90-056 RESOLUTION NO. 90R-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3227.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit
to permit a 166-room, S-story hotel, with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces otherwise required, on certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
THE SOUTHERLY 265.00 OF THE WESTERLY 336.00 FEET OF
THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10, WEST, S.B.B.
AND M. AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK $1, PAGE 10, OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, CITY OF
ANAHEIM; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing upon said application on December 18, 1989, at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were
duly given as required by law and the provisions of Title 18,
Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection,
investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and
after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, did adopt (i) a motion denying approval of a
Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable provisions and
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
and the State Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto, and (ii) its
Resolution No. PC89-320 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3227;
and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law,
an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion,
caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly
noticed public hearing originally scheduled on January 23, 1990,
and continued to February 6, 1990, and then to February 13, 1990;
and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did hold and conduct such public hear-
ing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to
be heard and did receive evidence and reports, and did consider
the same; and
DNYG CUP 3227
WHEREAS, at the City Council hearing the applicant
withdrew the request for a waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces required for the proposed project and agreed and
stipulated that said project, if approved, would comply with the
minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in applicable
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heretofore considered the
environmental documentation and information for the proposed
project as contained in the initial study together with any
comments thereon received during the public review process, the
staff report for the project, and Planning Commission Resolution
No. PC89-320, together with the evidence presented at the City
Council public hearing, and, upon such information, denied
approval of the proposed Negative Declaration for said project on
the basis that said project may have a significant environmental
impact within the meaning of CEQA and the State Guidelines and
that such project should not be considered for approval by the
City without preparation and certification of an environmental
impact report therefor for the reasons more specifically set
forth in paragraph l(i) below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find, after careful
consideration of the action of the City Planning Commission and
all evidence and reports offered at said public hearing before
the City Council, that all of the conditions and criteria set
forth in Section 18.05.050.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are
not present for the following reasons:
1. That the evidence presented fails to show that the
proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses
and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located for the following reasons:
a. The proposed project is located within the
Commercial Recreation ("CR") Area of the City of Anaheim.
b. The project site is currently developed with, and
may lawfully be continued to be used as, a 20-unit motel.
c. The CR Area is currently the subject of a
comprehensive study. The two-tiered study effort is referred to
as the Commercial Recreation Area Enhancement Program and
Transportation/Land Use Strategy Plan. The Commercial Recreation
Area Enhancement Program will encompass a comprehensive image
enhancement program addressing recommendations associated with,
at a minimum, signage, landscaping and related land
use/development regulation issues. The Transportation/Land Use
Strategy Plan will assess existing and future conditions of the
infrastructure in the Disneyland/Convention Center Area and
recommend required improvements commensurate with land use
intensification projects. The study is scheduled for completion
in mid to late 1990.
-2- DNYG CUP 3227
d. The City is currently in the process of
developing recommendations regarding permitted land uses,
associated standards and design guidelines for the CR Area. New
and revised standards, particularly regarding building and
landscaped setbacks, parking and signage are being formulated
which in most cases are more stringent than existing standards.
These new and revised standards will formally be submitted to the
Planning Commission for consideration prior to mid-March of 1990.
e. The Public Works-Engineering Department is
currently investigating the alignment of West Street. This
project will be studied by a selected consulting firm. The study
is anticipated to be completed by July 1990. At present, West
Street intersects with Ball Road at two (2) intersections. It is
proposed that West Street be realigned at a single intersection
with Ball Road in anticipation of a partial interchange at the
Santa Ana Freeway as proposed in the Caltrans widening plans.
The realignment of West Street is required to bring the
Circulation Plan into conformity with the Land Use Plan in the CR
Area. Preliminary alignments discussed to date directly impact
this property. However, at this time it is not known to what
degree this future right-of~way will affect the property of the
Dunes Hotel.
f. The results of each of the aforesaid studies will
be used by the City for purposes of determining, regulating and
implementing the orderly growth and development of the CR Area.
g. Approval of the proposed 166-unit hotel project
prior to the completion and implementation of the aforesaid
studies could adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located by authorizing a significant new project which may be
contrary to, or conflict with, the orderly growth and development
of the area as proposed in the pending studies.
h. Until the aforesaid £R Area studies are
completed, the applicant cannot show that the proposed 166-unit
hotel project will not conflict with the growth and development
of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
i. The project is proposed to be located in an area
where the public infrastructure (including but not limited to
streets, sewers and utilities) is already heavily impacted by
existing developments and conditions. The City Council is unable
to determine based upon information presented at the hearing
what, if any, adverse environmental impacts may result from the
proposed project, or the cumulative impacts of the proposed
project when considered with other existing and proposed projects
in the area, and what, if any, mitigation measures should be
required to be incorporated into the project to avoid such
impacts until such time as an environmental impact report is
prepared and presented to the City for consideration by the
Planning Commission or City Council in conjunction with the
proposed project.
-3- DNY6 CUP 3227
2. That the evidence presented fails to show that the size
and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area or the the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs a through i, inclusive, of Finding No. 1 above.
3. That the evidence presented fails to show that the
traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to
carry the traffic in the area for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs a through i, inclusive, of Finding No. 1 above.
4. That the evidence presented fails to show that the
granting of the conditional use permit would not be detrimental
to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim for the reasons set forth in paragraphs a
through i, inclusive, of Finding No. 1 above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove specified,
the request of said applicant to permit a 166-unit hotel project
on the hereinabove described real property be, and the same is
hereby, denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the time within which
rehearings must be sought is governed by the provisions of
Section 1.12.100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the time
within which judicial review of final decisions must be sought is
governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 79R-524.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 15th day of February,
1990.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW:db
3515L
021490
DNYG CUP 3227
CLERK
STATE OF CALIFO~IA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ~EIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 90R-56 was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on
the 13th day of February, 1990, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ka~ood, Pickler, Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
~D I ~RTHER certi~ that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said
Resolution No. 90R-56 on the 22nd day of February, 1990.
IN WITNESS ~EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 22nd day of February, 1990.
CITY CLE~ OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 90R-56, duly passed and
adopted by the Anaheim City Council on February 13, 1990..
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM