Resolution-ZA 1994-33~~ ~>
DECISION NO. ZA 94-33
A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,
ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF HEARING OFFICER,
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3735
PROPERTY OWNER: Alex Stavropoulos
3025 East La Mesa Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
APPLICANT: Bill Badi Gammoh
583 North Wrightwood Drive
Orange, CA 92669
LOCATION: 3025 East La Mesa Avenue. Anaheim
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 22, 1994
SUPPORT: The applicant's representative spoke at the public hearing and indicated
disagreement with the City's zoning scheme when it comes to adult businesses and
stated that since there was to be a Superior Court. hearing the following day, he did
not find it appropriate to discuss the matter further.
OPPOSITION: One letter was received in opposition and three people indicated their presence
and spoke in opposition at the public hearing.
REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Anaheim
Municipal Code (A.M.C.) Subsection .18.89.030.040 to permit asex-oriented
business.
Having been appointed Hearing Officer by the Planning Director, pursuant to A.M.C. Subsection
18.89.030.040,' Paragraph .0401, to conduct a public hearing regarding the above-referenced petition for a
sex-oriented business, and a public hearing having been duly noticed and held on the date set forth above,
I do hereby find, based on the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, including the Staff
Report to the Hearing Officer dated December 22, 1994:
1. Thanthe subject property is zoned ML "Limited.Industrial."
2. That sex-oriented businesses are permitted in the ML "Limited IndustriaP' Zone subject to approval
of a conditional use permit under A.M.C. Subsection 18.89.030.040.
3. That the proposed sex-oriented business consists of an adult theater with nude dancing and non-
alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, as described in the Sex-Oriented Business Application
and Letter of Justification submitted by the applicant.
4. That the public hearing was completed on the same date it was scheduled to be held, in
accordance with A.M.C. Subsection 18.89:030.040, Paragraph.':0402.
5. That the subject petition must be denied if it is determined that the applicable requirements of
A.M.C. Chapter 18.89 "Sex-Oriented Businesses" have not-been met.
za-c3735.wp - 1 of 3 - ZA 94-33
6. Than the City is prohibited firom issuing asex-oriented business permit ff the subject .property is
located within 400 feet of any residential-zone or any. residential use, in accordance with A.M.C.
Subsection 18.89.030.050, Paragraph .0502.
7. That the proposed sex-oriented business premises are located approximately 150 feet northeast of
2671 East La Mesa Avenue, a property zoned RS-A-43,000 "Residential/Agricultural," as shown on
Attachment 1 to the Staff Report to the Hearing Officer dated December 22, 1994. The RS-A-43,000
zone is classified as a residential zone by Subsection 18.02.030.010.
8. That the residentially-zoned property at 2671 East La Mesa Avenue was an existing parcel when
annexed into the City of Anaheim in 1984 in connection with the La Palma-Red Gum Annexation No.
267. Pursuant to Chapter 18.02 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, when the residential parcel was
annexed it was designated RS-A-43,000. RS-A-43,000 is spec'rfically classffied in the Code as a
residential zone, and has been so classified, under Subsection 18.02.030.010, since before the City
adopted the Sex-Oriented Business ordinance (Chapter 18.89 of the Zoning Code). Said residential
property is not under any Resolution of Intent for rezoning to another zone classification and no
application has been received to rezone said property. The RS-A-43,000 Zone permits a residence
as a primary use without a requirement for -any discretionary action by the City, such as a
conditional use permit or a variance. Said residential property is a buildable residential lot
(approximately 20,000 sq.ft.) which can comply with the site development standards set forth in
A.M.C.: Sections 18.21.060 .through 18.21.110 pertaining to RS-A-43,000 Zone development
.standards. A dwelling could exceed the minimum residential floor area requirement of 1,225 sq.ft.
Depending upon the design of such'a residence, a residence of up to 10,000 sq.ft. could be
constructed and would meet all wetback and other development standards. Many residences have
been built adjacent to freeways in the City, including single-family residences backing directly onto
the freeway. There are multiple family residencesJocated .on the other ide of the State Route 91 j
Riverside Freewayacross from he residentially zoned property at 2671 East La Mesa Avenue, some
of them constructed as recently. as one year ago.
9. That the City is prohibited from issuing-a sex-oriented business,permit when the subject property
is located south of Crescent Avenue if located west of Gilbert Street, or when located south of La
Palma Avenue if located east. of Gilbert Street, in accordance with A.M.C. Subsection .18.89.030,
Subparagraph .0504Ai,
10. That. the proposed sex-oriented business is .located east of Gilbert Street and south of l~ Palma
Avenue..
11. That the City included the location limitation in A.M.C. Chapter 18.89 because it has invested great
sums of money and effort to revitalize commercial and industrial areas throughout the excluded area
referenced above. Specifically, ..the City's Community Development Department seeks to attract
private development to this area and to continue to change the nature of the older industrial areas
to cleaner industrial uses. The Planning Department. recommended this change because, based
upon the studies reviewed by the City when adopting its Sex Oriented Business zoning ordinance
regarding the tendency of Sex-Oriented Businesses to induce blight and reduce the property values
of surrounding properties, the City would be unlikely to retain and attract private investment if adult
uses were commenced in this area.
12. That the City is prohibited from issuing asex-oriented business permit if the property is located
within 100 feet of the right-of-way line of any freeway or arterial .highway as designated on the
Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan, in accordance with A.M.C. Subsection 18.89.030,
Subparagraph .0504.03..
za-c3735.wp - 2 of 3 - ZA 94-33
13.
C~
That the proposed sex-oriented business is located approximately 65 feet from the State Route 91 /
Riverside Freeway right-of-way line, as shown on Attachment 1 of the Staff Report to the Hearing
Officer dated December 22, 1994..
14. That the City has included the 100 foot distance requirement from freeways and arterial highways
to prevent adult uses from being visible from the major arteries and travel ways traversing the City.
The City's current tax base is largely built upon its family-oriented tourist industry. Allowing adult
uses to be visible from these major arteries could greatly injure the City's family-oriented tourist
industry. It would also expose people to the documented visual blight associated with such uses.
The public appears to associate sex-oriented uses with deteriorating areas and increased crime, and
these are inconsistent with the community's family orientation.
Based on the foregoing findings,. I do hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 3735, on the following
grounds: "
1. The subject proposal does not comply with A.M.C. Subsection 18.89.030.050, Paragraph .0502,
which specifies that asex-oriented business shall ~ be located within 400 feet of any residentially-
zoned property. The proposed. premises are located approximately 150 feet northeast of property
zoned RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) at 2671 East La Mesa Avenue, as shown on
Attachment 1 to the Staff Report to the Hearing Officer dated December 22, 1994. The RS-A-43,000
zone is classified as a residential zone by A.M.C. Subsection 18.02.030.010 "Residential Zones
Description;"
2. The subject proposal does .not comply with A.M.C. Subsection -18.89.030.050, Subparagraph
.0504.01, which specifies that asex-oriented business shall-.not be located south of La Palma
Avenue if located east of Gilbert Street.: The proposed premises are located at 3025 East La Mesa
Avenue which is south of La Palma Avenue and east of,Gilbert Street; and
3. The subject proposal does not comply with A.M.C. Subsection 18.89.030.050, Subparagraph
.0504A3, :which specifies that asex-oriented, business; shah not be located within 100 feet of a
freeway right-of-way, as designated on the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan. The
proposed premises are located approximately 65 .feet north of .the right-of-way line ofthe State
Route 91 /Riverside Freeway.
In accordance with A.M.C. Subsection 18.89.030.040, Paragraph .0403,- the decision of the Hearing Officer
is final
DATE: December 29, .1994 ~~~
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
HEARING OFFICER
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: I do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on the date set
forth above, I did deposit, in he United States Mail, a copy of the decision to the applicant and did forward
a copy to the License CoNector and to the City Clerk.
/~ ~ /f , /
ATTEST: ~°~ v~ ~~r-- ~-~-~~.--
Edith L. Harris
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
za-c3735.wp - 3 of 3 - ZA 94-33