96-116 RESOLUTION NO. 96R-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER REGARDING
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1978.
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1979 the Planning Commission granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1978, in part, under Resolution No.
PC79-100 to permit a 23-unit motel (25 units requested) with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural
height and limited landscape setback on property located at 426
South Beach Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, May 15, 1995, the Planning Commission, by
motion, set Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 for public hearing to
consider revoking or modifying the use permit based on the use
being exercised in a manner which may be detrimental to the
public health, peace, safety, or welfare, or in such a manner as
to constitute a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1995, the property owners of
record, Sumanbahai Patel and Nirmalaben Patel were notified, by
certified mail, of the date, place and time of the public hearing
to consider the revocation or modification of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1995, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to consider whether Conditional
Use Permit No. 1978 should be revoked or modified. The
Commission by its Resolution No. PC95-78 amended Resolution No.
PC79-100 to modify Conditional Use Permit No. 1978. Condition
No. 14 of Resolution No. PC95-78 states:
"That Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 shall
expire six (6) months from the date of this
resolution, on January 19, 1996."
WHEREAS, Sumanbhai Patel, the property owner, submitted
a letter, received by the City of January 3, 1996, requesting
modification of Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. PC95-78 to
retain the 23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing at the civic Center in the City of Anaheim,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to determine whether grounds exist
to modify the conditional use permit, as requested, to retain the
23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1996, by its Resolution No.
PC96-15, the Planning Commission denied the request to amend
Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. PC79-100, as amended by
Resolution No. PC95-78, to retain the 23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 1996, Hari S. Lal, Esq., of the
Law Firm of Hari S. Lal & Associates, filed a timely appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision on behalf of Sumanbahai Patel
and Nirmalaben Patel, doing business as Pacific Inn Motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1996, by motion, the City
Council appointed a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing on the
matter and make recommendations to the City council pursuant to
A.M.C. S1.12.110; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of the Public Hearing before a Hearing
officer regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was duly given by the City, and the matter was duly
continued to April 24, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1996, the Hearing Officer opened
the public hearing relating to modification or termination of
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1978 and received oral and written
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim appeared and was
represented by Mark S. Gordon, Deputy City Attorney; Appellant
Sumanbahai Patel personally appeared and was represented by
attorney Hari S. Lal; and
WHEREAS, substantial written evidence submitted by both
side was received by the Hearing Officer; and
WHEREAS, the parties stipulated to these recitals,
findings and recommendations to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer has, in accordance with
Section 1.12.110 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, prepared, or
caused to be prepared, the administrative record of the hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, having considered the
exhibits received at the hearing, arguments and proposed findings
of fact and recommendations of counsel, has prepared Findings of
Fact and Recommendations of Hearing Officer to Anaheim City
2
Council pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.12.110 (the
"Findings of Fact"); and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the City received the
administrative record and the proposed Findings of Fact submitted
by the Hearing Officer; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1996, the City Council did consider
the administrative record and the written recommendations of the
Hearing Officer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that the City Council hereby adopts those
certain findings of fact and recommendations of the hearing
officer attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the foregoing Findings
and evidence, that the City Council:
A. Grant the appeal as to Condition No. 14 of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1978 and remove said condition which
would have resulted in Conditional Use Permit No. 1978
expiring on January 10, 1996; and
B. Grant the appeal for modification of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978 by deleting the 18 new conditions added
by the Anaheim City Planning Commission on July 10, 1995
(Resolution No. PC95-78) and by adding the 15 new
conditions as hereinafter described.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit No.
1978, as approved by Resolution PC79-100 and amended by
Resolution No. PC95-78, is hereby amended by the amendment and
restatement of the conditions of approval thereof, in their
entirety, to read as follows:
1. That a minimum of one (1) license uniformed
security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall
be provided upon the premises between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and
3:00 a.m., from Wednesday through Saturday, specifically to
provide security and discourage vandalism, trespass and/or
loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property.
2. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete
guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name,
address, date of birth, and verified driver's license or legal
identification and vehicle registration number of all registered
guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rate; and
which shall be made available upon demand by any police officer,
3
code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of
Anaheim.
3. That a statement shall be printed on the face of
the guest registration card to be completed by the guest when
registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by
the Anaheim Police Department or other City of Anaheim personnel
for law enforcement purposes.
4. That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for
periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours nor more than
thirty (30) consecutive days, excluding one (1) manager's unit.
5. That every occupied guest room shall be provided
with daily maid service.
6. That the owner and/or management shall not
knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for
the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of
prostitution; or to any person for the purpose of selling,
buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an
illegal drug or controlled substance; or for the purpose of
committing a criminal or immoral act.
7. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any
person under eighteen (18) years of age, verified by a valid
driver's license or other legal identification.
8. That all available room rates shall be prominently
displayed in a conspicuous place within the office or lobby area
clearly visible to motel guests, and that the property owner
and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of
Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the
posting of room rates.
9. That the property owner/operator of the motel
shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection
duties regarding transient occupancy taxes.
10. That subject property, buildings and accessory
structures shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, laws or
regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of
Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing
Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric
Code and Uniform Mechanical Code.
11. That the property shall be permanently maintained
in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance,
4
removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within forty-
eight (48) hours from time of occurrence.
12. That the property owner shall pay the costs of
Code Enforcement inspections twice each month for the first two
(2) months from the date of this resolution, and as often as
necessary thereafter until the subject property is brought into
compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement
Division for the purpose of gaining and/or maintaining compliance
with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
13. That Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 shall expire
on December 18, 1996.
14. That all Conditions above-mentioned shall be
complied with immediately except Condition No. 1.
15. That Condition No. 1 shall be completed within a
period of seven (7) days as of the date of the Resolution of the
City Council.
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 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 18th day of June, 1996.
R~//~C TY O~~HEI
MAY OF THE M
ATTEST:
5
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. 96R-116 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Felhaus, Lopez, 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. 96R-116 on the 18th day of June, 1996.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of Anaheim this 18th day of June, 1996.
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. 96R-116 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim on June 18th, 1996.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
EXHIBIT "A"
IN RE: TERMINATION OR )
MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL )
USE PERMIT NO. 1978 UNDER WHICH )
THE PACIFIC INN MOTEL OPERATES )
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
HEARING OFFICER TO ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
PURSUANT TO A.M.C. § 1.12.110
This matter came on for hearing on April 24, 1996, on the
appeal of Sumanbhai N. Patel and Nirmalaben S. Patel doing
business as the Pacific Inn Motel, from a decision of the Anaheim
Planning Commission denying amendment of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1978 under which the Pacific Inn Motel operates. The
amendment requested was to remove Condition No. 14 which provided
for the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 on January
19, 1996. Hari S. Lal, Esq. of Hari S. Lal & Associates appeared
on behalf of Appellants and Mark S. Gordon, Deputy City Attorney,
appeared on behalf of the City of Anaheim. The Hearing Officer,
Victor J. Kaleta, having considered the testimony of witnesses at
the hearing, exhibits received at the hearing, and arguments and
stipulations of the parties finds as follows:
FINDINGS
1. Proposed Recitals, Findings and Recommendations were
submitted on behalf of the City of Anaheim by Mark S. Gordon,
Deputy City Attorney. At the hearing, Mr. Lal was offered the
opportunity to provide proposed Findings and Recommendations. Mr.
Lal replied as follows:
"What I will do, Mr. Kaleta, is to join with Mr. Gordon
-- Apparently, he's going to prepare the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions, if any. And if there
are any amendments or modifications therein, I'll
advise you. If not, then they'll be just jointly
submitted to you, if that's acceptable to Mr. Gordon."
(Transcript Page 21, lines 11-16)
2. No amendments or modifications were submitted by Mr.
Lal. Therefore, the Proposed Recitals, Findings and
Recommendations submitted on behalf of the City of Anaheim by
Mark S. Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, will be deemed jointly
submitted.
3. The Proposed Recitals, Findings and Recommendations
read:
"I. RECITALS: THE HISTORY OF THIS PROCEEDING:
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1979 the Planning Commission granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1978, in part, under Resolution No.
PC79-100 to permit a 23-unit motel (25 units requested) with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural
height and limited landscape setback on property located at 426
South Beach Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, May 15, 1995, the Planning Commission, by
motion, set Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 for public hearing to
consider revoking or modifying the use permit based on the use
being exercised in a manner which may be detrimental to the
public health, peace, safety, or welfare, or in such a manner as
to constitute a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1995, the property owners of
record, Sumanbhai Patel and Nirmalaben Patel were notified, by
certified mail, of the date, place and time of the public hearing
to consider the revocation or modification of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1995, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to consider whether Conditional
Use Permit Noo 1978 should be revoked or modified. The
Commission by its Resolution No. PC95-78 amended Resolution No.
PC79-100 to modify Conditional Use Permit No. 1978. Condition
no. 14 of Resolution No. PC95-78 states:
"That Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 shall
expire six (6) months from the date of this
resolution, on January 19, 1996."
WHEREAS, Sumanbhai Patel, the property owner, s~bmitted
a letter, received by the City of January 3, 1996, requesting
modification of Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. PC95-78 to
retain the 23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to determine whether grounds exist
to modify the conditional use permit, as requested, to retain the
23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1996, by its Resolution No.
PC96-15, the Planning Commission denied the request to amend
Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. PC79-100, as amended by
Resolution No. PC95-78, to retain the 23-unit motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 1996, Hari S. Lal, Esq., of the
Law Firm of Hari S. Lal & Associates, filed a timely appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision on behalf of Sumanbhai Patel
and Nirmalaben Patel, doing business as Pacific Inn Motel; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1996, by motion, the City
Council appointed a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing on the
matter and make recommendations to the City council pursuant to
A.M.C. ~1.12.110; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of the Public Hearing before a Hearing
Officer regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was duly given by the City, and the matter was duly
continued to April 24, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1996, the Hearing Officer opened
the public hearing relating to modification or termination of
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1978 and received oral and written
testimony.
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim appeared and was
represented by Mark S. Gordon, Deputy City Attorney; Appellant
Sumanbhai Patel personally appeared and was represented by
attorney Hari S. Lal; and
WHEREAS, substantial written evidence submitted by both
side was received by the Hearing Officer; and
WHEREAS, the parties stipulated to these recitals,
findings and recommendations to the City Council.
II. BASIS FOR TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF C.U.P.:
Section 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code provides
for the modification or termination of conditional use permits
and variances on one or more of the following grounds:
.010 That the approval was obtained by fraud;
.020 That the use or variance for which such approval
is granted is not being exercised within the time
specified in such permit;
.030 That the use or variance for which such approval
was granted has ceased to exist or has been
suspended for one year or more;
3
.040 That the permit or variance granted is being, or
recently has been exercised contrary to the terms
or conditions of such approval, or in violation of
any statute, ordinance, law or regulation;
.050 That the use or variance for which the approval
was granted has been so exercised as to be
detrimental to the public health or safety, or so
as to constitute a nuisance;
.055 That the use or variance for which the approval
was granted has not been exercised, and that based
upon additional information or due to changed
circumstances, the facts necessary to support one
or more of the required showings for the issuance
of such entitlement as set forth in this chapter
no longer exists.
.060 That any such modification, including the
imposition of any additional conditions thereto,
is reasonably necessary to protect the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare, or
necessary to permit reasonable operation under the
conditional use permit or variance as granted.
III. EXTENSIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code states
that the Planning Commission or City Council may approve a
conditional use permit or variance upon condition, or subject to
the limitation, that such approval shall expire after a specified
period of time or upon a specified date. Such condition or
limitation may, but need not, provide that the Planning
Commission or City Council shall have the right to review said
permit or variance and approve an extension of the time
limitation contained therein. Any conditional use permit or
variance containing any such time limitation ..... may be
extended for an additional period or periods of time, or such
time limitation may be deleted or modified, by the Planning
Commission regardless of whether such condition or limitation
includes an express authorization for review or time extensions
for such permit or variance and further regardless of whether any
such condition specifies that review shall be by either the
Planning Commission or City Council, provided, among other
requirements:
That the permit or variance is being exercised in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding
land uses, nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare;
and, with regard only to any deletion of a time limitation.
Subsection .041 of Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code.
4
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. The subject property is currently developed with
a one- and two-story, 23-unit motel, and has been zoned CL
(Commercial Limited) since July 1972. It is a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.36 acres
having a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the east side of
Beach Boulevard, and being located approximately 461 feet north
of the centerline of Orange Avenue, with a street address of 426
South Beach Boulevard. The motel is operated under the business
name of Pacific Inn Motel.
B. A hotel/motel is a conditionally permitted use in
the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
C. Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 (to permit a
23-unit motel with waiver of minimum required parking, maximum
structural height, and minimum landscape setback) was granted by
the Planning Commission on May 21, 1979.
D. The subject property is one of several motel
establishments located along Beach Boulevard which is a primary
source of police calls for police service and citizen complaints.
E. The Anaheim Police Department and Code Enforcement
Division are jointly conducting an ongoing investigation and
abatement effort to significantly reduce the criminal activity in
this area, and to address those primary sources or locations that
contribute to the criminal activity.
F. Conditional Use Permit 1978 is being, or recently
has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such
approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation, justifying modification or termination of said permit
pursuant to Subsection .060 of Section 18.03.092 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, based on the following:
1. The July 10, 1995 Planning Commission action (to
revoke or modify Conditional Use Permit No. 1978) was
initiated by the City's Code Enforcement Division due to
numerous complaints received from citizens pertaining to
the conditions or activities taking place on, or in the
immediate vicinity of the subject premises. The records
of the Anaheim Police Department indicate that calls for
service are disproportionately high and have increased
over the past three years by 63 percent. Between March
1992 and April 1995 the police department received 349
calls for service resulting in 193 arrests involving
disturbing the peace, narcotics and weapons related
offenses, prostitution, and burglary.
2. The Code Enforcement Division of the City of
Anaheim has also responded to its share of complaints
originated by citizens. Between January 1992 and
November 1994 code enforcement handled 32 calls for
service resulting in 120 code violations° After July
10, 1995, complaint of substandard housing conditions
was investigated and resulted in 38 code violations
being cited. The violations included hazardous
plun~bing, exposed electrical wiring, deteriorated walls,
inadequate fire protection, and property maintenance
violations.
G. In order to reduce the number of calls for service
the property owner has stipulated to provide a minimum of one (1)
license uniformed security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police
Department, who shall be present upon the premises between the
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., from Wednesday through
Saturday, specifically to provide security and discourage
vandalism, trespass, loitering and/or unlawful activity upon or
adjacent to the subject property.
H. A subsequent inspection by Code Enforcement on or
about March 20, 1996, revealed that all code violations which had
been cited, including, hazardous plumbing, exposed electrical
wiring, deteriorated walls, inadequate fire protection, and
property maintenance violations had been corrected.
I. The property owner wishes to retain Conditional
Use Permit No. 1978, subject to conditions which will ensure that
the premises will be operated in compliance with state and local
statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations.
I. Based upon the preceding facts, it would appear
that a modification, including the imposition of additional
conditions of approval, is reasonably necessary to protect the
public peace, health, safety, or general welfare.
J. The property owner and staff concur that such
modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1978, including the
imposition of the following additional conditions stipulated to
by the property owner, is reasonably necessary to protect the
public peace, health, safety and general welfare, or necessary to
permit reasonable operation under the conditional use permit as
granted, based upon the evidence set forth herein.
V. MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-C.U.P. N0.1978:
The following conditions are submitted by various City
departments acting as an interdepartmental committee and were
provided concerning the modification of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1978.
1. That a minimum of one (1) license uniformed
security ~uard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall
be provided upon the premises between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and
3:00 a.m., from Wednesday through Saturday, specifically to
provide security and discourage vandalism, trespass and/or
loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property.
2. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete
guest registry or ~uest card system which includes the full name,
address, date of birth, and verified driver's license or legal
identification and vehicle registration number of all registered
guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rate; and
which shall be made available upon demand by any police officer,
code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of
Anaheim.
3. That a statement shall be printed on the face of
the ~uest registration card to be completed by the ~ues~ when
registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by
the Anaheim Police Department or other City of Anaheim personnel
for law enforcement purposes.
4. That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for
periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours nor more than
thirty (30) consecutive days, excluding one (1) manager's unit.
5. That every occupied guest room shall be provided
with daily maid service.
6. That the owner and/or management shall not
knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for
the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of
prostitution; or to any person for the purpose of selling,
buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an
illegal drug or controlled substance; or for the purpose of
committing a criminal or immoral act.
7. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any
person under eighteen (18) years of age, verified by a valid
driver's license or other legal identification.
8. That all available room rates shall be prominently
displayed in a conspicuous place within the office or lobby area
clearly visible to motel guests, and that the property owner
and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of
Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the
posting of room rates.
9. That the property owner/operator of the motel
shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection
duties regarding transient occupancy taxes.
7
10. That subject property, buildings and accessory
structures shall comply with all statutes, ordinances, laws or
regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of
Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing
Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric
Code and Uniform Mechanical Code.
11. That the property shall be permanently maintained
in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance,
removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within forty-
eight (48) hours from time of occurrence.
12. That the property owner shall pay the costs of
Code Enforcement inspections twice each month for the first two
(2) months from the date of this resolution, and as often as
necessary thereafter until the subject property is brought into
compliance, or as deemed necessary by the City's Code Enforcement
Division for the purpose of gaining and/or maintaining compliance
with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
13. That Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 shall expire
six (6) months from the date of the resolution of the City
Council.
14. That all Conditions above-mentioned shall be
complied with immediately except Condition No. 1.
15. That Condition No. 1 shall be completed within a
period of seven (7) days as of the date of the Resolution of the
City Council.
VI. CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings and evidence, it is
requested that the Hearing Officer recommend that Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978 be modified with the additional conditions set
forth above."
4. There is evidentiary support for the Finding of Facts
listed in the Proposed Recitals, Findings and Recommendations in
the Exhibits and the Transcript of this hearing.
5. At the hearing, Mr. Patel agreed to the Additional
Conditions of Approval (Joint Exhibit 1) which are now
incorporated as the Modified Conditions of Approval in the
Proposed Recitals, Findings and Recommendations. (Transcript Page
18, line 15, to Page 19, line 14)
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the foregoing Findings and evidence, the
Hearing Officer recommends that the City Council:
1. Grant the appeal as to Condition No. 14 of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1978 and remove said condition which
would have resulted in Conditional Use Permit No. 1978
expiring as of January 19, 1996.
2. Grant the appeal for modification of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978 by deleting the 18 new conditions added
by the Anaheim City Planning Commission on July 10,
1996, (Resolution No. PC95-78, City Exhibit 10) and by
adding the 15 new conditions described in Joint Exhibit
1 and repeated in Finding 3 as Modified Conditions of
Approval.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of June 1996,
Victor J. K~leta
Hearing Officer
9