PC 81-187r~ESO~u~r~o~~ ~~o. Pcat-~~7
A RESOLUTIO~I ~F TIIE A~1C,NFI'4 ~~iTY PLP~"1~1111G rpr~~~!~SI0~1
Tf1/1T P['fIT10'! FOR CQIlDITIOr!AL USF PER.'11T ^1~, ?2~t=' RF ~R.Ar~TFn
WHERE/15, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit from E~U1TAf'LE LlFE ASSUpANCF S~CIFTY OF 7HE
UNITED STATES, 12~~ Avenue of the Americas, ~Jet•r YorF:, Ple~•r Yerlc 1(?01~, owner, and
MARRIOTT CORPORP,TIO"1, ATTEPlTIOPI: GARY n, St11TF!, Marriott ~rive, 4lashington, D.C.
20058, agent, of certain real property situited in the City of anaheim, Ccunty of
Orange, State of Californla, described as:
Parcel 1, in the City of Anafieim, County of Oranc~e, State of
Cal(fornia as shown on a Parcel Map filed in Book T5?, Pages ~1i
and 35 of Parcel Maps, in the Office af the County Recorder of
Orange County.
4JHEREAS, tlie City Planniny Conmission did schedule a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on /1ug:ist 2~~, ar. 1:3~ p.m., notlce of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by la~~ an~i in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municlpal Code, Chapter 1r,~?, to hear and conside~~
evidence for and a9ainst said proposed conditional «s~ permit and to investtqate and
make findings and recommendat~ons in connectior iherewitli; sai~l publ(c hearino havi~g
been continued to the Planning Commission meetinn of Septemher ^, i~~l; and
1dHEREAS, said Commission after due inspection, investigatlon and study made
by itself and in its hehal`, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and deter~ine the folloa~ing facts:
i, That the proposed use is properly one for t•ahich a conditicna? use
permit is authorfzed hy AnaF.eim Municipal Code Section ln.<<3.0;'1.f17^ to i-~it: to
n~rmTt n 1~-5trin~, 1~'1 fnnr hi~h. ~~"1-r~~m h~trl P~nanai~n ~~iTh s~~aiv~r ~f;
SECTIO!J 1f3.~5.00~ - 111nimu-~ number of parklnq spaces.
2,130 spaces reRuired;
1 , ~0~ pmr_osed)
2. That the proposed use is hereby nranted sub.ject to the 'Follo~ain9
stiputatlons made by the petitioners at the public hearin~:
(a) That a sound study shall be p~rformed hy a cPrtified
professional acousttcal engineer regarding the proposed
loading dock `or the exhibition hall. Said loadin~ dock
shall be designed and enclosed with sound absorption aralls as
required by the findings o~ the study to prevent nearhy
residents fr.~m being disturbeci hy noise from l~ading
activit?es.
(b) 7hat the hours of operati~n for t,~e pr~posed lo~dinc dock
shall re limitcd to 7:~~ a.m, to 1~:;1.~ p,n.; an~i that the
loading dock snall be so postP~i. Sald limitatton shall be
enrorced by [he Marriott Hotei management.
Pr.Rt-ta7
(c) That the use and design of the loadinn ~locF: shall be revTewed
uy the Planninn Conmission six months after the date of
occupancy to determine ~~~hether or not the noise qenerated by
activitles at the loadinc~ dock have ha~i an advrrse impact on
the surrounding residential area~. If it is found that the
noise does have an adverse impact, additional noise
mitigation measures may be required,
(d) That specffic plans shall he submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission sho~:iing the a-chitectural treatment nf
the south wal~ of the proposed parking struc~ure and also
showing the sound absorption ~valls for the oroncsed loadlna
docl:.
(e) 'that the mastPr television antenna and ali related equipment
shall be permanently m.~intained by the petitioner; that any
such master antenna and televiston reception equ?pmer~t not
cur~ently located on suhjPct property shall he relocated onto
suhject property; and that all televisinn cahles shall be
eontained in conduit.
3. That the requested ~raiver is hcrehy ,ranted on the basis that a certain
percentage of the guests arrive hy transnortation modes other than priva~e automobile
and denial would deprive subject property of a nrivile~e enjoyed hy other properties
in the same zone and vicinity,
4. That the pronosed use arill not adversely affect the adioinina l~nd uses
and the arowth and develo~ment of the area in ~.~(ifch it is pro~osed to be locatecl.
~. That the size and shaoe of the site proposed fnr the use is adequate to
alia~~ the full development of the proposed use in ~ manner not detrimental to the
particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general ~•relfare of the Citizens
~.f ~i.` rir~ ..F f.C~~~..,..
6. That the granting of the Coniitional Use Pernit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not b~ detrimental to thc: peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim,
7. That tlie traffic generated by the proposed use ~.rill not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highvrays desi~ned and im~rove~i to carry the traffic in
the area.
8, That approximately 1'~ persons in~iicated their presence at the August
24, 19~1 and Septemher 9, 19~'t, meel•in~s, and a petition cont~ininn aporoxim tely ~5
signatures and a letter containin9 anFroxim~telv 27 sinnatures, ti~~ere submitted at
said public hearings in opposition.
E~IVIRONMENTAL iHPACT Fltl~I'Jf: Thac aftAr considerinc [nvironmental Impaet
Report No, 2t2 or the proposed expansion of Chc '1a-riott Hotel and revie4ring
eviden~e, both i,~ritten and oral, [o suppl~ment `lraft r_~p ~~n. ?L?~ thc llnahcin Ciry
Plannin9 Commission finds that: draft EIR ~a~. 247 i~ in ~c,m~,llance ~~iith the
Caltfornia Environmental Quality Act and ~oith the City and State E12 Guidellnes, and
that the followtng environmr:ntal impact~ have he~n id~ntified as hein9 assoctated
a~ith th~ proposed oroject: (a~ There wiil be temoorary inconvenfences to surrounding
-2- P~81-18]
properties as a result o` noise, dust, and truc4:s during constructio~; (h) The
project wili cause an incrementai increase in traffic, air pollution, and noise
levels; (c) There ~•rill be addltional visual and no~se intru,ion to the residential
area south of the project site; (d) The project may c~ntrihute to the need for
additional se~•~agc treatment plsnt capacity (n the future; (e) The increased number
of hotel employces may cause further p ~ssure cn the sunply of low and moderate
income housing In the ar~a; (f) The st~ucture may Interfere with television
reception in adiacent residr-.nti~l areas.
The fol loo-~ing r~iitigation r~~easures ~;ii 11 he employe~ to raduce these
environmental impacts: (a) Compliance with City cc~des, policies, and procedures
including lim(tation of kbrking hours and site ~•~atering; (b) Incorporation of
perimeter landscaping in the parkinn structure to reduce ihe visual impact; ~c) A
master television antenna a~ill he provided for those residenc~s which exnerience
interference tivith TV reception as a result of the prc.ject; therefore, the P~anning
Commission certifies EIP, No. 21t2 and adopts the followinn State of Overriding
Conslderations:
The approval of CondiCional l~se Permit ^~o. 7_21i5 for the proposed
expansion of the !larriott Hotel could resuit in the significant
environnental inpacts Y~hich have 5een identified ahove and ~~hich
may be reduced to an acceptahle level hy the mitiaation measures
indicated.
The project will hring substantial econor~ic b~nefits to the CitY
by providing employr~ent, increasing tax revenues and provtding
facilities and services for tourists and conventioneers visitinc~
the /inaheim Comnercial-Recreational Area.
These economic and social considerations maF:e it infea=ible to
eliminate entirely the siynificant environm~ntal impacts whtch
have heen identified in tfie Environmental Impact Reporte
tJOW, TtiEREFOBE, BE IT RFSOLVED that the Anaheim City Pianning Commisston
does hereby grant suhject Petition for Conditicnal lise Permit, upnn the following
conditions which are hereby found to he a necessary prere~uisite to the proposed use
of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and ~e.neral welfare of tf~e
Citizens of the C(ty of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be served by undPr~round utilir.ies.
2. That clrainage of suhject property shall he dlsposed of in a nanner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
3. ThaY trash storage areas shall be provic~ed in accordance ti•~ith approved
plans on file ~~ith the Of`ice of the Executive Director of Puhlic Works,
~F. That the oti•mer(s) of suhject property shall pay the traffi_ signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. ;~3~6) in an amount as determined h~ the City Council,
for commercial buildings prior to t(~e issuance of a buildina permit.
5. That ~f there is to be ~•~esterly vehicular access as shor:n on the
revised plans, the applicant shall ohtain an ingress and e9ress agreement from the
City of Anaheim to guarantr~ access to the proposed service entrance from Convention
-3- PCSt-187
Uay, tJothing contained in the r3:~nroval of this conditional use permir shall be
deem~d to he a commiti~'-nC by the City to apprrve said access request.
~. That the applicant shall nrovidc and ~ermanently maintain a master
te.levlsion antenna or ec~uivalent system to as~ure television reception tn those
residences ~:~hich are impacted by the structures. The applicant shall also install
the connections hetween the impacted residences and the master antenna and sha11
permanently m~intain t!ie connections. The applicant shall c~rant an easement
permitting qual(fied television repair personnel access to Lhe oroperty for th~
purpose of inspecting the connections. Furthermore, all tnlevision cables shall be
contained in conduit.
7. 7hat the a~esterly drivea~ay shall be redesiqned (includinn elinination
of the driveway median) to secure parking ano reduce turning conflicts.
~. That future sewrity ~ate locations shall be s~ibj~ct to the approval of
the City Traffic Engineer.
9. That loadtng docf;s shall he or su`ficient size and numher to adequately
serve the exhibit hall operation and shall he subject to the aoproval of the City
Traffic Engineer.
10. That a soun~i study shall be performe~i hy a certified professional
acoust:cal engin~er reqardin9 the prooesed loadin~ dock for the exhibition hall.
Said luading doc~ shall be desi9ned and enctosed ~ait`~ sound ahsorption a~alls as
required by the finciings o` the study to prevent nearhy residc~nts from b~ing
disturbed t~y noise from loading actlvities.
11. That construction activities snall he limitrd to the <laytime hours
specified by the City of Anaheim Noise Ord(nance (between the hours of 7 a.m, and 7
p.m.) .
17. Th:~t cUhinrt nrnnc.~~.r ~~.~lt F.,, .+,,.,..t.~.,,,.~ .~._.
with plans and speclfications on fil~ «ith the City of Anaheirn~mar{:ed,Rev,ision~Plo~,,I`2
of Exhibit Pdo. 1 and Exhihlts Nos. 2 through 11; provided, hoo-:ever, that the south
wali of the parking structure sha11 be fully enclosed.
13. That spectfic plans shall be suhmitted [~ e.~d approved by the F'lanning
Cortmission sho~•~ing the arch(tectural treatment of the south ~rall of the proposed
parking structure and aiso shov~iny the sound ahsorpticn rialls for the proposed
loadirtc~ dock.
14. That Condition Nos. 5, 10, and 13, above-mentioned, shali be complicd
with prior to the canmencement of the activity auchorized under this resolution, or
prior to th> ttme that the buildin9 permit is issued, or t•iithin a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs i=irst, or such further time as thz Planning
f,o;miission may grant.
iS. ~..at f,or.diti;~n ~los. 1, 7, 3, (, 7. 9, and 1?_, ahove-mentloned, shall be
cumplied ~•~ith prior to flnal huildinn and ~oning inspections.
1(. That the hours of o~eration for the preposed loar~inn dock shall he
limited to 7:00 a.m, to 10:00 p.m, and that the loadinq docl: shall h.~ s~a posted.
Said limitation sha11 he enforced hy the Marriott k{otel :~an~gemFnt.
_l+_ PC~iI-187
~7. That the use ~nd desiqn of thr lo~dinc docl: shall he reviet•~ed hy the
Planning Commi„ ion six months arter the ~l~te of occupancy to determine ~•~hether or
not the noisr_ generated by activities at the loading docl: have had an adverse tmpact
oi; the surrounding residentiai areas. If it is found that thn n~ise does havr_ an
adverse iripact, additional mitigation m~asures may he requir~d,
BF IT FURTHER P,~SOLVf:~) that tne Anaheim Cit•~ Pl~nning Co~nission cines herehy
tind and deterninr_ that adootion of this 4r_~olution is er.pressly predicated upo~
applicant's ca~ipliance ~~fith each and all of the c~n~litions herein~hove set for[h.
Sho~~'~ ~ny such condition, or any ~~rt thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceab)e
bY th~ final judyment o` any court of comoetent jurisdicti~n, then this .°,esolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shali he deemed r.ull and vnid,
TNE FOREGOI~JS RF50!IJTi~~! is siqned and approved ~y ne [his 9th day of
Septemhe~, 1~$1,
A?TEST:
~ :i.~ ~~ 2. ."~ ~.~
Cr1AIR~!AJ, A"l/1HE1,1 CITY PL~tI`ll~!G C'1'1MIS51~"1
~~ ~
C~~.~, X_ ~,~
SECP.ETA°Y~ A'JAHEfiS CtTY F~F~~lMivG COM?1SS1~~;
STATE UF CALIFOR~JIA ~
COUtJTY OF OP,/1NGE ) ss.
CITY OF AFIAHE111 )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anahain Citv Plannin9 Comc~ission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing rr~solution 4l35 passed and arloptAd at a mPeitna nf
the Anaheim Cftv P1~~R~~„ r..Tmr.._r_.. ,
_-__ ~_~ ~..,~ ~~~ ~•: ~n ~~~~~ember y, l~~tl ~ hy the fol io~•: i nQ vote
of the members tn~reof:
AYES: COMMISSIO;JEP,S: BAR~aES, BOUAS, EUSNORE, ~RY, HERBST, K1~1I;~ TnLqa
~JOES: CQHt11SSI0DJER5: NOP1E
ABSENT: CON!'ISSlOtIERS: Npt![
IFl IJITNESS k~HERE!1F, I have hereunto set r~y hand this ~th day of Seatenber,
1981.
~
~Y~ ~ ~~
SECRETAR.Y, ~qPJAHE"1 CITY PLn,rl~IIPIG CO'~MISSI~PJ
-5-
PC81-1$7