93-057 RESOLUTION NO. 93R-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3563.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit
with a waiver of certain provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code
to permit an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility,
including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts, a
proposed 768 sq.ft. office building and three shop canopies (at
1,250 sq.ft., 1,380 sq.ft. and 2,250 sq.ft. each, with waivers of
(variances from) the following provisions of the Anaheim Municipal
Code:
Sections 18.06.030 - Required improvement of parking
and 18.61.066.030 and outdoor storage area.
(Full pavement required;
compacted crushed rock treatment
proposed)
Sections 18.61.062.011 - Maximum structural height
and 18.61.063.020 adjacent residential zones.
(5 feet permitted for 10-foot
setback; 9 feet proposed)
Section 18.61.063.011 - Minimum structural setback.
(50 feet from Manchester Avenue
and Walnut Street required; none
to 5 feet existing and proposed)
Sections 18.61.063.011 - Improvement of required setback
18.61.063.040 areas. (Landscaping of setback
18.04.060.0!0 areas required to include at
and 18.04.060.013 least one 15 gallon tree per
20 feet of street frontage; none
proposed)
Section 18.61.064 - Permitted encroachments into
required yards. (Parking not
permitted to encroach into
required setback areas; 25
spaces encroaching)
on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, described as:
A PORTION OF LOT THIRTY-TWO OF ANAHEIM
EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY MADE BY
WILLIAM HAMEL AND FILED FOR RECORD IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE
OF WALNUT STREET WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE SANTA
ANA STREET AS SAID STREETS ARE SHOWN ON SAID
MAP; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 83.01 FEET ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 32 TO THE
INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF
MANCHESTER BOULEVARD FORMERLY THE 100 FOOT
RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID BOULEVARD
432.44 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY
376.16 FEET ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 32 TO A POINT IN THE WEST
LINE OF SAID LOT WHICH IS 404.99 FEET SOUTH OF
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 32 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 6.25 FEET AS
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE PURPOSE
OF WIDENING THE EAST ONE-HALF OF WALNUT STREET
BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 1ST, 1910 IN BOOK
177, PAGE 35 OF DEEDS.
ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING
NORTHERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT
34 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTER
LINE OF WEST SANTA ANA STREET CONVEYED TO THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FOR
THE WIDENING OF WEST SANTA ANA STREET, BY DEED
RECORDED APRIL 14, 1939, IN BOOK 988, PAGE 483
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing upon said application 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 its Resolution No. PC93-11 denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 3563; 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; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did hold and conduct such public hearing
and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be
heard and did receive evidence and reports, and did consider the
same; and
- 2 -
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 18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not present
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed uses will adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which they
are proposed to be located for the following reasons:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 1052 was approved by the City
Planning Commission on September 19, 1968, by Resolution No. PC68-
269 permitting the property owner to "establish an existing
trucking yard and terminal with related auto and truck overhauling
and repair facilities as a conforming use" on the property with a
waiver of required enclosure of storage areas.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 1052 was amended by the City
Planning Commission at the request of the property owner on
October 11, 1973, by the adoption of Resolution No. PC73-219 to
change the permitted uses of the property from a trucking yard and
auto terminal with related auto and truck overhauling and repair
facilities to an "automobile impound yard" only. The petitioner
stipulated during the public hearing before the Planning Commission
on such date that no dismantling of vehicles would be permitted on
the property (see finding #3 of Resolution No. PC73-219).
(c) Following an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission concerning the aforesaid amendment of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1052, the city Council affirmed the decision of the
Planning Commission by the adoption of its Resolution No. 73R-565
on November 27, 1973.
(d) The City Planning Commission denied an application by the
owner of the property for Conditional Use Permit No. 3373 "to
permit an auto dismantling and storage yard with a temporary office
trailer in conjunction with an existing auto repair facility with
the waivers" by the adoption of its Resolution no. PC91-72 on
June 3, 1991. An appeal of such decision to the City Council was
subsequently withdrawn by the applicant on July 23, 1991.
(e) The City Planning Commission denied a further application
by the owner of the property for Conditional Use Permit No. 3451
"to retain an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility
(including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts) and a
temporary office trailer with waivers" of provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code by the adoption of its Resolution No. PC92-18 on
February 24, 1992. An appeal of such decision was subsequently
withdrawn by the applicant.
(f) Four separate businesses are currently located on the
property engaged in a variety of automotive related uses, including
auto repair and dismantling.
(g) The site is a single parcel of property.
3 -
(h) The property has been under the same ownership since
1968.
(i) Any legal nonconforming uses of the property which may
have existed and been authorized prior to 1968 (except towing and a
limited amount of automotive repair) had been terminated by 1973
when the entire property was being used solely as an auto impound
yard, towing and storage yard (see Planning Commission Minutes of
October 1, 1973, page 73-580; Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.02.058.040 and .050).
(j) Businesses licenses have been issued to businesses on the
property at various times since 1973 which identify uses on the
property to include: used auto parts, impound yard, and mechanic
(NO DISMANTLING). Businesses licenses are revenue licenses only
and not regulatory permits; such licenses cannot authorize a use
not property authorized by the City zoning laws. Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 3.04.020 provides: "No business license shall be
construed as authorizing the conduct or continuation of any
business." (Between 1958 and August 21, 1988, such provision read:
"This title is enacted solely to raise revenue for municipal
purposes and is not intended for regulation.)
(k) Buildings constructed and the uses established or
expanded since 1968 (other than the impound yard permitted by
conditional Use Permit No. 1052, as amended) are illegal uses of
the property.
(1) The proposed uses adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of
the residential areas south of the subject property and adversely
affect the use of the elementary school to the west of the subject
property due to the noise, smoke, fumes, dust and traffic generated
by such uses of the subject property.
2. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the uses
is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed uses
in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, or general welfare for the following
reasons:
(a) The site contains (and is proposed to contain) four
separate businesses operating on a single parcel of land and
containing numerous automotive related uses as hereinabove
described which results in overutilization of the site and
violation of the required setback areas specified in the Anaheim
Municipal Code as hereinafter described.
(b) Such separate businesses do not have an integrated
internal vehicle circulation but the northerly and southerly
portions of the site are divided by a fence separating certain of
the businesses form certain of the other businesses thereby
requiring separate vehicular ingress and egress to and from the
public streets which contributes to traffic problems in the
vicinity.
(c) The number of separate businesses and uses on the site
intensifies the demand for parking which is insufficient to serve
the number of separate uses involved.
3. that the traffic generated by the proposed uses will
impose an undue burden on the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry traffic in the area for the reasons set forth in
subparagraph 2(b) above and because such separate businesses use
and allow parking in the unimproved public right-of-way along
Manchester Avenue.
4. That the granting of the conditional use permit would be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of
the citizens of Anaheim for each of the reasons set forth in
Paragraphs 1 through 3 above and each subparagraph thereof.
WHEREAS, the city Council does further find and determine
with regard to the requested waiver(s) of Anaheim Municipal Code
requirements, other than the requested waiver of off-street parking
requirements, as follows:
1. That the applicant failed to present any evidence to
demonstrate that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property which do not apply to other property in the same vicinity
and zone; and
2. That the applicant failed to present any evidence to
demonstrate that strict application of the zoning code would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
WHEREAS, the City Council does further find, after
careful consideration of the action of the Planning Commission and
all evidence and reports offered at said public hearing before the
City Council regarding said requested off-street parking
requirement waiver, that all of the conditions set forth in Section
18.06.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not present, and that
said waiver should be denied, for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant failed to present any evidence to
demonstrate that the variance will not cause an increase in traffic
congestion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect adjoining
land uses; and
2. That the applicant failed to present any evidence to
demonstrate that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that the action of the city Planning Commission
affirmed said conditional use permit with a waiver of certain
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is
hereby, denied for the reasons hereinabove specified, and that the
request to permit an auto repair, towing and dismantling facility,
- 5
including the storage and retail sale of used auto parts, a
proposed 768 sq.ft. office building and three shop canopies (at
1,250 sq.ft. 1,380 sq.ft. and 2,250 sq.ft. each, 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 6th day of April, 1993.
MAYOR OF THECIT~YANAHEIM
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK OF ~E CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW:k
1273.1\JWHITE\Apri[ 14, 1993 -- 6 --
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do Ihereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 93R-57 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council
held on the 6th day of April, 1993, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Simpson, Daly
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 93R-57 on the
7th day of April, 1993.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim
this 7th day of April, 1993.
CITY CLERK OF THE (~¥I'Y OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City o[ Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original
of Resolution No. 93R-57 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on
April 6, 1993.
~t~'~--~C ~ Y C:LER K~AH El M