; and S) tha= if the Commission determinea the use is proper and the peticion is granted, in order to sacisfy the people who presented their opposition to the petition, very strict regulations should be attached to its granting, not only the FAA and the State of California Division of Aeronautfcs, but all the statements made at this hearing regarding hours of operatian, flight control as to number of flights, size of sircraft, etc., which are concerns of the people of Anaheim, particularly those present at this heering; and tha~ as far as he was concerned, he would like to have more specific Information with reference to regulations that would go into this particular situation. Commissioner Farano noted that he had a few questions which needed answers and would reserve his comments until later - of Mr. Barnett, the first, how many metroports does your organization operate at this time? Mr_ Barnett replied that the one in Anaheim would be the first one. Commissioner Farano inquired - then the experience in the operation of inetroports would be of some question; whereupon Mr. Barnett stated ~hat although this would be the first metroport, he had many years of experience in the operation of airports and also having been the State Director of Aeronautics for a number of years in which is primary mission was to oversee the needs and development of sirports in California. Commissioner Farano acknowledged Mr. Barnett's many abilities and then inquired what was meant by minimal terminal services and facilities, which one of the proponents mentioned, since the Commission was not only considering ~he landing strip itself but any related service or activity and to limit the answer to as brief as pessible. Mr. Barnett replied that minimal facilities meant men and women's restrooms, ticket facilities, baggage handling, cargo handling, passenger handling, restaurant, dock facilities for motor car transporcation and pickup. Commissioner Farano chen observed ~hat mention was made of a 2600-foot runway which would represent the entire frontage on the north side of Orangewood from the river to State College Was a 1500-foot runway only going to be constructed, or were plans in *_he future proposed to increase the runway leng:h? ~; `:,- ~ ~~ MINUTES, CO PLANNING CONLMISSION, June 18, i969 O 4688 CONDITIONt~L USE PEkMIT NO_ 1120 (continued _ Mr_ Barnett then replied that the aircraft wosld be airborne in 1500 fEet ar.d is the minimum criteria available to them at this time - the lady frua Oraage dld develop tlie theory that this is an interim guide which we have; we da not have hard standards as yet„ However, their main coacern was ~c attem~t to gEt as much property as was possible becauss the pr~gerty on the end represented the min_mai ~lear z~:~ but did not aEfect the takeoff pattern which would be under the aircraft's capabiiicy since 20 feet of ares was needed for every foot of altitade wiich is a cer} genzle slope; therefcre, the aircraft mnst clear State College BoLlevard by a minimum of 15 feet regardless of the 20:1 ratio, and thaC the easterly end is protected by a very high earth berm, and with all new chzr.r.els or entrance raade going ir.to the etadium at the eads insiead of in the center of the parking area, 606 ieec of :•icez a;:d its bankQ, tageth~r „rith 700 feet of freeway rign:-~ af-way, Commissioner Farano then inqLi:e3 whether in t~a future this wosld be mcre :han a 150C- fout runwa}; where~:paa yr. Baz*.iett statad it weuld nut be very m3c?~ because uf th~ aeed to clear =he street by no~ less ~har. ~5 feet. Commissioner Faranu ;.iien stat~3 he ~aould like to relate his experience with thz aircraft listenzng post assigaiuenta ah'_ch he made ~,itn Chairman Allred - the first locatian being apprcximately at the in=ersecti.cn of Oran~ewood and State College BoLievard, directly under the flight patn. Tne aircraf~ flew directly uver t:~ea atan altitude of approximately 200 feet as they ;,assed over - the ser,satien or experience of nois e was about the equitia- lent Lo ar_ air-cbnditioning system onerating on the top of an industrial or apar*_ment building, and if he az;e to analugize it with annther mcre familiar sound, this former ar.alogy would be how he would describe it.. The Commissioners tnen proceeded to just north of the Santa Fe raiiroFe trscks on Scate College Boulevard near the Nabisco p~ant where they were on the outeide of the shorC patte:n aad inside of the long pattern where no meassrable amount uf nnfse wa~ perceivad; they were almost beyer.d hearing of the sho=t pattern, but aome noise waa perceived from the long patcern, nowever, for comparfson purpoaes since tne two aircraft ridit:g Lhe patterns they did give different noises and different sour.ds posa:bly as a result of the different flying techniques of the two pilots: He would assu~e then thac the level and the dis[inction of noise would differ according to the weathar conditions: pilof. tec?tnique, wind, etc., since scme of ~he noiae was heard do-~anwind. Hawe~er, he was very surprised that the noise directly under the aircrafL was considesabiy lasa r.har. when they were away from the sircraft. Chaixman A?lred r.hen mada his co:m.nenCS stating that he, too, was wi_h Commis~~oner Farano on the same lis~dning post assignmenCS; however, they did visit anot;~er area at Ball Raad and SunKist S:reEt, and althnug'r. oniy aircraft was abserved, they could nc•t evr-n hear the aircraf~, and tney were s:sr.ding outside of Che car. M:. Allred fur~`;er ncted trat co2rtnen~~ made by soiaecae in the sudieace that Che aiiCYdfC noises were noC heard by the Commissioners becaLSe they were inside of the automobiles - he would like to assure everyone that the Commissioners did get out of their aut~mobiles - perhsps the gentleman thoight that the sutomobile noise wouid overshadow the sircraft noise, and because they might be tagether, oae could not be distinguisl~ed from the other; that as far as the basic area is concerned for a metroport, he had lived in this coma~unity for abeut 25 years, and he didn'r. know of any area where a metroport cou2d be established in Orange County which would noc affec[ someone and scill meet the criteria of peopie who want Co move rapidly. Even r_he man who travels many miles a year for the aerospace industry, from his ccmments 4e wvulc~ assume he was against this proposal because of the possible n~ise, yet he is one of the men who will use this facility because he has need of this type of facili[y. Hz could not see any reason in the world for looking for another site s2nce thie is an ideal location if adequate restrictions and conditions are placed on the operation. Commissioner Herbst tnen stated he would like to expound some on the nuise level_ He and ano[her Commissioner were at Bali Road and Sunkist SCreet and were standing in a field withou; the sound oE any traffic ~r any other outside noises and did not hear the airplane; that he had dune considerable airplane Craveling during the past year and one-half, flying over many citles, and had used this type of aircraft, and irom his experience, the "STOL" sircraft flew ocer tewer residential areas and helicop[ers are now hauling passengers into the middle of the downtcwn areas on top of buildings -*_hus flying over all types of rESidential areas, and une is proposed to land in *_he new development in Orange called "The C±ty" where it would fly over msny apartment houses; the one in Anaheim flys o+rer many homes - however, the area which the proposed facility is to fly over and take off and land will be primarily in the industrial area - at ieast 99% around the flight pat*_ern. IJhen une analyzes aircrafc throughout ehe world and takes a look at th= sitaat±on~ there is no place that an sirport can be located without flying over homes. We in Anaheim, he felt, must be pregressive - we can't s;icic ou: heads in the sand anu say we are nu: going to have an airpcrt - I th=nk 20 years from C~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1909 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) ... a~ s „i 7~. ~ -y~,x~r ~w ..r.'_ .:pL~' ~.+. C~ . 4689 now our children will look at us and ask us, "Tdhere were you twenty years aga, dad, when you didn't plan something for us?" - and he, for one, would not be a part of that., Commissioner Herbst noted he had resided in and around Anaheim since 1923 - he had seen it grow and wanted to continue seeing it grow; that he owned property in Anaheim and probabiy owned as much as quite a few people in the audience, but he wanted Anaheim to grow for everybody. There may be many people at the hearing from Anaheim and Orange, but the Commission must represent the entire Anaheim population and determine what will benefit Anaheim; that he personally was in favor of the metroport at the proposed loca- tion, but there should be conditions as restrictions, such as the sircraft or a reasonable facsmile of it which was used for demonstration purposes prior to the public hearing; thst if a change in aircraft was proposed, this would have to be considered at another public hearing; that the noise level would be a maximum of 100 decibels at takeoff; that the Decca Navigation System must be used; that the hours of operation would be subject to visual flight restrictions (VFR) as established by FAA; and that the estab- lishment of the metroport would be one of the moves forward for the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, no matter what decision the Commission might make, there would be many who would dispute or dissent from their decision, and the Commission would have to determine what was best for the City. Commissioner Thom then observed that he had been sitting with the other Commissioners throughout this hearing and must admit he had many mixed emotions about the metroport; primarily, in a simple statement of fact, he was in favor of a metroport - however, he must concur with the subject Mr. Woodyard of the opposition presented to the Commission - that definite and rigorous conditions should be attached in the approval of the condi- tional use permit, such as time, type of aircraft, type of facilities, all of these need considerably more elaboration in more detail before he could vote any recommendation to the City Council, who was the ultimate body to make the final decision, and that he could not vote on the petitien at the hearing now in its present form.. Chairman Allred, in discussing the proposed metroport petition with the Commission, noted that Commissioner Herbst had made 2 number of recommendations as to restrictions and regulations if the petition were approved and wondered if the rest of the Commissioners concurred in these recommendations. Commissioner Thom stated that these conditions were extremely important and satisfactory, but more detail was necessary and should be attached to the petition because he had never voted on any petition since he had been a Commissioner without very complete and spec±- fic conditions as well as a plan or layout of the proposal under a conditional uae permit; and that he realized that the Commission has taken no action on the petition, but if the City Council were to Cake the final action, the Commission must establish a good founda- tion and a good documentation which would substantiate the Commission's action, if approved. Commissioner Rowland then asked Assistant City Attorney John Dawson if it were possible to attach conditions which had not been previously published and would the Commission be legally obligated to have another public hearing? Or could these conditions be attached at another meeting without opening the hearing or advertising it in the newspaper again? Mr. Dawson advised the Commission they were considering a duly advertised conditional use permit application for the specific use of the property as a metroport, and one of the conditions behind the consideration of the petition was to attach or impose certain conditions; these conditions could not be decided upon until the Commission had considered all the evidence both pro and con, and from this cross-section the Commission as a body must decide what would be the best interests of all concerned, and, therefore, the regula- tions and restrictions which might be placed upon it were proper and should be part of the decision of this body. Commissioner Farano again addressed the chair, noting he had a few comments to make in listening to Commissioner Gauer's presentation - who very wisely considered a number of points which he felt were inherent in the consideration of this land use - that he dis- agreed with him in some respects and agreed with him in others; for example, he disagreed with the fact that a real need has been established, there has been an opinionated need presented, based on statistics, there has been a recited need based on desire - all of which seemed to point out to him the fact that a metroport would be nice, but he was not too sure anyone would suffer if Anaheim did nat have one - businesswise or otherwise. Commissioner Farano further noted that the City of Anaheim needs to, and out of respe~t for the citizens and the continual growth of the~city in terms of property value, etc., continue to grow, but he also wanted to state he ~oas not attacking or speaking in derogation of the experts who were infinitely more qualified than he was to talk on how one converted statistics into real need; it has not been established in his estimaticn C~ t~ . ~ MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4690 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1120 (continued) yet, and in the same manner of speaking of Mr. Thom, he did not feel he could make a decision at the hearing tonight because the Commiasion, in his opinion, had a myriad of de[sil and fact that he would like to weigh before making any decision. He did not think or feel, and he knew this would also draw considerable disagreement even though he was the initial attacker of noise level, that the noise level would be a substaiitiai factor in this opera[ion insofar as the aircraft itself was concerned as the Commission observed before the hearingy it would not hurt the citizens_ What he wanted to know about was the related need, the manner of handling cargo and its facilities - would this operation create truck noise in addition to sircraft noise, and if so, how much of ±t? ~ 'A ~ Commiasioner Farano also noted he had gone over every inch of the area on all sides of the pattern, measuring to the tenth of a mile where the atreets cross; he also knew where the housea were '_•ocated; he did not think this operation would interfere with the residential properties on the south; the flight pattern might just barely skim some apartment dwellinga and a trailer park on the west, and other than that, except for the variance of altitude and wind direction, he did not feel that noise would be a big factor i as far as the aircraft itself was concerned, but he did feel that the gen~ral development of the area itaelf would play even a bigger factor. Therefore, as each Commissioner had stated, if this metroport is needed and is good for Anaheim and is adopted, he would only personally adopt it if conditions were imposed and any infraction of these conditions and rules laid down by the Commission or the City Council, which he hopefully wanted them to be adopted in toto, would work a legal and sutomatic rejection or retraction of the conditional use permit, and requested that the City Attorney consider that in his thought process whether or not chis was possible. Furthermore, in his opinion, even though the jet craft was not being proposed today, and since everyone has seen airports, and since he had resided near sirports which atarted out with nice, innocent, private little plane floating aro~and, then all of a sudden one had jet noises screaming down his back. He did not [hink thia city wanted this or was ready for it ~- nor that the city government wanted it; therefore, in this manner the possibility of jet "STOL" sircraft was entirely posaible - even though no one has raised this question before, the noise would not ga aWBy~ H~ wanted the safeguards that would guarantee this. In his personal opinion the "STOL" port would do good thinga for Anaheim, and if the city did not have it,,no one . wauld know how much it would be missed, or'if the city would suffer from it, nor:would the city suffer any economic criais, but if uaed intelligently and used to the respect.and the integrity of the surrounding properties, not only the i~nediately,aurrounding proparty, but all the surrounding properties - this was the concern of Che Commission and what it wanted to do and also what the Development Services Department wanted to do - the Commis- sion and City atill had to go a long way, and Mr. Barnett's qualificationa were unimpeach- able,. He wished he could convert some of the experiences Mr. Barnett had as well as the knowledge he had into his own brain because it would help him measure some of the inponderables in hia mind - yet Mr. Sarnett did not have any experience in the operation of inetroporta - his plan and what he thought and the manner in which Mr. Barnett visualized this, undoubtedly, he would be 99% correct, but more thought and apecifics were needed on ~uat what the complex would do. What was the complex? This was what he as a Commissioner was queationing more than the metroport itseif, Chairman Allred then inquired of the Commiasion whether they preferred to conaider a ' continuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 1120 for further information„ apecific restric- ' tione and conditiona, etc., or would the Commiasion wish to [ake a vote to approve or deny the petition? Commisaioner Farano adviaed Chairman Allred that he was of the same opinion as Commissioner Thom - that the Commisaion could do a good job in its recommendations; however, this might go well beyond the midnight hour when his thought mechanism turned off until 6:00 A.M:, and with the lengthy day all the Commisaioners had, if the petition were continued to another meeting,after the Commisaion has walked away from the subject and when eaotions and tensiona had aimmered down, approaching thia aubject later with a fresh mind, together with allowing the ataff time to review the recommendations of both the Commisaion and the opposition made as to conditions and seatrictiona were fully assessed and presented to the Commi`•saion in completed form, then the Commiseion would be able to present a completed packet to the City Council, and then inquired of Mr„ Barnett whether or not they had a time limita[ion in which to obtain the deciaion of the City. Mr~ Barnett advised the Commisaion that although they had already expended $60,000 to determine whether or not a metroport was feasible, and he was aware that additional cime was needed for further atudy by the ataff, a continuance of six or more weeka would present quite a problem to them. Chairman Allred then questioned the continuance of subject petitian for six weeks on the basie that the Commisaion would have aaother meeting within twelve days, at which time the ;, i ~ .,: - ~y: . ,,, ~~h~.s'~~.~nt~,ia R5~ ~-•~V`c. r~} 3f^ ~,~x~,lW~ ~rr a :: '~'++~'~~,~7.: "i~ r r.Ft"a' r r~r .~~~y~tT ~. ~...M :-z~. IrRC~ P~u .,~~4~."i..J.. .. . t~,?~s<~-%>..1'~_. .. .t~t,_, . _. . . ~i).:1. ~ .:.,F .r _.,_ ..' ~ . ~~, ~ . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `MINUTES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, June 18, 1969 4691 CONDITIONAL:USE PERMIT N0: 1120 '(conEinuedZ~ staff aould prepare conditions and restrictions and obtain more data as set forth by the Commiasion.for review..and any additional conditions'could be suggested; therefore, it was his opinion that the'Commission could take action within two to four weeks. Commissioner Farano then stated that he would suggest that the conditions and other infor- mation could be prepared for'the next Commission meeting for review and final action to be taken then at the July 14, 1969 meeting - which would be less than four weeks. Commissioner Gauer stated he would like to comment.on the pattern of flight which one of the ppposition had presented; this should be discussed or at least some idea should be presented to the Commission as to how the me[roport and the flight pattern will affect the entire area, and this should be part of the Commission's restrictions or conditions. Commisaioner Farano offered a moCion to ccntinue decision of the Commission on Conditional Use Permit No. 1120 to the meeting of July 14, 1969, and directed the staff to prepare conditions, restrictions, data regarding the pattern of flight, etc~, as discussed by the Commisaion, said conditions, reatrictions, and data to be presented to the Commission at the June 30, 1969 Planning Commission meeting for further consideration and recommenda- tion in arder that final and complete conditions and restrictions might be considered by the Commission at the July 14, 1969 meeting. Co:amissioner Thom seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED_ ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Thom offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion-~ MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 P..M, Respectfully submitted, _.!~'Z%Y!/!?~ ?..9/Z~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission