99-033RESOLUTION N0. 99R-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4064
(REHEARING)
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit
to permit two 36-foot high, 300 sq.ft. billboards on certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE
CENTER LINE OF BROOKHURST STREET AND THE
CENTER LINE OF LA PALMA AVENUE, THENCE NORTH
0~ 44' 50" WEST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF
BROOKHURST STREET 50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89~
24' 30" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 0~ 44' 50"
WEST PARALLEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF
BROOKHURST STREET 150 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89~
24' 30" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 0~ 44' S0" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89~ 24' 30" WEST A DISTANCE OF 125
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0~ 44' S0" EAST PARALLEL
WITH THE ENTER LINE OF BROOKHURST STREET
121.87 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH OF THE
LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY
DEED RECORDED JULY 20, 1955, IN BOOK 3144,
PAGE 583, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF
~~ THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTH 80~ 28' 13" EAST ALONG THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA 102.57 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A
POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 89~ 21' 15" WEST A
DISTANCE OF 49.09 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT of
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89~ 21' 15" EAST,
49.09 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.;
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. PC98-178 denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 4064; 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, following a public hearing on December 15,
1998, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 98R-268 denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 4064; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time permitted by law,
the petitioner filed an application for rehearing which
application was granted and a new hearing was duly scheduled and
noticed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held said rehearing on
February 23, 1999, and did give all persons interested therein an
opportunity to be heard and did receive evidence and reports, and
did consider the same; 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 18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are
not present for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use will adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in
- which it is proposed to be located because two, lighted, 36-foot
high billboards would adversely impact the nearby single-family
residential neighborhood located approximately 900 feet to the
north by adding visible glare from the illumination of the
advertised messages on the 36-foot high billboards; and
2. That the size and shape of this site for the proposed
use is not adequate to d110W full development of the proposal in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare because the proposed
billboards would intensify the existing use of this property
which is developed to its full potential with an automobile
repair business; that the property was originally developed with
an automotive diagnostic and service center under Variance No.
2801 (approved in 1978}; and that, due to continual complaints
- 2 -
and calls for service to the automotive business, said Variance
was modified in February 1998 by the Planning Commission to
address the intensity of the automotive use, to allow light auto
repair and to amend the conditions of approval. -
3. That the proposed billboards, even with conditions
imposed, would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area
by creating additional visual clutter and unnecessary off-site
signage in an area already designated as blighted and located
within the newly created West Anaheim Commercial Corridors
Redevelopment Area.
4. That the granting of the conditional use permit would
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare
of the citizens of the City of Anaheim for the reasons stated in
paragraphs 1 through 3 above.
-. 5. That the applicant failed to present any evidence
directed to or supporting the criteria and requirements of
Section 18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code or upon which
approval of a conditional use could be justified or based.
6. That, rather than present evidence directed to the
required criteria set forth in Section 18.03.030..030 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant presented evidence and
testimony directed solely toward an attempt to establish that a
member of the City Planning Department staff had led the
applicant into believing that, once removed, the two previously
existing billboards could be later replaced on the premises.
Such evidence and testimony (even if accepted as true) would not
be a basis for approval of this application because such evidence
does not address or support the required criteria for the
issuance of a conditional use permit as set forth in Section
-• 18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, the
applicant's allegations are not supported by the evidence for the
following reasons:
a. The applicant did not remove the billboards on the
premises as the result of any statements or representation
by any member of the City of Anaheim staff. Rather, the
billboards were removed as the result of an eminent domain
action undertaken by the State of California (Caltrans) for
the widening of the I-5 (Santa Ana) Freeway.
b. The applicant was compensated for the value of the
loss of such billboards by Caltrans in conjunction with the
right-of-way acquisition.
- 3 -
c. The letter by the applicant dated February 7,
1995, and the letter by Mr. Majid Ahmadi dated February 12,
1995, do not indicate any understanding by the applicant or
any representation by the City that the two billboards,
which were removed in conjunction with the Caltrans right-
of-way acquisition and freeway widening, could be replaced
on the premises as a matter of right.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b~ the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning
Commission denying said conditional use permit be, and the same
is hereby, affirmed for the reasons hereinabove specified, and
that the request of said applicant to permit two 36-foot high,
300 sq.ft. billboards 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 .s ought 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 23rd day of February,
1999.
~~
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
28669.2
- 4 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 99R-33 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the
Anaheim City Council held on the 23rd day of February 1999, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution
No. 99R-33 on the 23rd day of February, 1999.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of
Anaheim this 23rd day of February, 1999.
~~
®.
CITY CLERK 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. 99R-33 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Anaheim on February 23rd 1999.
~~
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM