1982-417
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-4l7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2349.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit
from JACK C. CHOU and DORIS H. CHOU, 17771 Fitch Street, Irvine,
California 92714, owners, and B.D.H. ENTERPRISES, ATTN: ZAC
HENSON, 2731 East Regal Park Drive, Anaheim, California 92806,
agent, to permit a restaurant with live entertainment and public
dance hall pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.030.010
and 18.61.050.390 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on certain real
property situated in the ftMLW (Limited Industrial) Zone of the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, state of California, described
as:
PARCEL 1: That portion of the Northwest quarter of
fractional Section 26, Township 4 South Range 10 West
in the Rancho San Juan Cajon De Santa Ana, City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as
per map recorded in book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said
County shown as "Residual Parcel" on a map filed in
book 23, page 36 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the
County Recorder of said county; 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, investiga-
tion and studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due con-
sideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, did
adopt its Resolution No. 82-127, granting Conditional Use Permit No.
2349 subject to certain conditions and stipulations therein
specified; 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 hear-
ing, 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
-1-
___......._.._.~~.........-.....t ~. ................. .I...~.r___.,:;...:....... '\I'''~..''.. _ ~o.:.~III..;,.__~_"""'~~"'..1
WHEREAS, the applicant did stipulate during the public
hearing process that said proposed use would not be comprised of any
activities which would qualify the use as an adult entertainment
business pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find, after careful consi-
deration of the action of the Planning Commission and all evidence and
testimony received at said public hearing before the City Council,
that all of the conditions and criteria set forth in Section
18.02.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not present for the
following reasons:
1. The evidence fails to show that the proposed use will not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and develop-
ment of the area in which it is located in that:
a. The applicant failed to present any evidence to estab-
lish that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which the pro-
posed use is proposed to be located and, therefore, failed to meet the
burden of proof on this issue.
b. The proposed use would constitute a specialized com-
mercial entertainment business with a high vehicular and customer
volume within an area of the City zoned for industrial uses.
c. The proposed use would (1) engage in restrictive
admission practices at certain hours and on certain days and (2) serve
an extremely limited food menu which would preclude the proposed use
from serving as a restaurant catering to, or generally available to,
employees and patrons of the surrounding industrial businesses.
2. The evidence fails to show that the size and shape of the
site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in
a manner not detrimental to the particUlar area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare in that the applicant failed to
present any evidence as to the adequacy of the size and shape of the
site in relationship to the proposed use of the property and, there-
fore, failed to meet the burden of proof on this issue.
3. The evidence 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 in
that:
a. The applicant failed to present any evidence to
establish that the traffic generated by the proposed use would not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways and, therefore,
failed to meet the burden of proof on this issue.
b. The applicant has experienced problems with the high
volume of vehicular traffic generated by a sUbstantially similar
business located in Los Angeles.
-2-
'" .... . .~".",--""""...,"---....-.....~...... ~_...._...-....................:..os.. ................ ....=-----~_.. .III---'~
c. The site is served by an eXisting 30-foot wide drive-
way from Katella Avenue to the north and an existing 30-foot driveway
from Lewis Street to the east: however, no evidence has been pre-
sented to establish the adequacy of such accesses for the particular
use proposed.
5. The evidence fails to show that the granting of the condi-
tional use permit will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim in
that:
a. The applicant failed to present any evidence to es-
tablish that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim and, therefore, failed to meet the burden of proof on this
issue.
b. The proposed use would be incompatible with the
family-oriented entertainment activities which annually bring more
than l2 million visitors to 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
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2349 be, and the same is hereby,
reversed for the reasons hereinabove specified, and that the request
of JACK C. CHOU and DORIS H. CHOW, owners, and B.D.H. ENTERPRISES,
agent, to permit a restaurant with live entertainment and pUblic
dance hall on the hereinabove described real property be, and the
same is hereby, denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that notice is hereby given to the
applicant that the time within which judicial review of the aforesaid
decision must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section
1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 10th day of August, 1982.
AHEIM
ATTEST:
~~~~
CITY LERK F THE CI ANAHEIM
JLW: fm
8-30-82
0089M
-3-
. ..=--.r"""'_......~. .................... .~_~~_._.._......~.._~..:......:.~..___
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 55.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 82R-417 was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on
the 10th day of August, 1982, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said
Resolution No. 82R-4l7 on the 10th day of August, 1982.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 10th day of August, 1982.
~~
CITY CI.: RK OF THE CITY OF AHEIM
( SEAL)
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 82R-417 duly passed and
adopted by the Anaheim City Council on August 10, 1982.
~ /J~~~
CITY CLEBK