DECEMBER 4, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 3
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2019-00161
Location: 125 East Ball Road
Request: The applicant requests approval to permit the demolition of an existing vacant two- story commercial
building and construction of a 5-story, 65-foot high 120- room hotel, and a drive- through fast food restaurant with associated parking. The project requires the following
entitlements: (i) Rezone APN 234- 161-04 from Industrial (I) to General Commercial (C -G), (ii) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) t o permit a hotel with a detached drive-
through fast-food restaurant, (iii) a CUP to allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than permitted by the Zoning
Code ( 1.08 proposed, 0.50 permitted) , and (iv) a Minor CUP to permit valet parking.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the
Project is the appropriate environmental documentation
for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended City Council
approval of the project and
approved Resolution No.
PC2023-033. The Planning
Commission also
recommended the City
Council to include a condition
regarding the ownership.
MOTION: (Henninger/Kring)
VOTE: 6-1
Chairperson Kring, Vice
Chairperson Henninger, and
Commissioners Castro,
Lieberman, Tran-Martin, and
Walker voted yes.
Commissioner Perez voted no.
Project Planner:
Thomas Gorham
[email protected]
Thomas Gorham, Contract Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 4, 2023. He stated this request is for an approval to construct a five-story, 65-foot high 120-room hotel with valet parking, a walk-up/drive-through restaurant, and an increase in the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The request requires approval of the following entitlements:
• A zoning reclassification of a portion of the project site from the Industrial (I) Zone to the General Commercial (C-G) Zone
• A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a hotel
• A CUP to permit a drive-through restaurant
• A CUP to allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.08
• A Minor CUP to permit valet parking
The subject site consists of two parcels and encompasses approximately 1.5 acres and has street frontage along Ball Road to the south and Technology Circle to the east. The Anaheim Successor Agency controls a long term lease with the smaller parcel.
DECEMBER 4, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
The subject site is occupied by a vacant 10,530 sf two-story commercial building, auxiliary storage sheds, and surface parking/vehicle storage space.
The property is designated for General Commercial land uses by the General Plan.
The parcels are in the “C -G” General Commercial, “I” Industrial, and “SABC” South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay zones.
Surrounding land uses include:
• Commercial uses and associated parking lot to the north and west; • Ball Road and commercial and industrial use to the south; • Technology Circle and commercial, industrial, and vocational and technical school uses to the east
The hotel component of the Project would consist of a 120 -room hotel that would be five stories and 65 feet in height with an overall square footage of 67,715 square feet . A walk-up/drive- through restaurant, identified as a Starbucks, is proposed for the single- story 1,200 square-foot restaurant building and would be 16- feet in height, free -standing from the hotel, and located adjacent to Ball Road. The project would have an overall Floor Area Ratio of 1.08 . The Project would include two four-story puzzle-lift enclosed parking structures (three s tories above ground and one story below ground) totaling 3,310 square feet in area. Proposed landscaping would include various species of trees, shrubs and groundcover along the perimeter and interior of the property as illustrated in green on the site plan.
Access to the Project site would be via two driveways from Technology Circle. There would be a designated hotel passenger drop-off and pick-up area in front of the hotel lobby entrance on the south side of the hotel building. Parking for hotel guests and visitors would be provided via valet parking. A valet parking drop-off and pick-up area (identified by the green and pink arrows) would be located along the north side of the hotel lobby area.
The applicant proposes to use the mechanical puzzle parking system to meet the majority of their parking needs. Valet attendants would be responsible for parking and retrieving vehicles using the mechanical system.
The hotel, restaurant, and parking structure buildings would include similar design elements and building materials.
An Initial Study in support of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to identify necessary mitigation pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quali ty Act. The IS/MND was circulated to public agencies and interested parties. The City received two comment letters and a response to the comments are included as an attachment to the staff report. Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND to mitigate project impacts to cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources. With implementation of these measures, the IS/MND concluded that project impacts will be reduced to levels considered less than significant, and there would be no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project.
The City received a comment letter this afternoon from the law firm representing the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters regarding the sufficiency of the IS/MND related to Noise, DECEMBER 4, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Traffic and Tribal Cultural Resource impacts and the need for an Environmental Impact Report or a recirculation of the IS/MND. This letter has been provided to the Commission. Staff has prepared comments in response to these issues and distributed them to the Commission for inclusion in the record. Based on the analysis contained in the IS/MND and the response to the latest comment letter, Staff concludes that project impacts will be reduced to levels considered less than significant, and there would be no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project and neither an EIR or recirculation of the IS/MND is necessary.
To ensure that that the Anaheim Successor Agency (Former Redevelopment Agency) obligations related to the land lease on the smaller parcel are dissolved prior to the project starting grading, staff recommends an additional condition of approval.
The proposed Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and would provide additional accommodation options for visitors to the City.
The proposed Project would replace a vacant industrial building with an attractive new hotel development and would represent a significant positive investment in the area and would an underutilized property at a key gateway to the Center City Corridor and would serve as a link between the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort.
Based on the analysis contained herein, staff recommends approval of the proposed Project.
Commissioner Lieberman asked if the entire project was going to City Council for approval, Contract Planner Gorham stated the entire project including entitlements would be going to City Council for approval.
Vice Chair Henninger asked questions regarding the Successor Agency as the leaseholder of the property that were answered by Assistant City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill. Vice Chair Henninger also asked questions about grading that Contract Planner Gorham answered.
Commissioner Tran-Martin asked if people visiting Wal-Mart, which is right next to the property, would be able to get enter or exit the hotel property . Contract Planner Gorham answered the question stating it would be for emergency access only.
Commissioner Perez asked questions regarding the Starbucks queue, the parking structure lifts, and if any actions have been taken on the property. Contract Planner Gorham answered all questions.
Vice Chair Henninger asked questions about the vision the City of Anaheim has for the area.
Contract Planner Gorham and Principal Planner Scott Koehm answered the questions.
Applicant/Owner David Chu and Project Manager Nate Davis spoke about the project.
Commissioner Perez asked questions about the hotel size and if there were labor agreements and/or local hire agreements in place. Project Manager Davis answered the questions.
Gideon Kracov provided public comment in opposition of the project.
John Tafoya provided public comment in opposition of the project.
DECEMBER 4, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked if there was a representative from Economic Development. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated there was not a representative from Economic Development however; she was able to provide information regarding the ground lease.
Assistant City Attorney stated that correspondence has been received prior to the meeting and the City Attorney’s office has not reviewed the letter. There was another piece of correspondence provided prior to the meeting that has been reviewed and comment s made addressing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration about the environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Vice Chair Henninger spoke in support of the project and stated he thought the item should be continued for two weeks to give the City Attorney time to review the newest correspondence received. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill expressed gratitude and requested ten minutes t o review the correspondence with the City of Anaheim’s Environmental Consultant.
Commissioner Perez seconded the item to be continued in order for a representative from Economic Development to be present.
Vice Chair Henninger revised his motion to move the item to the end of the agenda to provide the City Attorney’s office time to review the correspondence. Chair Kring seconded the motion.
Commissioner Lieberman questioned Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill about the inclusion of Economic Development because Planning Commission decision is about the land use issues not the ownership of the land.
Commissioner Lieberman acknowledged that the request for local workers is not under the purview of the Planning Commission but agreed with the comment. Chair Kring also stated her support of local workers for the project.
Vote for the revised motion made by Vice Chair Henninger and seconded by Chair Kring, to move the item to the end of the agenda carried by a vote of 6-1. (Chairperson Kring, Vice Chairperson Henninger, and Commissioners Castro, Perez, Tran -Martin, and Walk er voted yes.
Commissioner Lieberman vote no).
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated she and City of Anaheim ’s Environmental Consultant Jennifer Marks from Psomas have reviewed the letter and do not warrant a change in the findings.
Environmental Consultant Marks addressed the technical aspects of the letter and Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill addressed the Planning aspects of the letter.
Vice Chair Henninger thanked staff for taking time to review and address the comments in the letter. He also expressed concern about the letter being an abuse of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the trades to get project labor agreements.
Vice Chair Henninger made a motion to approve the project with the additional condition proposed by staff carried by a vote of 6- 1. (Chairperson Kring, Vice Chairperson Henninger, and Commissioners Castro, Lieberman, and Walker voted yes. Commissioner Perez voted no).