98-096
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING AN EXTENSION AND REINSTATEMENT
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680 WHICH EXPIRED
BY ITS TERMS ON APRIL 2, 1998, AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1994, the Anaheim City
Council adopted Resolution No. 94R-243 granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 3680 ("CUP 3680") pe~mitting a group home for abused
children and their mothers at 100 South Canyon Crest Drive ("The
Eli Home") for a period of one year from the date of occupancy of
the premises for such use; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 1997, the City Council, upon
appeal of a prior decision of the Planning Commission and
pursuant to a complaint filed with the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development, adopted its Resolution No.
97R-1 amending certain conditions of approval of CUP 3680 as
theretofore approved by Resolution No. 94R-243; and
WHEREAS, occupancy of the premises for said group home
use commenced on April 2, 1997, pursuant to a temporary
certificate of occupancy, thereby beginning the one year period
of occupancy authorized by CUP 3680 for said use; and
WHEREAS, this property is developed with an
approximately 3,600 sq. ft. two-story residential structure being
used as a group home for abused children and their mothers
pursuant to the authority of CUP 3680 and located in the RS-HS-
22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family Hillside - Scenic
Corridor Overlay) Zone; and
WHEREAS, on September 24, 1997, The Eli Home requested
modification or deletion of certain conditions of approval of CUP
3680; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 1998, the Anaheim City
Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. PC98-22 to delete
Condition Nos. 5, 13, 16 and 19, and to amend Condition Nos. 6,
20, 21, 26 and 27, of CUP 3680 as set forth in Resolution No.
94R-243, as amended by Resolution No. 97R-1; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1998, the Anaheim City Council, by
the action of its members, caused the decision of the Planning
Commission in PC98-22 to be set for public hearing before the
City Council thereby setting aside and vacating said decision of
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1998, CUP 3680 expired by its own
express terms; and
WHEREAS, prior to the date of expiration of CUP 3680,
The Eli Home filed an application for an extension and
reinstatement of CUP 3680 pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 30, 1998, the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, approved its
Resolution No. PC98-37 granting an extension and reinstatement of
CUP 3680 for a period of two additional years (to April 2, 2000);
and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1998, the City Council, by the
action of its members, caused the decision of the Planning
Commission in Resolution No. PC98-37 to be set for a subsequent
public hearing before the City Council thereby setting aside and
vacating said decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1998, following a duly noticed
public hearing continued from the City Council meeting of April
28, 1998, and prior to considering the application of The Eli
Home for an extension and reinstatement of CUP 3680, the City
Council adopted its Resolution No. 98R-95 approving an amendment
to certain conditions of approval of CUP 3680, but said action
did not extend or reinstate CUP 3680 which had expired by its
terms on April 2, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1998, the City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider The Eli Home's application for
an extension and reinstatement of CUP 3680 pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
and did hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed
extension and reinstatement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due inspection,
investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and
after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the use is properly one for which a conditional
use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code for the
following reasons:
(a) Said use is proposed to be located on property in the
RS-HS-22,000 Zone of the City of Anaheim (Anaheim Municipal Code
Chapter 18.23);
(b) Said use is not listed as a permitted use in the RS-HS-
22,000 Zone, or any other zone in the City of Anaheim;
2
(c) The only primary use permitted upon property located in
the RS-HS-22,000 Zone is one single-family dwelling and its
accessory buildings;
(d) Said use is proposed to be the primary and sole use of
said property;
(e) Said use is not a single-family dwelling use because:
(i) Section 18.01.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
defines a single-family (or "one-family") dwelling as a "detached
building designed exclusively for occupancy by one family;"
,
(ii) Section 18.01.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
defines "family" as "an individual or a collective body of
persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a
domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other
domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments
to each other as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding
house, lodging house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel or
rehabilitation facility;"
(iii) individuals occupying the facility do not
constitute a "single-family" within the meaning of Sections
18.01.050 and 18.01.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the
following reasons:
(1) occupants of the facility are abused children
and their mothers selected from applications received by the
owner of the facility (Eli Home, Inc.) and an on-site residential
manager;
(2) occupants are permitted to stay in the
facility for only a limited duration with the average stay being
approximately 45 days in length;
(3) occupants stay at the facility for the
prlmary purpose of removing themselves and their children from
abusive relationships or threatening home environments (and
obtaining counseling and other therapeutic services) rather than
a voluntary commitment to a domestic relationship with each of
the other occupants;
(f) Said use is similar in nature to a boarding house,
lodging house, or rehabilitation facility all of which uses are
currently permitted only by a conditional use permit in the RS-
HS-22,000 Zone because:
(i) occupancy of the facility is transitory in nature
with each occupant staying an average of only 45 days in the
facility; and
3
(ii) the occupants are, or may be, provided with
certain counseling or other therapeutic services (either on-site
or off-site) while occupying the facility.
2. The proposed use does adversely affect the adjoining
land uses in the area in which it is located for the following
reasons:
(a) the site is located in a single-family residential zone
adjacent to a major arterial highway (Santa Ana Canyon Road) and
contiguous to private streets which are of substandard width and
not available or suitable for parking of any vehicles, including
vehicles of occupants, staff, o~ visitors of the facility;
(b) during its one year of operation, the facility has been
the subject of numerous complaints from the residents of the
surrounding single-family homes and has violated the conditions
of operation previously imposed, in effect, and agreed to by the
permitholder under Resolution No. 94R-243, as amended by
Resolution No. 97-1, as follows:
(i) violated Conditions Nos. 6 and 19 by often
allowing off-site parking of vehicles of visitors to the facility
on adjacent property; and
(ii) violated Conditions Nos. 5, 6, 19 and 21 by
conducting events on the premises drawing large crowds of
visitors and vehicles to the facility and the surrounding area.
(c) That the facility, as operated for the preceding year,
has created a danger to the safety of its occupants and the
residents in the surrounding vicinity of the facility for the
following reasons:
(i) the facility and use was originally approved by
the City Council for a period of one year only (pursuant to
Resolution No. 94R-243) based upon representations by The Eli
Home and its representatives that said facility would be used as
an unpublicized and anonymous shelter ("safe house") for abused
children and their mothers seeking refuge from abusive and
sometimes violent fathers and/or spouses;
(ii) the facility has not been operated as an
anonymous "safe house" as was originally represented to the City
Council; rather the location and operation has been the subject
of much publicity, much of which has been created by the efforts
of The Eli Home itself in using the facility for media events
and, therefore, the location and use of the facility is now
widely known throughout the area;
(iii) the publicized and now widespread knowledge of
this facility and its purpose increases the risk that potentially
4
violent persons will now come to the facility and the
neighborhood in search of children and spouses who have fled from
abusive and violent home situations and thereby increases the
risk of danger to the occupants of the home and to the residents
in the surrounding vicinity from violent acts of such persons.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
not 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 for the following reasons:
(a) the facility is (and ts proposed to be) occupied by up
to 22 persons in an institutional-type facility which number
greatly exceeds the number of persons lawfully occupying single-
family residences in the vicinity;
(b) the use involves a live-in manager, counselors,
educators, visiting staff and deliveries requiring numerous
vehicles and vehicle trips to and from the facility on a regular
basis and thereby places undue burdens upon the narrow private
streets in the vicinity; and
(c) the size of the property is not adequate to provide
sufficient on-site off-street parking spaces to accommodate the
number of vehicles which have been (and which can reasonably be
expected to continue to be) generated by the use of the facility.
4. The extension and reinstatement of CUP 3680, even under
the conditions heretofore imposed in Resolution No. 94R-243, as
amended by Resolutions Nos. 97R-1 and 98R-95, will be detrimental
to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim for the following reasons:
(a) the use is substantially similar to a boarding house,
lodging house or rehabilitation facility, rather than a single-
family residential use, and the traffic associated with such use
is not, and for the last year of operation has been shown not to
be, compatible with the peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment of the
residents in the surrounding area due to the excessive number of
vehicle trips and both on-site and off-site parking needs
associated with such use in a single-family residential area
which is rural and quiet in nature and is served by substandard
width private streets which are inadequate for the traffic and
parking needs which in the past have been (and which can
reasonably be expected to continue to be) created by the
institutional-type use of the facility.
(b) That the facility constitutes a danger to the safety of
its occupants and the residents in the surrounding vicinity of
the facility for the following reasons:
5
(i) the facility and use was originally approved by
the City Council for a period of one year only (pursuant to
Resolution No. 94R-243) based upon representations by The Eli
Home and its representatives that said facility would be used as
an unpublicized and anonymous shelter ("safe house") for abused
children and their mothers seeking refuge from abusive and
sometimes violent fathers and/or spouses;
(ii) the facility has not been operated as an
anonymous "safe house" as was originally represented to the City
Council; rather the location and operation has been the subject
of much publicity, much of which has been created by the efforts
of The Eli Home itself in using' the facility for media events
and, therefore, the location and use of the facility is now
widely known throughout the area;
(iii) the publicized and now widespread knowledge of
this facility and its purpose increases the risk that potentially
violent persons will now come to the facility and the
neighborhood in search of children and spouses who have fled from
abusive and violent home situations and thereby increases the
risk of danger to the occupants of the home and to the residents
in the surrounding vicinity from violent acts of such persons.
5. Said CUP 3680 has not been exercised substantially in
the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and
stipulations originally approved by the City Council (in
Resolution No. 94R-243 as amended by Resolution No. 97R-1) for
the following reasons:
(a) during its one year of permitted operation under
expired CUP 3680 the permitholder violated Conditions Nos. 6 and
19 by often allowing off-site parking of vehicles of visitors to
the facility on adjacent property; and
(b) during its one year of permitted operation under
expired CUP 3680 the permitholder violated Conditions Nos. 5, 6,
19 and 21 by conducting events on the premises drawing large
crowds of visitors and vehicles to the facility and the
surrounding area.
6. Said CUP 3680 has been exercised in a manner
detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, or
to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare for the
following reasons:
(a) the traffic associated with such use is not, and for
the last year of operation has been shown not to be, compatible
with the peace, comfort and quiet enjoyment of the residents in
the surrounding area due to the excessive number of vehicle trips
and both on-site and off-site parking needs associated with such
use in a single-family residential area which is rural and quiet
6
. ~.
in nature and is served by substandard width private streets
which are inadequate for the traffic and parking needs which in
the past have been (and which can reasonably be expected to
continue to be) created by the institutional-type use of the
facility.
(b) during its one year of operation, the facility has been
the subject of numerous complaints from the residents of the
surrounding single-family homes and has violated the conditions
of operation previously imposed and in effect under Resolution
No. 94R-243, as amended by Resolution No. 97-1, as follows:
(i) violated Conditions Nos. 6 and 19 by often
allowing off-site parking of vehicles of visitors to the facility
on adjacent property; and
(ii) violated Conditions Nos. 5, 6, 19 and 21 by
conducting events on the premises drawing large crowds of
visitors and vehicles to the facility and the surrounding area.
(c) the facility is (and is proposed to be) occupied by up
to 22 persons, including an on-site manager, with regular visits
from counselors, educators and staff, which exceed the number of
residents or occupants of single-family homes in the vicinity and
interfere with the peace and quiet enjoyment of the homes of the
residents in the vicinity by generating excessive traffic and
vehicles upon narrow private streets neither designed for, nor
capable of handling, the traffic and parking needs of the
facility.
(d) the facility, as operated for the preceding year, has
created a danger to the safety of its occupants and the residents
in the surrounding vicinity of the facility for the following
reasons:
(i) the facility and use was originally approved by
the City Council for a period of one year only (pursuant to
Resolution No. 94R-243) based upon representations by The Eli
Home and its representatives that said facility would be used as
an unpublicized and anonymous shelter ("safe house") for abused
children and their mothers seeking refuge from abusive and
sometimes violent fathers and/or spouses;
(ii) the facility has not been operated as an
anonymous "safe house" as was originally represented to the City
Council; rather the location and operation has been the subject
of much publicity, much of which has been created by the efforts
of The Eli Home itself in using the facility for media events
and, therefore, the location and use of the facility is now
widely known throughout the area;
7
(iii) the publicized and now widespread knowledge of
this facility and its purpose increases the risk that potentially
violent persons will now come to the facility and the
neighborhood in search of children and spouses who have fled from
abusive and violent home situations and thereby increases the
risk of danger to the occupants of the home and to the residents
in the surrounding vicinity from violent acts of such persons.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that, for each of the reasons hereinabove set
forth, both individually and cumulatively, the request of the
applicant, The Eli Home, Inc., for an extension and reinstatement
of CUP 3680 pursuant to Section'18.03.093 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all rights, authority and
entitlements of The Eli Home, Inc., and any and all other persons
under CUP 3680 shall be deemed to have expired and terminated by
the express terms and conditions of CUP 3680, as such terms and
conditions were accepted and exercised by the permitholder,
effective April 2, 1998.
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 Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
Section 18.02.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 19th day of May, 1998.
MAYO
AT~
A. ?l :;;'~
CITY CLERK OF-THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
0026797.02
8
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. 98R-96 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 19th day of May. 1998, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Lopez, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution
No. 98R-96 on the19 th day of May, 1998.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of Anaheim this19 th day of May, 1998.
~.l6( JtS/~
-
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. 98R-96 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim on May 1 ~h, 1998.
~~'^ ?t ~
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM