Santa Fe Springs Realty v. City of Westminster
| Decision Date | 20 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 94-736 LEW.,CV 94-736 LEW. |
| Citation | 906 F. Supp. 1341 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | SANTA FE SPRINGS REALTY CORP., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WESTMINSTER, a Municipal corporation, Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard Jones, City Attorney, City of Westminster; and Deborah J. Fox and Dawn R. Andrews of Freilich, Kaufman, Fox & Sohagi, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant City of Westminster.
Roger Jon Diamond, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiff Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp.
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The plaintiff in this case, Santa Fe Springs Realty Corporation, is currently operating an adult cabaret ("Scamps") at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Westminster ("the City"). The plaintiff filed the present action after the City refused to issue a conditional use permit ("CUP") for the plaintiff's adult cabaret.
The complaint alleges that the presentation of topless dancing is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and that the City of Westminster impinged upon the plaintiff's First Amendment rights when it denied the CUP application.
The City of Westminster regulates adult businesses through Chapter 17.57 of the Westminster Municipal Code. The City's current adult use ordinances, which have been amended several times, were enacted after another individual (Theron Smith) sought to open an adult cabaret at 7132 Garden Grove Boulevard in the City of Westminster.
At the time when Smith attempted to open his adult cabaret, an urgency ordinance was in effect which banned all adult businesses within the City limits. See Ordinances No. 2143, 2145. The moratorium applied to massage parlors, adult bookstores, adult theatres including topless bars, adult arcades, adult specialty shops, acupressure, escort services, public baths, card rooms, billiard rooms, pool halls, figure modeling studios, adult dance studios, dance studios operating after 10:00 p.m., rap session and interlocutrix businesses, gambling schools, skin care businesses, tanning salons, and any and all other adult uses as defined by the Westminster police department. Id. After Smith began operating his adult cabaret, the police department inspected the premises and found the establishment to be in violation of the two urgency ordinances.
On January 24, 1991, Smith filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the urgency ordinances. In response to the complaint by Smith, the City of Westminster enacted Ordinance No. 2152 on February 12, 1991, which purported to allow some adult businesses to operate within the city limits. Although Ordinance No. 2152 did not allow an adult cabaret to operate at the property occupied by Smith, the City represented to Judge James R. Gray in the Orange County Superior Court that other properties within the city limits would meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 2152. In particular, the City represented that the property at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard (the subject location of the present case) was a suitable site for an adult cabaret.
In order to test the application of the new ordinance, Judge Gray instructed Smith to file a CUP application to operate an adult cabaret at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard. After the application was filed by Smith, the City Council made the following findings contained in Resolution No. 2944:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan of the City, any other adopted plan of the city, or the adopted plan of any other governmental agency in that the subject property is designated as "Commercial" by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, and that conditions nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and each of them, attached to this approval, serve to or will bring the proposed use into consistency with the Land Use, Noise, Circulation, and other elements of the General Plan;
2. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Municipal Code or as otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area in that condition nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and each of them, attached to this approval, serve to integrate the use with the surrounding area.
3. The proposed site is adequately served by highways or streets of sufficient width and improvement in that the proposed use is the conversion of an existing facility and does not propose to add any additional seating capacity;
4. That the proposed site is adequately served by other public and private service facilities as are required in that the proposed use is the conversion of an existing facility and does not propose to add any additional seating capacity;
5. The requested use at the proposed location will not adversely affect the use of a church, temple, or other place used exclusively for religious worship, school, park, playground, mobile home park, or similar use within a 250 foot radius in that the applicant has submitted a site plan which shows sufficient buffering between the proposed use and these enumerated uses;
6. The requested use at the proposed location will not be located within a 250 foot radius of any residential zone in that the applicant has submitted a site plan which shows that the subject property is not within 250 feet of any residential zone;
7. The requested use at the proposed location will not be located within a 200 foot radius of any other regulated use under this Ordinance in that the applicant has submitted a site plan which shows that the subject property is not within 200 feet of any other regulated use;
8. The requested use at the proposed location is sufficiently buffered in relation to residentially zoned areas within the immediate vicinity so as not to adversely affect such areas in that the applicant has submitted a site plan which shows sufficient buffering between the proposed use and residential areas within the immediate vicinity; and
9. The exterior appearance of the structure will not be inconsistent with the external appearance of commercial structures already constructed or under construction within the immediate neighborhood so as to cause blight or deterioration or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood, in that condition nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and each of them, attached to this approval, serve to improve and maintain the exterior appearance of the structure.
After the Smith application was approved by the City Council, the Orange County action was dismissed. Although the CUP application was approved for the property, Smith never opened or operated an adult cabaret at the site. At the time when Smith's application was approved, the City Council was aware that the owner of the property would refuse to lease the premises at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard to Smith or any other person who planned to operate an adult cabaret.
THE PRESENT CASE:
At the time when Smith filed his CUP application, the property at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard was used to operate a nightclub ("the Marquee") which featured rock and roll bands. The Marquee was operated by an individual named Bob Martin, who is also the current operator of Scamps. After Smith's CUP application was approved by the City Council, the plaintiff's attorney in this case introduced Mr. Martin to James Massoli and Michelle Inman. Following a series of negotiations, these individuals formed Santa Fe Springs Realty Corporation, the plaintiff in this case.
Santa Fe Springs Realty Corporation applied for a CUP to operate an adult cabaret at 7000 Garden Grove Boulevard, and the plaintiff's application was complete as of December 23, 1993. Chapter 17.57, the applicable provision of the Westminster Municipal Code that was in effect at that time provided that:
The planning commission or city council shall approve or conditionally approve an application for a conditional use permit where the information submitted by the applicant substantiates the following findings:
1. That the proposed use will be consistent with the Westminster General Plan, any other applicable adopted plan of the city, or any applicable adopted plan of any other governmental agency;
2. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Municipal Code or as otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area;
3. That the proposed site is adequately served by highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind or quantity of traffic that such use would generate;
4. That the proposed site is adequately served by other public and private service facilities as are required;
5. That the requested use at the proposed location will not adversely affect the use of a church, temple, or other place used exclusively for religious worship; school, park, playground, mobile home park, or similar use within a 250 foot radius;
6. That the requested use at the proposed location will not be located within a 250 foot radius of any residential zone. The distance between a proposed use and a residential zone shall be the nearest lot line included within the residential zone along a straight line extended between two points;
7. That the requested use at the proposed location will not be located within 250 feet of any other regulated use under this chapter. Distances between uses shall be measured between the main entrances of such uses or proposed uses along the shortest route...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond v. City of Taft
...and definite standards" are constitutional; Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 150-151, 89 S.Ct. 935; Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster, 906 F.Supp. 1341, 1364 (C.D.Cal.1995)(applying Shuttlesworth in adult business context); those which "condition the free exercise of First Amen......
-
Nakatomi Inv., Inc. v. City of Schenectady
...their challenge to § 264-91, and thus the City should be enjoined from enforcing § 264-91. Accord, Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster, 906 F.Supp. 1341, 1364 (C.D.Cal.1995) (issuing permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of adult entertainment permit scheme where stand......
-
U.S. v. Masel
...allowed town officials to attach "conditions and safeguards" to a permit was too broadly worded); Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster, 906 F.Supp. 1341, 1366 (C.D.Cal.1995) 3. Defendant does not contend that freedom of intimate association is implicated in this case. 4. Ind......
-
Vivid Entm't, LLC v. Fielding
...a permit to engage in nude dancing. Dease v. City of Anaheim, 826 F.Supp. 336, 342 (C.D.Cal.1993); Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster, 906 F.Supp. 1341, 1363 (C.D.Cal.1995) (citing Dease and applying that case's logic). Interveners claim that Measure B is not a prior restr......
-
Table of Cases
...Invs., Inc. v. City of Schenectady, 949 F. Supp. 988 (N.D.N.Y. 1997):12.4(4) Santa Fe Springs Realty Corp. v. City of Westminster, 906 F. Supp. 1341 (C.D. Cal. 1995): 12.4(4) Stephans v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency (TRPA), 697 F. Supp. 1149 (D. Nev. 1988): 6.3(1), 6.3(3)(a) Steuart Transp. ......