Loading...
2002-190RESOLUTION NO. 2002R- 190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING RENEWAL OF THE MASSAGE TECHNICIAN'S PERMIT OF MS. LEA PONG GLANCE AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, on June 6, 2002, Mr. William Sell, Revenue Manager of the City of Anaheim, determined that Ms. Lea Pong Glance's (hereafter "Appellant") Massage Technician Permit should not be renewed because in investigating her application, the Anaheim Police Department reported that : (1) Appellant had agreed to engage in conduct with an undercover Fullerton police officer which constituted the act of soliciting for prostitution under Penal Code section 647(b; (2) Appellant had her massage technician's license in the City of Fullerton revoked within the past ten years; and (3) Appellant knowingly made a false or misleading statement on her application to Anaheim regarding such prior revocation by the City of Fullerton; and WHEREAS, the foregoing reported offenses each constitute cause for denying renewal of Appellant's massage technician permit under Anaheim Municipal Code section 4.29.080.010; and WHEREAS, Appellant timely appealed from the determination of the Revenue Manager on July 1, 2002; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2002, 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 Anaheim Municipal Code Section 4.29.160.030; and WHEREAS, a Notice of the Hearing before a Hearing Officer regarding the appeal of the Revenue Manager's decision was duly given to the Appellant; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 2002, the Hearing Officer conducted a hearing to determine whether the denial of Appellant's massage technician permit conformed to the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The City of Anaheim appeared and was represented by Lawrence Newberry, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Appellant appeared and represented herself. Witnesses were presented and examined and evidence, both oral and written, was received. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Hearing Officer closed the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer has, in accordance with Section 4.29.160.030 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 testimony of witnesses at the hearing, exhibits received at the hearing, oral and written arguments and proposed findings of fact and recommendations of counsel, prepared Findings of Fact and Recommendations, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City has received the administrative record and the proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations submitted by the Hearing Officer; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2002, the City Council did review and consider the administrative record and the proposed Findings of Fact and 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 the Evidentiary Findings as set forth in the proposed Findings of Fact, and further adopts the proposed Recommendations of the Hearing Officer to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of Appellant's application for renewal of a massage technician's permit. The proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations of the Hearing Officer is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 20th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: AYOR J{ 46201.1 2 HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Page 1 of 3 In the matter of the Appeal Hearing between: Ms. Lea Pong Glance and The City of Anaheim Hearing Officer: Kristine A. Ridge Hearing Date, Time and Place: August 7, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. City of Anaheim Business License Conference Room 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Appearing on behalf of the City of Anaheim: Larry Newberry, Senior Assistant City Attorney Thomas J. Smith, Anaheim Police Department Eric Halverson, Fullerton Police Department Jeff Corbett, Fullerton Police Department Appearing for the Appellant: Lea Pong Glance, Massage Technician Permit Applicant Background Ms. Glance applied for a massage technician permit as required by A.M.C. Section 4.29.070; the City received the application on April 19, 2002. A letter dated June 18, 2002 was addressed to Ms. Glance notifying her that the application for the permit was denied. Ms. Glance timely requested an appeal of the denial on July 1, 2002 and the hearing date was established for August 7, 2002. HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Page 2 of 3 Introductions The hearing was opened with introductions and an explanation of the procedure for conducting the hearing. Both parties were advised and understood that the appeal was being properly heard before a Hearing Officer appointed by the Anaheim City Council and that the hearing process represented the fmal administrative remedy for both parties. The City was requested to present supporting documentation for the denial of the application and the applicant was provided the opportunity to present support to the contrary. The City's presentation included three witnesses and five exhibits. City of Anaheim's Presentation of Supporting Documentation Mr. Newberry indicated the application denial was based on three factors: 1) that the applicant had engaged in conduct which would constitute an offense under Penal Code Section 647 within ten years preceding the filing of the application; 2) that the applicant had a previous permit suspended or revoked by a licensing authority within ten years prior to the application date; and, 3) that the applicant made false statements or omissions of fact during the application process. Mr. Newberry then presented as a witness Mr. Smith from the Anaheim Police Department. Mr. Smith indicated he was involved with the processing of the permit application and verifying the information indicated on the application. The application was offered as Exhibit One showing the applicant's permit history and applicant's notation that a permit was suspended by the City of Fullerton Police Department for a matter related to the applicant's previous employment in Huntington Beach. Ms. Glance verified that it was in fact her application. Mr. Smith stated he followed up with the City of Fullerton for verification purposes and Exhibits Two, Three and Five were presented consisting of follow-up correspondence and the notice of revocation of Ms. Glance's Fullerton permit dated April 17, 2001. The two reasons for the intent to revoke Ms. Glance's Fullerton permit, as stated in the letter, included working without a massage technician permit for a specific location and wearing improper clothing. The City then presented as witness, Mr. Halverson who detailed the personal serving of the revocation notice to Ms. Glance and who had in his possession the technician's permit that had been obtained from Ms Glance while serving notice. Ms. Glance indicated that it was her signature on Exhibit Three accepting the notice of intent to revoke dated April 18, 2001. Mr. Halverson stated that the revocation was then effective after Ms. Glance failed to appear at her appeal hearing. Next the City presented Exhibit Four, a City of Fullerton Police Incident Report, dated May 29, 2001, documenting an observation of Fullerton Municipal Code violations and an act of prostitution with the suspect being Ms. Glance. As a witness, Mr. Newberry presented Mr. Corbett the Fullerton Police Officer responsible for making the incident report. Mr. Corbett provided specific details of the alleged improper acts including describing the suspect's clothing as a white smock and a black mini-skirt. He also identified Ms. Glance as the suspect in the report. HEARING OFFICER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Page 3 of 3 Applicant's Presentation of Supporting Documentation Ms. Glance insisted that she was not aware her Fullerton permit was revoked. She stated sh~ believed the permit was suspended for only six months due to her previous place of employment's license being suspended. She indicated that her application stated the truth. She further stated that because of a misunderstanding on the location of the appeal hearing she went to the wrong location. She further insisted that the incident from the Fullerton Police Report was untrue and that she was not working the date of the incident because her permit had expired four days earlier. She also stated that she never wears a mini-skirt as indicated by Mr. Corbett in his incident report. Mr. Halverson in rebuttal of that statement provided a photograph of Ms. Glance in what appeared to be a black mini-skirt. Ms. Glance continued to vehemently deny the description of facts in the Fullerton Police Report and as presented by Mr. Corbett. Ms. Glance did not present any written documentation to substantiate her claims that she did not submit false information during the application process; that she believed her permit was suspended for other reasons; and that she was not involved in the incident documented in the Fullerton Police Report. ~n~n~ Based on the evidence presented by the City and lack of evidence to support the contrary by the applicant it appears that the Chief of Police had sufficient grounds to deny the massage technician permit application of Ms. Glance. In accordance with A.M.C. Section 4.29.080 the Chief of Police shall deny a massage permit application if any one of several possible findings are made. The evidence presented overwhelmingly supported three findings under A.M.C. Sections 4.29.080.0102, 4.29.080.0105 and 4.29.080.0106, respectively. Those findings included conduct that would constitute an offense under Penal Code Section 647 as supported by Exhibit Four and as substantiated by Mr. Corbett; revocation of a previous permit as supported by Exhibit Two, Three and Five and as substantiated by Mr. Halverson; and, supplying false statements or omissions of fact during the application process as supported by Exhibit One and as substantiated by Mr. Smith. Recommendation That the Anaheim City Council render a final decision upholding the Chief of Police's initial denial and thereby making the denial of Ms. Glance's massage technician permit application effective. Signature and Date of Hearing Officer: / Kristine A. Ridge STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I. SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002R-190 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2002, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Tait, Kring, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY CLEI~f/K OF 'IZH-E ciTY OF ANAHEIM (SEAL)