09/15/2020ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
OF SEPTEMBER 75, 2020
The regular meeting of September 15, 2020 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to
4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of September 15, 2020 was called to
order at 4:00 P.M. telephonically, pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20
(superseding the Brown Act related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20) in response to COVID-19.
The meeting notice, agenda, and related materials were duly posted on September 10, 2020.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Harry Sidhu and Council Members Stephen Faessel, Denise
Barnes, Jordan Brandman, Jose F. Moreno, Lucille Kring, and Trevor
O'Neil (all via teleconference).
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Vanderpool, City Attorney Robert Fabela, and City
Clerk Theresa Bass
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Robert Fabela announced Closed Session Item No. 1 related to facts and
circumstances of the proposed ordinance regulating community care facilities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
CLOSED SESSION: At 4:04 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed to closed session for consideration of the
following:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of the
California Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case.
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Section 54957 (b) (1) of the Government Code)
Title: City Attorney and City Clerk
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54957.6 of the California Government Code)
Agency Designated Representative: Linda Andal, Human Resources Director
Position: City Attorney, City Clerk
At 5:32 P.M., Mayor Sidhu reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
INVOCATION: Council Member Denise Barnes
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Lucille Kring
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 2 of 33
Acceptance of Other Recognitions To be presented at a later date):
Recognizing September 21 - 27, 2020, as Bike to Work Week
Recognizing September 17 - 23, 2020, as Constitution Week
At 5:37 P.M., Mayor Sidhu called to order the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority in joint session with the City Council.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported that 20 public comments were received electronically prior to 2:00
P.M. related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City
Council. [A final total of 26 public comments were received electronically and distributed to the City
Council related to City Council agenda items and matters within the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City
Council and made part of the official record]. — See Appendix.
CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE:
City Manager Jim Vanderpool thanked City Council for their support and confidence in his
appointment. He reported he had spent his first week meeting with department heads and touring
City facilities. He stated the City has a dynamic, creative, and dedicated team, which he looked
forward to working with to serve the Anaheim community.
At 5:39 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed the Anaheim City Council and Anaheim Housing Authority to
address the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency agenda. At 5:40 P.M., Mayor Sidhu
adjourned the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and reconvened the
Anaheim Housing Authority. At 5:41 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the Anaheim Housing Authority
and reconvened the Anaheim City Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
At 5:41 P.M., the consent calendar was considered with Mayor Sidhu pulling Item No.16, Mayor Pro
Tem Faessel pulling Item No. 11, Council Member Moreno pulling Item No. 23, and Council Member
Barnes pulling Item No. 18 for separate discussion and consideration.
MOTION: Council Member Kring moved to waive reading of all ordinances and resolutions, and adopt
the balance of the consent calendar as presented, in accordance with reports, certifications, and
recommendations furnished each city council member and as listed on the consent calendar,
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES - 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council
Members Faessel, Barnes, Brandman, Moreno, Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried. [Item
No. 13: Council Member Brandman reported a conflict as he has a business relationship with Orange
County Conservation Corps. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members
Faessel, Barnes, Kring, Moreno, and O'Neil; NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Brandman
(recorded conflict))]. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 3 of 33
B105 6. Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting of July 22, 2020.
D180 7. Accept the bid from Mythics, Inc., in the amount of $327,164.34 plus applicable tax, for the
purchase of Oracle software licenses and support in accordance with Bid #9457.
D180 8. Accept the bid from Rodriguez's Refinishing Inc., in the amount of $35,100 plus a 20%
12. Approve Amendment No. 8 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-9-0413 with the Orange County
AGR -5742.13 Transportation Authority (OCTA), in the amount of $55,495 for a total agreement amount of
$1,938,045, for the reimbursement of increased staff overhead funding for construction
closeout coordination, administrative closeout of right-of-way documents, and to extend the
agreement to December 31, 2020 to allow for the completion of final accounting with OCTA
for the Railroad Grade Separation Projects including the Orangethorpe Avenue Grade
Separation Project; and increase revenue and expenditure appropriations in the Public Works
Fiscal Year 2020/21 budget by $55,495.
contingency, for the as -needed powder coat painting of trash receptacles in the Anaheim
Resort Maintenance District for a one year period with four one-year optional renewals; and
authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal options in accordance with Bid #9456.
AGR -12209 9
Waive the sealed bid requirement of Council Policy 4.0 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to
issue a master agreement and execute the Software License and Support and Maintenance
Services Agreement with Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc., in an annual amount not to exceed
$245,000 with automatic renewals until terminated, to support utility meter reading.
AGR -10353.B; 10.
Approve a General Services Agreement (Agreement) for prequalified professional engineering
12210; 9983.8;
services to support electrical projects, with a not to exceed award amount of $400,000 per
10485.8;
work order package and an authorization for up to 15% in extra work, with a limit per
8382.B;
consultant of $1,000,000 in total awards, inclusive of extra work, during each fiscal year, for a
12212;
12213;
three year term with up to two one-year extensions as needed to complete ongoing projects;
12214;
authorize the Public Utilities General Manager, or designee, to execute the Agreement
12215;
separately with 40 consultants and such other professional engineering consultants as may be
8386. B;
12216;12217;
prequalified during the three year term of the Agreement, and to take necessary actions to
12218;12219;
implement and administer the Agreement; and authorize changes to the Agreement that do
12220;12221
not substantially change the terms and conditions of the Agreement, so long as such changes
BA/
8391
are determined to be de minimis by the City Attorney's Office (Amped I, LLC; ASEC, Inc.;
12223;
Auriga Corporation; AVECS, Inc.; BKF Engineers; Black & Veatch Corporation; Cho Design
9083. B;
Associates, Inc.; Commonwealth Associates, Inc.; Cordoba Corporation; Dahl, Taylor &
12224;
12225;12226;
Associates; Derek J. McGregor, Inc.; Elcon Associates, Inc.; Electric Power Systems
g y
8396.8;
Engineering and Design; Electrical Consultants, Inc.; EN Engineering, LLC; Guidehouse, Inc.;
10750.A;
Grid Subject Matter Experts, LLC; Henkels & McCoy, Inc.; IMEG Corporation; INTEC
12070.A;12228;
Services, Inc.; Kewo Engineering Corporation; Lopez Engineering, Inc.; Magna Consulting
11327.A;
12230;
and Design, Inc.; Mayers & Associates Civil Engineering, Inc.; Mesa Associates, Inc.; Malone
8397.B; 11296.A;
and Associates, LLC; NV5, Inc.; Outsource Utility Contractor Corporation, P2S, Inc.; Parkia,
12232;
Inc.; PXISE Energy Solutions, LLC; Power -Tech Engineers, Inc.; Q3 Engineers, Inc.; R.G.
12233;
8402.A
i i
Vanderweil Engineers, LLP; Schneider Electric Engineering Services, LLC; Sheffield
g g g
12235; 11328.A;
Scientific, LLC; Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.; The Engineering Partners Inc., dba EPI;
11329.A;12238;
VCI Utility Services, LLC, dba Vantage Utility Services; Wilson Mikami Corporation).
12239;12240
12. Approve Amendment No. 8 to Cooperative Agreement No. C-9-0413 with the Orange County
AGR -5742.13 Transportation Authority (OCTA), in the amount of $55,495 for a total agreement amount of
$1,938,045, for the reimbursement of increased staff overhead funding for construction
closeout coordination, administrative closeout of right-of-way documents, and to extend the
agreement to December 31, 2020 to allow for the completion of final accounting with OCTA
for the Railroad Grade Separation Projects including the Orangethorpe Avenue Grade
Separation Project; and increase revenue and expenditure appropriations in the Public Works
Fiscal Year 2020/21 budget by $55,495.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 4 of 33
AGR- 13. Approve Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Agreements with the Orange County
10248.D Conservation Corps and Taller San Jose Hope Builders dba Hope Builders, in the amounts of
$278,289 and $185,526, respectively, to assist local disadvantaged youth to prepare for
joining the workforce with terms beginning July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022; and authorize
the Director of Community & Economic Development, or designee, to execute and administer
the agreements.
Item No. 13: Council Member Brandman reported a conflict as he has a business relationship with
Orange County Conservation Corps. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council
Members Faessel, Barnes, Kring, Moreno, and O'Neil); NOES — 0, ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member
Brandman (recorded conflict)). Motion carried.
AGR -12241 14. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Mercy House Living Centers, in substantial
form, in an amount not to exceed $1,580,000 using Homeless Housing, Assistance and
Prevention funds, to expand the Chronically Homeless Individuals Pilot Program (CHIPP) for a
term beginning October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; authorize the Director of
Community & Economic Development, or designee, to execute the agreement and administer
the CHIPP expansion project, and amend the Community & Economic Development
Department's Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget by $1,580,000.
D155 15. Approve the modified Residential Rehabilitation Program Guidelines and authorize the
Director of Community & Economic Development, or designee, to execute all documents
related to administration, management, and implementation of the program.
D154 17. Approve the 2021 Health and Welfare Plan Rates and authorize the Human Resources
Director to execute all required provider agreements.
D154 19. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and
conditions of employment for employees represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association, Police Cadet Unit (effective June 26, 2020 through June 24, 2021).
AGR -12254; 20. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
AGR -12255; CITY OF ANAHEIM ratifying the submission of grant applications and the acceptance of
AGR -12256; grants on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)
AGR -12257; Grant, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program Grant, Child Passenger Safety Program Grant,
AGR -12258
Motorcycle Safety Program Grant, and Traffic Records Improvement Project Grant, and
authorizing the Chief of Police to execute all required grant documents and amending the
budget accordingly (total grant funds of $705,000).
R100 21. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing application for funding pursuant to the California Pet
Assistance and Support Program to enhance and improve the pet program at the La Mesa
Shelter (co -applicant with Illumination Foundation).
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 5 of 33
M142 22. ORDINANCE NO. 6492 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapter 10.06 of Title 10 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code to allow award of Design -Build Projects on a work order basis.
Determine that the Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
because this will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in
the environment as adoption of the Ordinance is not a "project" and is ministerial in nature.
D116 24. Approve a proclamation remembering La Puente City Councilman Dan Holloway for his
exemplary service and achievements to the community.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
AGR- 11. Waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement with The Counseling Team International,
7372.6 in an amount not to exceed $225,000, for employee counseling and peer support services for
a two year term beginning September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2022 with two one-year
optional renewals; and authorize the Chief of Police, or designee, to administer the agreement
and any optional renewals.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Police Chief Jorge Cisneros reported
the Orange County Grand Jury Report was presented to the City Council on August 11, 2020, which
outlined the importance of Peer Support Programs. He clarified that during that meeting he cited an
amount of approximately $25,000 that only covered the training portion for the Peer Support
Program. He advised the amount in Item No. 11 covers the counseling portion of the Peer Support
Program and covers the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire and Rescue.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Team Faessel moved to approve Item No. 11, seconded by Council Member
O'Neil.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno expressed support for the item and the mental health of first
responders.
Council Member Barnes expressed gratitude for the item.
Mayor Sidhu thanked City Council for their support of the item and thanked Police Chief Cisneros for
his support of first responders.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to waive Council Policy 4.1 and approve an agreement
with The Counseling Team International, in an amount not to exceed $225,000, for employee
counseling and peer support services for a two year term beginning September 1, 2020 through
August 31, 2022 with two one-year optional renewals; and authorize the Chief of Police, or designee,
to administer the agreement and any optional renewals, seconded by Council Member O'Neil. ROLL
CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Barnes, Brandman, Moreno,
Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 6 of 33
D116 16. Approve an Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Program, in an amount up to
$1,000,000, to assist residents who have been impacted by COVID-19 by providing financial
assistance towards broadband internet services for distance learning and telecommuting.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu reported the COVID-19 crisis has led to some residents struggling to
continue their children's distance learning education programs due to a lack of high-speed internet.
He advised he has been working with Deputy City Manager Greg Garcia and Public Utilities General
Manager Dukku Lee to develop an Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Program to assist
residents who have been impacted by COVID-19 by providing financial assistance towards
broadband internet services for distance learning and telecommuting. He advised the program would
allow residents to select a provider that best suits their needs and identify potential recipients by
leveraging the Income -Qualified Utilities Assistance System that is already in place and would be
funded by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding.
Mr. Garcia reported there is much need for internet connectivity during the pandemic. He advised
Anaheim Public Utilities developed a program that makes sense for the short-term using CARES Act
funding.
Mr. Lee reported this is a new rebate program developed to assist income -qualified residents to
obtain internet broadband services. He referenced an image of two girls trying to use Taco Bell's
WiFi that went viral that highlighted a significant need for families who are struggling financially to
obtain suitable bandwidth. He advised the program offers a rebate of $60 to $120 to pay for
approximately three months of internet service depending on the number of residents and members
of the household. He explained that, to quickly enroll customers, the same criteria was established
as for utility bill discounts that are set at the Calfornia Department of Housing and Community
Development's low-income designation for Orange County. He noted the $1,000,000 designation
would assist approximately 11,000 households and would be promoted through local schools and the
City's Public Information Office's social media. Lastly, he advised, if the program were approved, it
would be made available to residents in October.
MOTION: Mayor Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 16, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Faessel.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Lee confirmed this applied to all
service providers in Anaheim and the rebate would be provided when the bill was submitted.
Council Member Brandman expressed support for the item and thanked staff for their work to provide
a solution to this issue.
In response to Council Member Barnes' inquiry, Mr. Lee advised the County does have mobile
broadband services and is working with Community Services Director Larry Pasco to explore the
possibility of rolling out the program to Anaheim. Council Member Barnes expressed her support for
mobile broadband services and would like to see it as an option in Anaheim.
In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiries, Mr. Lee advised the Santa Ana mobile broadband
solution was initiated by the school district. Mr. Garcia reported staff has been in communication with
the school district and has been sharing ideas to fill the need. Council Member O'Neil expressed
support for the item but encouraged staff to continue working with the school district to share
responsibility for providing solutions, as the City has limited CARES Act funds for this purpose.
Council Member Kring expressed support for the item.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 7 of 33
Council Member Moreno reported the school district acted quickly to try to provide internet access to
students. He expressed concern that Council Member O'Neil was concerned about limiting funding
for this item.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mayor Sidhu advised he had not met with the
school district but asked Mr. Garcia to work on this effort approximately two weeks ago. Council
Member Moreno reported he presented a map to City Council regarding areas in need of broadband
internet. He advised approximately 30% of Anaheim "flatland" residents do not have direct internet
access due to lack of funds and thanked staff for developing the program quickly
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mayor Sidhu advised the program would be
revisited in three months to see if the need still exists.
MOTION: Mayor Sidhu moved to approve an Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Program,
in an amount up to $1,000,000, to assist residents who have been impacted by COVID-19 by
providing financial assistance towards broadband internet services for distance learning and
telecommuting, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu
and Council Members Faessel, Barnes, Brandman, Moreno, Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion
carried.
D154.4 18. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the
Anaheim Firefighters Association concerning holiday pay.
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Firefighters
Association and the City of Anaheim concerning vacation accruals.
Human Resources Director Linda Andal reported on July 10, 2019, the City entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Anaheim Firefighters Association (AFA). She advised
that following the adoption of the MOU, two items were brought to the City's attention that required
additional clarification and noted a Meet and Confer was immediately initiated to address the issues.
She explained the first issue was raised by CaIPERS regarding Article 29, which relates to employees
in classifications that are eligible to receive compensation in -lieu of paid holiday time. She advised
staff discussed the item with CaIPERS who felt the language was unclear and the Letter of
Understanding (LOU) is necessary to clarify the provisions of the existing practice and to ensure
proper reporting to CalPERS, and noted there is no budget impact.
Ms. Andal reported the second LOU is regarding Article 35 as it relates to vacation as proportional
increases to the vacation accrual rates for employees working staff assignments were inadvertently
omitted from the agreement, which is remediated with the second LOU. She advised this will impact
four employees and has a $21,400 impact on the Fiscal Year 20/21 budget.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Barnes thanked staff for clarification. In response to her inquiry, Ms.
Andal advised the first item was something that needed to be clarified for this year and the second
item was inadvertently omitted.
MOTION: Council Member Barnes moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2020-107 _A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a Letter of
Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Firefighters Association concerning
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 8 of 33
holiday pay and RESOLUTION NO. 2020-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Firefighters
Association and the City of Anaheim concerning vacation accruals, seconded by Council Member
Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Barnes,
Brandman, Moreno, Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried.
C280 23. ORDINANCE NO. 6493 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Chapters 18.04 (Single -Family Residential Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -
Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.14 (Public and Special -Purpose
Zones); 18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.22 (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay
Zone); 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone; 18.36 (Types of
Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.92
(Definitions); 18.112 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SP 90-4) Zoning and
Development Standards); 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning
and Development Standards); 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-
1) Zoning and Development Standards); and 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No.
2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Anaheim Municipal Code and
finding and determining that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare
additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) because it will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and it is not a project, as
defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2020-00170;
DEV2020-00002; includes determination that the ordinance is categorically exempt under
Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines; to provide standards and regulations for unlicensed
community care facilities and sober living homes that are not operating as a single
housekeeping unit).
Planning and Building Director Ted White reported the item is a City -initiated Zoning Code
Amendment to provide standards and regulations for unlicensed community care facilities, sometimes
called group homes, and sober living homes that are not operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit.
He reported staff prepared the proposed ordinance based on similar ordinances already enacted by
the cities of Costa Mesa, Laguna Niguel, and Huntington Beach, and the County of Orange. He
reported the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended City Council approval of the
proposed Zoning Code Amendment on a 4-3 vote with Commissioners Keys, Mulleady, and White
being the dissenting votes.
Mr. White provided a brief overview of state law and licensing requirements related to Residential
Care Facilities. He explained that facilities with six or fewer residents are allowed "by right" and
facilities with seven or more residents require a Conditional Use Permit. He advised unlicensed
facilities only provide residential accommodation and cannot provide any services or treatments.
Mr. White reported there are two voluntary non -State certification and registration programs available
for sober living homes in Orange County. He advised, unlike state -licensed facilities, there is no
specific state law that requires cities and counties to treat unlicensed community care facilities and
sober living homes as single-family residential use. However, certain laws protect these uses as they
pertain to paupie with disabilities.
Mr. White reported under the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments, the California Fair Employment
Housing Act, and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, cities and counties are
required to make reasonable accommodations in zoning laws when such accommodation is
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 9 of 33
reasonably necessary to provide people with disabilities the opportunity to enjoy a residential
dwelling.
Mr. White provided a brief overview of the Voluntary Certification and Registration Programs which
are administered by the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) and the California Consortium
of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP). He advised the OCSD provides certification of
sober living homes based on its Adult Alcohol and Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification
Guidelines and CCAPP provides registration of sober living homes based on its Certified Recovery
Residence Standards. He noted, unlike OCSD, CCAPP does not require a background check of all
staff, review of facility rules and policies, or inspections.
Mr. White reported Anaheim is home to 169 State licensed community care facilities that house six or
fewer persons under the state's categories of Adult Residential Care and Residential Care Facility for
Elderly. Additionally, he reported there are 15 State licensed and/or certified alcoholism and drug
abuse recovery or treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods, and six sober living homes
certified by OCSD's voluntary program. He noted there are no homes in Anaheim certified by
CCAPP. Lastly, he reported staff estimates that there may be approximately 90 possible unlicensed
group homes and 64 sober living homes within the City, based on the City's Business License and
Code Enforcement databases.
Mr. White presented a map of existing facilities in Anaheim and reported the City has been receiving
resident complaints regarding the operation of facilities and sober living homes with reported
concerns include overcrowding, increased demand for parking, and noise. He advised the City does
not have a mechanism to accurately track the number and location of these facilities. He explained
the limitation has resulted in many community members, as well as Mayor Pro Tem Faessel and
Council Members Moreno and O'Neil, expressing the need to provide appropriate standards and
regulations for such unlicensed community care facilities and sober living homes.
Mr. White reported the City of Costa Mesa adopted a zoning ordinance in 2014 to regulate unlicensed
group homes serving six or fewer persons including sober living homes. He advised Costa Mesa
requires a ministerial permit for all unlicensed facilities with background checks and requires such
facilities to comply with several operational standards which include requiring a 24-hour house
manager, parking controls, and a separation requirement of 650 feet for all sober living homes and
some group homes. He noted several lawsuits were filed against the City of Costa Mesa, but in
recent months, the City received several favorable rulings in these lawsuits that affirmed the validity
of the ordinance. He reported Laguna Niguel, Huntington Beach, and the County of Orange recently
adopted an ordinance to regulate group homes and sober living homes similar to Costa Mesa.
Mr. White reported the draft ordinance updates the definition of Single Housekeeping Units and
provides new definitions for state -licensed community care facilities and alcohol or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facilities and unlicensed community care facilities and sober living homes. He
explained the ordinance also clarifies the definitions for uses other than unlicensed community care
facilities and sober living homes that do not meet the definition of a Single Family Housekeeping Unit.
Mr. White explained the proposed regulations would continue to permit unlicensed community care
facilities and sober living homes with six or fewer residents to locate in residential zones. However, he
explained all unlicensed facilities that are not operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit would be
required to obtain a Regulatory Permit before commencing operations, which would be ministerial in
nature and issued by the Planning and Building Director. He further explained there are two types of
permit proposed: an Operator's Registration, which would be required for sober living homes with
certification from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and an Operator's Permit, which would be
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 10 of 33
required for all other unlicensed community care facilities and sober living homes. He noted staff is
proposing a separate permit type for sober living homes with certification from the Sheriff's
Department because their certification process already includes many similar review standards as the
ones proposed for the City's Operator's Permit such as a background check.
Mr. White reported that, once issued, both permits are not subject to a renewal requirement but are
not transferrable to any other person, entity, or facility. He advised a new Operator's Registration or
Operator's Permit would be required if a new owner or a new facility is proposed to take over an
existing facility, even if the existing facility was issued a valid permit. He noted operators of all existing
unlicensed facilities and sober living homes would be required to apply for the applicable permit
within 180 days of the effective date of the ordinance and must comply with all provisions of the Code
within one year of the effective date of the proposed ordinance. He advised the City can grant
extensions for the required compliance period of up to two years.
Mr. White provided an overview of proposed operational standards and advised all unlicensed
community care facilities and sober living homes, regardless of the number of residents, would be
required to comply with notable operational standards including the requirement of a house manager,
parking controls, and separation requirements. He also noted all unlicensed community care facilities
and sober living homes would be subject to certain separation requirements, which would be waived
for existing facilities if such facilities apply for the applicable Regulatory Permit within 180 days of the
effective date of the ordinance. Lastly, he advised facilities may seek relief from the strict application
of these operational standards by submitting a request setting forth specific reasons as to why
accommodation over and above is necessary under State and Federal laws, under the City's Request
for Reasonable Accommodations process.
Mr. White reported the Planning Commission was originally scheduled to hold a public hearing in
early July to consider the proposed ordinance, however, it was continued to August 3, 2020, in
consideration of continuance requests received from representatives of Lighthouse Treatment Center
and CCAPP and to allow staff time to work with these stakeholder groups regarding their concerns.
He reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance to City
Council on a 4-3 vote with Commissioners Keys, Mulleady, and White being the dissenting votes at
the August 3, 2020 meeting. He noted the Planning Commission directed staff to add clarifying
language to the draft ordinance pertaining to existing facilities.
Mr. White reported staff recommends the City Council introduce the ordinance to amend the Zoning
Code to provide standards and regulations for unlicensed community care facilities and sober living
homes that are not operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno noted he raised the issue several years ago. He recalled
there were two community meetings where residents raised concerns they were not being properly
notified by neighbors that the homes were being fixed up for a business and there was no way for
residents to know if those homes would be used as a group home. He noted there were a few
problematic homes and expressed appreciation for the item coming forward to City Council.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White explained there was no direction from
City Council that the ordinance needed to be completed in September. He acknowledged it was long
overdue for City Council consideration as it had been in process for over a year and there was a
window of opportunity to bring it to Council now. Council Member Moreno expressed concern that
some City Council members requested it be brought forward in September during the Planning
Commission's process and noted it would be inappropriate for Council Members to be involved in an
agenda item before the Planning Commission made a decision. He noted it was customary to have
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 11 of 33
the Council Member who requested the ordinance be involved in its development with staff and a
maximum of three Council Members.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White explained that in his experience when
staff is provided direction by Council to prepare an ordinance, it is prepared independently of the City
Council. He advised no City Council Members were consulted in the preparation of this ordinance. He
acknowledged that City Council has on occasion developed working groups, task forces, and other
subgroups to advise but that was not the case in this instance.
Council Member Moreno stated that the explanation goes against what was done with the cannabis
ordinance, which was requested by Council Member Kring who was allowed to work with staff on that
ordinance. He expressed concern the practice of staff independently working on ordinances was not
evenly applied to all Council Members.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White advised he acted in a supporting
technical role on the cannabis ordinance with the City Manager's Office who was taking the lead. He
advised he was not directed to work directly with any City Council Member on this ordinance.
Deputy City Manager David Belmer reported, at the time, he was transitioning from being the
Planning and Building Director while on -boarding Mr. White. He acknowledged, in retrospect, they
should have extended opportunities for Council Member briefings but reiterated it was not intentional.
He advised several Council Members were interested in the subject matter but believed it was a case
where staff simply charged full steam ahead. He noted staff would do a better job of consulting with
interested City Council Members in the future. Lastly, he explained the issue is quite complex and
fraught with legal issues, which required consultation with the City Attorney's Office to ensure there
was a legal foundation for what was being recommended.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiries, Mr. White confirmed Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's
understanding of the number of facilities in Anaheim and explained one of the points of the ordinance
is to have better data around these facilities. He reported staff met with representatives of the Orange
County Recovery Collaborative as well as the Lighthouse Treatment Center before Planning
Commission consideration and during the drafting of the ordinance. He noted both organizations
pointed out some weaknesses and challenges with the ordinance and their input was used to
strengthen the ordinance. He firmly believed the ordinance was in a better place because of that
collaboration.
Council Member Brandman reported he received letters of concern from residents and thanked staff
for their quick response. He thanked Mr. Belmer for his previous apology and noted all City Council
Members and staff can always endeavor and strive to do better and make government good for the
people.
Council Member Barnes reported that all Council Members received a letter from the CCAPP,
addressed to the Mayor, which recommends a no vote on the item as they believe the ordinance
would be discriminatory against people in recovery, would subject the City to litigation and associated
costs, and would increase homelessness.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiries, Mr. White reported the City relies on federal and
state law to define disabled persons with disabilities. He explained the community care facilities would
potentially regulate persons with various mental and physical disabilities up to and including drug
treatment and diseases of addiction.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 12 of 33
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiries, Senior Planner Joanne Hwang reported persons
with dementia would be considered a person with a disability. She noted it was her understanding
that due to the care, supervision, and services that type of population needs, that would most likely
before considered a state -licensed facility that would not be subject to the ordinance.
Council Member Barnes expressed concern that the verbiage "may lead to the institutionalization of
commercialization of such neighborhood" in itself is discriminatory. She expressed concern regarding
the limitations of the ordinance and would like to see the ordinance reviewed further considering
additional legislation that may be on the horizon.
MOTION: Council Member Barnes moved to continue Item No. 23 to the October 6 City Council
meeting, seconded by Council Member Moreno.
DISCUSSION: In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. White confirmed an existing
operation that does not meet the separation requirement would be waived and it would not disqualify
them from obtaining permits on those grounds. He also confirmed the waiver was added specifically
in response to input from the stakeholders in the community that raised the concern.
Mr. Fabela noted there was a subsidiary motion on the table and Mayor Sidhu elected to combine
discussions and take the vote one after the other.
In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. White confirmed there are two ways to obtain the
background check which is either through OCSD or APD. He also confirmed the City requires
background checks for other types of regulatory permits. Ms. Hwang advised the ordinance lists
specific offenses that can disqualify an applicant from obtaining a permit which includes forced labor,
human trafficking, sex offenses, money laundering, prostitution, illegal gambling, violent felonies,
arson offenses, or any other offenses involving the illegal sale, distribution, or possession of the
controlled substance specified in the government code section. She advised these mirror the
requirements for a massage technician, which currently requires background checks, and those from
other local cities. She explained it is similar to the OCSD's requirements under Voluntary Certification
and Registration Program.
In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Ms. Hwang confirmed applicants would have a live
scan for fingerprints. Mr. White referred detailed procedural questions regarding background checks
to the Anaheim Police Department, as they would be administering the program. He explained the
ordinance is set up for dual paths because OCSD has indicated they are not sure they will always be
able to provide this certification and the City wanted to have something independent of anything
OCSD would provide. Council Member O'Neil noted ample stakeholder input had been received and
did not support continuing the item.
Council Member Kring thanked staff for a thorough report. In response to her inquiry, Mr. White
requested the City Attorney review the verbiage suggested by CCAPP as discriminatory. He
acknowledged there is a difference of opinion on the verbiage which is why the City has been closely
following court rulings in other jurisdictions. He noted even by state law there are distance and
licensing requirements for community care facilities and the fact it is state law is an acknowledgment
that these types of residential uses do operate differently than a single-family home and that
reasonable regulation is appropriate.
Council Member Kring reported there were several group homes in her neighborhood that were a
nuisance before the City came in and cleaned them up. She noted they are currently well managed
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 13 of 33
and maintained and expects these facilities to be operated in the same way. She noted she does not
support a continuance of the item.
Council Member Moreno recognized that staff has worked with him in the past and noted he brought
up the issue several years ago which is why he found it odd he was not asked for his input on this
ordinance. He appreciated staffs apology for the oversight and acknowledged the amount of work
they are required to complete. He expressed support for continuing the item. He advised that many
residents have the same concerns about concentration with community care facilities as they do
Short Term Rentals (STRs).
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White advised over -concentration in terms of
regulatory rules and procedures was intended to be consistent with state law. He noted the ordinance
is looking at neighborhood blocks and making sure they do not get over -concentrated with quasi -
commercial uses. He advised this is reflected in the ordinance with the concentration limits or the
separation requirement of 800 feet, which is roughly based on the distance of a city block.
Council Member Moreno reported he forwarded Mr. White an email from a concerned resident
regarding concentrated group homes. In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White
explained the facilities with seven or more residents require a Conditional Use Permit and can be
covered by City enforcement. He advised a different set of rules apply if it is fewer than seven
residents. He noted, if it is a licensed facility, it can be identified through a database to determine the
type of facilities but there are many other locations where there is no information. He advised with a
licensed facility the City has no recourse for enforcement as it is done through the State Licensing
Boards. He advised there will be recourse for unlicensed facilities once they obtain registration or an
operator's permit which could include revocation of the permit.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Community Preservation & Licensing Manager
Sandra Sagert reported staff was able to extract 154 possible locations where complaints have been
received over the last few years. She advised that knowing where all the facilities are located will lead
to better communication, as they will know who to call in case of an issue. She disagreed with some
comments that the ordinance would increase homelessness and believed it would help by building
those partnerships by knowing where they all are and doing outreach to communicate with them.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White advised that unlicensed facilities does
not mean illegal operations. He explained an unlicensed facility is one that does not require a license
from the state and the license is based on the services provided.
In response to Council Member Barnes, Ms. Sagert advised the City is looking for 24-hour coverage
for responsibility and felt that was important. She advised staff met with the Orange County Recovery
Collaborative, Lighthouse Treatment Center, and other stakeholders who acknowledged it was
difficult to have 24-hour coverage so it was modified to have someone available to respond within 45
minutes, which is consistent with the Short Term Rental Ordinance.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. White confirmed properties located in the county
would not be subject to the ordinance.
Council Member Barnes expressed support for continuing discussion on the item and coming to a
consensus with CCAPP and Lighthouse Treatment Center.
In response Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. White confirmed the ordinance does not require a
24-hour house manager to be onsite but only to be available within 45 minutes of the call to address
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 14 of 33
any issues. Council Member O'Neil thanked the staff for their work on this long process and was
pleased Anaheim was getting ahead of the issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel thanked Council Member Moreno for eloquently explaining the concern
expressed to him by his District 2 neighbors. He expressed support for taking action on the item.
MOTION: Council Member Barnes moved to continue Item No. 23 to October 6, 2020, seconded by
Council Member Moreno. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 2 (Council Members Barnes and Moreno);
NOES — 4 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Kring, and O'Neil); ABSTAIN -1 (Council
Member Brandman). Motion failed.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to introduce the ordinance as presented, seconded by
Council Member Kring.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu thanked City Council for the great discussion on the item. He noted it
was a difficult balance to be supportive of environments for people to recover from alcohol and drug
addiction and to also respect residential neighborhoods. He felt the ordinance has done a great job in
balancing concerns and was modeled after other jurisdictions in Orange County that have imposed
reasonable standards on these types of facilities and have withstood judicial scrutiny. He expressed
support for the item.
Council Member Moreno reported he would be abstaining on the item and expressed concern that
neither he nor Council Member Barnes was including in the crafting of the ordinance. He expressed
concern for the legal aspects around the ordinance and could not support it as introduced.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 6493 (INTRODUCTION)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Chapters 18.04 (Single -Family Residential
Zones); 18.06 (Multiple -Family Residential Zones); 18.08 (Commercial Zones); 18.14 (Public and
Special -Purpose Zones); 18.16 (Regulatory Permits); 18.22 (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC)
Overlay Zone); 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone; 18.36 (Types of
Uses); 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); 18.42 (Parking and Loading); 18.92 (Definitions);
18.112 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SP 90-4) Zoning and Development Standards);
18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards);
18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development
Standards); and 18.122 (Beach Boulevard Specific Plan No. 2017-1 (SP 2017-1) Zoning and
Development Standards) of the Anaheim Municipal Code and finding and determining that this
ordinance is exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3)
because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment and it is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines (Zoning
Code Amendment No. 2020-00170; DEV2020-00002; includes determination that the ordinance is
categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines; to provide standards and
regulations for unlicensed community care facilities and sober living homes that are not operating as
a single housekeeping unit), seconded by Council Member Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 5
(Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Brandman, Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 2
(Council Members Barnes and Moreno). Motion carried; ordinance introduced.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 15 of 33
D116 25. Review the Housing Ad Hoc Committee Report and direct staff to work with the Ad Hoc
Committee to finalize and implement an update to the Affordable Housing Action Plan
approved by City Council in 2018.
Deputy City Manager David Belmer reported there is a current statewide housing shortage in
California and noted City Council has had numerous discussions regarding housing affordability and
policies. He advised Council Member O'Neil proposed an Ad Hoc committee to focus on actions and
policies that may be undertaken by the City to facilitate and increase the supply of housing and
thereby help address housing affordability, with Council Member Kring and Mayor Pro Tem Faessel
volunteering to participate. He noted staff provided technical support to committee members. Lastly,
he advised Council Member O'Neil indicated his preference for actions that were market-driven and
incentive -based.
Mr. Belmer provided a brief history of past housing efforts and noted a successful history of being
committed to housing and affordable housing through progressive land -use policies, streamlined
development processes, and providing financial assistance for affordable housing developments
principally through the Anaheim Housing Authority.
Mr. Belmer reported, in 2005, the former Redevelopment Agency adopted the Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan which set a goal of 1,200 affordable housing units which was met and was working on
a more ambitious goal, which likely would have been achieved but for the elimination of
redevelopment and its designated source of housing funds. He noted other examples of the City's
commitment to affordable housing including the Homelessness Task Force and embracing the
"housing first" model. He reported the Anaheim Housing Authority continues to deliver quality
products such as the Orangewood and Manchester project and the EI Verano senior affordable
project.
Mr. Belmer reported the Affordable Housing Action Plan was adopted in 2018 and the Senior Safety
Net Program was adopted in 2020, which was initiated by Council Member O'Neil. He advised the
Senior Safety Net Program assists seniors who are faced with potential homelessness or housing
hardships. He reported the Mayor's Economic Recovery Plan provided almost $5,000,000 to those in
need during the COVD-19 pandemic.
Mr. Belmer reported there are external factors that influence housing development and policy
including the State legislative environment, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. He advised
neighborhood concerns are also a challenge when proposing housing to existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Belmer reported the Ad Hoc committee made it a priority to engage stakeholders in roundtable
discussions to receive input and perspective, with the first meeting being held in April. He advised
stakeholders included apartment owners and realtor associations, the Building Industry Association
(BIA), various nonprofit organizations, affordable housing developers and operators, as well as
market -rate developers. He noted the Ad Hoc committee held a telephone conference with the City's
State Legislative Advocate to gain an understanding of State legislative initiatives related to housing
and options for sponsoring potential CEQA reforms to facilitate all housing, including affordable
housing projects.
Mr. Belmer reported the roundtables were instructive, productive, and held in a collaborative
environment. He advised key observations include affordable housing is a complicated policy issue,
the Housing Authority is a great asset, the City should continue its commitment to innovation and
creativity, access to capital and creative forms of financing are essential, time and certainty are
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 16 of 33
important to developers, there is a need to critically evaluate the zoning code, timing is opportune to
address affordable housing given the pending update to the City's Housing Element, and the Action
Plan adopted in 2018 is a solid foundation.
Mr. Belmer explained the 2018 Affordable Housing Action Plan is a series of action items grouped
around categories, which include such things as Regulatory Relief, Process -Based Incentives,
Middle -Income Housing Programs, creating an Affordable Housing Ambassador program, and
providing easier access to affordable housing funding sources for residents. He noted the associated
resolution affirmed that affordable housing is a priority in Anaheim and requires the City engage with
developers to work cooperatively with the City on housing and housing affordability.
Mr. Belmer provided a brief overview of the update and expansion of the 2018 Affordable Housing
Action Plan. He advised the updated plan, which is being presented for the City Council's
consideration, incorporates the committee's recommendations which are based on stakeholder input.
He reported seven items from the 2018 plan remain unchanged, four items were updated or
augmented, and five new items were added to the plan. He provided a brief overview of the changes
which include updating the title to "Housing and Affordable Housing Action Plan", continuing to
critically and creatively evaluate the City's zoning code, consider expanding the Fee Deferral
Program, continue the City's ongoing dialogue with the BIA, host roundtables to foster a dialogue
between non-profit agencies and market -rate developers, expand the Affordable Housing
Ambassador Program, pursue creative funding and financing opportunities, prepare an ordinance to
allow residential development in commercial zones, explore opportunities for City -initiated "master
EIRs", and pursue CEQA reforms to facilitate housing development and shorten the entitlement
review process.
Mr. Belmer reported the updated Action Plan includes a broad spectrum of items that affirm the City's
commitment to being "housing friendly". He noted the staff report is focused mostly on incentive -
based approaches where the City is doing its part for developers to come in and pursue and propose
housing. He believed this to be part of an ongoing conversation where the Action Plan would be
revisited, along with a continued dialogue with stakeholders, for future City Council consideration.
DISCUSSION: Council Member O'Neil thanked all the staff involved for their efforts over the last 16 to
18 months. He also thanked Mayor Pro Tem Faessel and Council Member Kring for their efforts. He
explained it was important to note the report is an action plan of where the City is now and not a final
housing policy. He noted it is an action plan developed in collaboration with staff and stakeholder
groups to help accelerate housing production at all levels with the overarching goal of increasing the
supply to thereby bring down the cost of housing at all levels. He advised many of the items will
require ordinance changes and City Council approval to move forward. He stated his intention to
agendize the plan recommendations during Council Communications with the understanding staff
needs the flexibility to bring the items forward in a manner appropriate and strategic for them as they
work to certify the Housing Element.
Council Member Kring thanked the previous and current Housing Committee Members for their work.
She expressed her support for the item and noted it was a great first step for affordable housing. She
thanked staff for their hard work bringing the item forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel thanked all staff for their efforts on the item. He acknowledged the
importance of housing. He noted the report acknowledged the City is doing quite a few things right.
He was pleased to see the diversity amongst the stakeholder groups. He acknowledged this is
probably not a final document but certainly very workable and builds on the great work the City has
done up to this point.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 17 of 33
Council Member Barnes would like to have heard the presentations and wished the staff all the best
in getting this completed.
Council Member Brandman thanked the Ad Hoc Committee for their work and Council Member
Moreno thanked staff for their work on the item.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer explained there was not a specific
numerical goal of how many affordable housing units would be expected to be developed as a result
of modifying the Action Plan. He explained this was a general plan to ensure the City was doing all it
could do and have a well -thought-out plan to make it easier for developers to create units. He also
noted it reinforces to the development community that affordable housing and housing is a priority for
the City. He further explained the City does not have a Commercial Conversion Ordinance in its
toolbox today and that would involve a General Plan amendment and zone change. He advised they
are envisioning something similar to the Motel Conversion Ordinance, where the developer would
have the option to introduce residential under specific circumstances and conditions where it would
not necessitate a General Plan amendment and zone change.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer explained the Master EIR is
conceptually designed at this point but some areas may be good candidates for potential conversion
of housing. He further explained, if the area is a good candidate for conversion and is approved, it
wouid negate the need to prepare environmentai documents.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer confirmed the Master EIR would help
developers avoid risks in these types of housing development ventures. He explained the City has
considerable experience in preparing environmental documents so it would make it easier for the
area to convert if a Master EIR was available. Council Member Moreno noted this was not purely a
market-driven approach.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer explained it is more challenging for
cities to deliver very low and low-income units because of the associated costs. He noted Irvine has a
unique situation because it is owned by the Irvine Company and is ranch development. He
acknowledged Anaheim has been very successful in producing above -moderate units but believed
that every house built helps address affordability issues because the supply side of the equation is
being addressed.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer explained he has a general
understanding of Santa Ana's Inclusionary Housing Policy, which has become high over time and has
become an impediment, so they are looking to take the fee down to the level it was when it was first
adopted. He could not confirm not comment if Santa Ana had produced significantly more very -low
and low-income units than Anaheim.
Council Member Moreno advised the Kennedy Commission letter referred to the fact that Irvine and
Santa Ana have been able to build significantly more very -low and low-income housing units in
comparison to Anaheim. He advised they sent a letter to City Council and noted they sent the same
letter to the Ad Hoc Committee over one year ago. He stated in the letter they provided policy and
program recommendations that have not been implemented or incorporated into the Affordable
Housing Action Plan currently being reviewed. Lastly, he noted the letter states it is not surprising that
the production imbalance between lower and above -moderate income housing exists.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 18 of 33
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer explained the Kennedy Commission
was invited to the round tables and the City has an ongoing dialogue with them and would like to
continue that dialogue. He did not share the view that their recommendations were not included. He
cited their recommendation of exploring creative land use and zoning policies that facilitate the
development of affordable housing and supporting legislation that removes CEQA requirements for
affordable housing is included in the Action Plan. He believes the divide centers around the issue of
an inclusionary policy.
Council Member Moreno cited the more specific recommendation from the letter of suggesting
legislative fixes to CEQA to allow affordable housing units to be developed. Mr. Belmer cited one of
the recommendations in CEQA is to sponsor and promote legislation that creates a relationship
between State affordable housing funds and the RHNA allocation which is directly related to
affordable housing. He felt there were many consistencies in the Action Plan with that of the Kennedy
Commission who has been a fan of what the City has done with its affordable housing inventory. He
believed the biggest divide centers around the issue of an inclusionary policy, which has not been the
Ad Hoc Committee's approach.
Council Member Moreno stated he wanted to ensure that stakeholder recommendations are
considered and presented to the City Council. He was confident staff has worked extremely hard to
provide quality affordable housing within the parameters. He expressed concern that the Action Plan
was calling for a general housing plan. He reported the topic came to the City's attention through his
requested workshops for the City on rent spikes in Anaheim. He noted that while Anaheim is
producing a good supply of housing market levels, the average rent has increased in Anaheim.
Council Member O'Neil confirmed the Ad Hoc Committee did not have an appetite for inclusionary
policies. He noted that suggesting an item during a roundtable discussion does not mean it will be
adopted and included in the report. He explained the Ad Hoc Committee ultimately decided what it
felt was in the best interests of the City, residents, and stakeholders to achieve the overarching goal
of increasing the housing supply at all levels and thereby bringing down the cost with regards to rent.
He advised that several different avenues of market-based approaches for rental assistance
programs were explored, but the State's action in enacting rent control eliminated that need. He
reported that the Ad Hoc Committee and staff heard from stakeholders that they were so appreciative
to even have the discussion and noted their partnership is valued.
MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to approve the updates to the Affordable Housing Action
plan as presented by staff and included as reference in the staff report, seconded by Council Member
Kring.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Belmer reported the public
investment has been staggering over time to create affordable housing and is on average $200,000
per unit. He explained if that is multiplied out against the current RHNA numbers it is over $1 billion.
He advised, in light of that staggering number, the City would continue to be committed to affordable
housing and doing the best to deliver housing the community needs which is aligned with the Housing
Element. He noted most private market developers are generally not in the affordable housing
business and usually look to opt -out by paying a fee to the Affordable Housing Fund.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel pointed out that affordable housing is expensive and believed his colleagues
can agree on that point. He noted there were several great affordable programs in District 5.
Council Member Kring confirmed she has no appetite for inclusionary housing and hoped the new
City Council agreed. She reported the big concern for developers is that time is money and they
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 19 of 33
would like to see regulations loosened so they can get to the Planning Commission and City Council
much more quickly. She noted with skyrocketing land costs, there would have to be increased
density.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. Belmer confirmed city -owned sites were
reviewed and were not included in the matrix as those properties belong to the Housing Authority. He
advised there are several parcels in and around the community that were previously or recently
acquired by the Housing Authority and confirmed affordable housing will be a required component of
all those projects.
Council Member Barnes requested the inventory and some development dates be included in the
report so developers can start visualizing the site. She applauded the Kennedy Commission for
keeping the City on target and recommending the City explore market-driven policies. She would like
to see an inclusionary policy included in the next round.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer reported the City has not studied other
cities with extreme detail but can do so at City Council's direction. He noted he recently heard from a
colleague who had read the 2018 Action Plan looking to explore incentive -based options to marry
with their inclusionary housing policy because they are concerned it has become an impediment. He
does not believe any other city in the County of Orange is doing what Anaheim's Housing Authority is
doing for affordable housing. He explained staff would need to do a deeper dive if City Council wants
to understand how Anaheim is doing in comparison with other cities and investigate if can be linked to
cause and effect.
Council Member Moreno stated he would have hoped the Ad Hoc Committee would have reviewed
the promising practices of other cities, especially Irvine and Santa Ana. He explained that developers
want consistency and a policy in place that allows them to bid for land in a way that is on equal terms
with others. He would like to see how a mix of inclusionary housing and a market-driven approach
may work. He believed the Kennedy Commission's concern was that this was an imbalanced
approach. He believed Anaheim's problem is affordability.
Council Member Moreno reported the proposed deal with SRB Management requires the City to
reduce the price of land by $124,000,000 for 466 units, which is approximately $250,000 per unit. He
advised the cost of not having affordable housing is overcrowded housing, an impact on kids,
schools, and their education, and an impact on social and public health. He noted if the City had an
inclusionary housing policy, SRB Management would have had to build the housing by ordinance. He
suggested the City could keep part of the 150 acres to develop affordable housing. He believed the
Action Plan does not have numerical goals or a timeline of expected outcomes.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Belmer reported they know $415,000 will be
deposited by developers into the City's Affordable Housing Fund. Council. Member Moreno explained
that would build two affordable housing units given the numbers provided. He believed an
inclusionary housing policy would accelerate affordable housing development at the level needed in
Anaheim given the RHNA numbers.
Council Member Moreno suggested working with Council Member O'Neil to develop a good mix of
market-driven and inclusionary housing policies and noted, if there is going to be a General Plan
amendment, there should be an affordable housing component included. He believed they could work
together to develop something powerful for Anaheim.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 20 of 33
Mayor Sidhu advised the supply and affordability of housing at all levels is one of the most critical
issues facing Anaheim and is getting increased scrutiny from the State's regional bodies as well. He
believed the Ad Hoc Committee has done solid work in starting to update City policies to address the
fact that the housing supply and affordability across all income categories is an issue that needs to
stay at the top of our agenda and noted this item is simply a start. He advised some of the items will
require subsequent action from the City Council to adopt and expressed support for the
recommendation.
Council Member Moreno requested clarification of the motion as he believed it was only to approve
the name change. City Clerk Theresa Bass advised her understanding of Council Member O'Neil's
motion was to approve the update to the name and the recommended changes as presented by staff
to the Affordable Housing Action Plan.
Council Member Moreno requested a point of clarification. Council Member O'Neil advised the
attachment to the staff report had several redlined amendments to the Affordable Action Housing
Plan. He noted the title and several different items were amended and many new items were added
which were all included in the staff report for review. Council Member O'Neil clarified he would be
separately agendizing the specific items the City Council would need to amend the Housing Action
Plan that would require further counsel, review, and approval.
Council Member Moreno believed Anaheim needs a concentrated, focused effort on affordable
housing at extremely low and low-income levels as it is already doing extraordinarily well with market -
rate housing. He agreed with the Kennedy Commission that the Affordable Housing Action Plan is
imbalanced and noted his abstention from the vote.
MOTION: Council Member O'Neil moved to approve the updates to the Affordable Housing Action
Plan as presented by staff and included as reference in the staff report, seconded by Council Member
Kring. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Barnes,
Brandman, Kring, and O'Neil); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). Motion carried.
D116 26. Update on the City's response to COVID-19.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu provided opening remarks by thanking residents and businesses for
doing their part in continuing to help control the spread of COVID-19. He reported Orange County
has moved from the Purple Tier to the Red Tier, which reflects the hard work everyone is doing to
maintain best practices. He noted the move from purple to red means Anaheim can slowly start to
reopen. He advised that inside dining may be allowed after two weeks. He looked forward to local
school districts deciding to safely reopen schools and noted the City will partner with them in that
process as it did with approving the Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Program to assist
with students connecting and learning from home.
Mayor Sidhu encouraged residents to continue to maintain best practices so Orange County can
move towards the Orange and Yellow Tiers. He noted this week is the six-month anniversary of
Disneyland and the Anaheim Resort closing and there is no question of the value it brings to the City
in terms of job creation and tax revenue generation. He reported Anaheim has almost 25,000
residents out of work and in Orange County it is close to 300,000. He reported the City faces a
$100,000,000 deficit that grows every week the resort is not open and will threaten the City's ability to
provide police services, fire protection, park maintenance, fix streets, and other essential City
services residents expect.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 21 of 33
Mayor Sidhu reported the State has issued healthcare guidelines for almost every part of the
economy but noted no guidance has been given for California's amusement parks. He expects
Disneyland to follow strict guidelines and noted that opening Disneyland will help save hundreds of
small businesses, tens of thousands of jobs, and making sure Anaheim can provide basic municipal
services without going broke. He invited Governor Newsom to come to Anaheim to see the economic
ruins and see the safety protocols in place at Downtown Disney to help him issue theme park
guidelines to give Anaheim a chance to recover. He did not understand why no guidelines have been
issued.
Mayor Sidhu reported participation in the City's large-scale mask distribution event at Magnolia
Baptist Church on September 9 and advised another mask giveaway will be held on September 16
from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Anaheim First Christian Church.
Fire Chief Pat Russell reported the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) remains open at Level 3,
which means it is open Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with approximately 12
staff members throughout various city departments working remotely to support the city and the
citizens' needs. He reported the City is supporting the County's efforts to advertise testing and
appointment availability over the weekends for testing at the Anaheim Convention Center. He
reported COVID-19 cases, including hospitalization and the positivity rate, continued to turn
downward.
Fire Chief Russell reported Orange County moved to the Red Tier on September 8 and certain
businesses and organizations were allowed to reopen with specific parameters. He noted if the
downward trend continues, school districts may reopen for in-person instruction on September 22 at
their discretion. He reported the City held a mask distribution on September 9 at Magnolia Baptist
Church and noted approximately 500 vehicles passed through the distribution event. He advised the
next event is scheduled for September 16 at Anaheim First Christian Church from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. He stressed the importance of exercising these Point of Distribution (POD) sites in preparation
for mass distribution for the vaccine once it is approved by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
Fire Chief Russell reported Anaheim Fire and EMS are maintaining communications with all the
skilled nursing facilities and homeless shelters to monitor potential exposure and ensuring personnel
follow CDC and Orange County Health guidelines in regards to patient treatment and personal
exposure. He reported they are still working on tracing and tracking employees who have tested
positive for COVID-19. He advised the Anaheim Police Department (APD) Operations Center is open
and noted they are still handling all calls for service. Lastly, he noted APD is assisting in POD mask
distribution events.
Fire Chief Russell reported the EOC continues to monitor food distribution sites, updating the food
map, and continuing senior meals on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He reported the East Anaheim and
Brookhurst Community Centers continue to receive food donations. He noted youth sports, distance
learning, and after-school activities are reopened with several programs on September 14.
Fire Chief Russell reported the Anaheim Community Foundation (ACF) would offer new funding
opportunities in late September or early October. He advised the EOC is continuing to monitor the
number of available beds in the emergency shelters and noted the current occupancy is 221. He
noted there are 104 shelter beds and 88 isolation beds available. He reported safety protocols are
constantly being monitored in all of the shelters including monitoring both clients and staff for COVID-
19 exposures. He reported Code Enforcement is maintaining statistics for all unauthorized business
activity and advised there have been 405 cases since March with 166 notice of violation letters being
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 22 of 33
issued for unauthorized business activity. Lastly, he reported 119 reopening plans have been
reviewed.
Chief Communications Officer Mike Lyster reported there are 7.1 average daily new cases but
explained it is based on the County's conservative numbers and the number is likely lower because
of subtle differences between how the county applies cases reported each day to a specific date. He
reported the City is at a positivity rate that is much more accurate and in sync with the County which
is within the band for Tier 2. He noted there is a pronounced decline in the number of weekly cases.
Lastly, he provided an overview of Anaheim cases by zip code and noted there is a very pronounced
drop in cases and positivity rates with most zip codes being within or very near Tier 2 limits.
Deputy City Manager Greg Garcia reported the State of California and the federal government have
come out with their own rules regarding moratoriums on evictions throughout the state and nation. He
advised those rules have been posted on the City's website and staff has updated the City's factsheet
to reflect the protections that are in place and available to Anaheim residents moving forward through
at least December, as those rules now supersede any Anaheim protections.
Mr. Garcia reported the Rental Housing Assistance Program continues to move forward and noted
additional funding has been allocated. He advised the City plans to reopen the program to the
community at the end of this month and noted staff will start communicating with nonprofits and other
stakeholder partners to get the word out to residents who may benefit from that program. He thanked
City Council for approving the Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Program and believed it
will be a great tool for helping the community. He reported the ACF is putting together the final pieces
for the next round of funding and anticipate they will be launching that effort in the next few weeks.
Mr. Garcia provided an update on federal stimulus funds and noted there seems to be an impasse in
Washington but is encouraged to hear there is a bipartisan group that is still working towards a
solution. Lastly, he reported there were currently no City employees who were currently positive with
COVID-19. He thanked staff for all the protections that have been put in place to make sure that
customers are safe and thanked the employees for being responsible. Lastly, he advised the City
continues to push the message to residents to wear a mask, avoid large gatherings, and remain
vigilant during the pandemic, and hopefully, the numbers will continue to go down.
Council Member Moreno thanked staff for the COVID-19 update by zip code and thanked community
partners for getting the word out to remind people how critical it is to stop the spread of COVID-19.
He was hopeful more people would become aware of the different relief programs available so they
can continue to shelter in place as much as they can to sustain this trend.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiries, Mr. Lyster reported he believed the upward trend
in COVID-19 cases in the 92808 zip code was due to increased testing in the area but they will
continue monitoring the data to make sure the trend does not become more alarming. He believed
there was an overall increase in testing which was reflected in the numbers although he did indicate it
was possible that testing had been lagging or being tested through their insurance.
Council Member Moreno believed the local economy may be over -dependent on the Anaheim Resort
and would like to think about how to diversify the local economy.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, City Manager Jim Vanderpool reported the City was
seeking guidance and metrics from the State to provide to the public and City Council how to safely
reopen the Resort Area when the timing is right. He advised the Orange County Register was
incorrect in reporting the City was requesting Governor Newsom allow the Anaheim Resort to open.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 23 of 33
Council Member Moreno requested a copy of the letter sent to Governor Newsom because he thinks
the Orange County Register has misrepresented the intent and created a lot of anxiety and hope. He
believed the City Council should have been notified of the communication and should have been able
to discuss the issue.
Council Member Moreno reported he has been asking that City Council meet via videoconference
and allow the public to speak directly with the City Council or just go back to the Council Chamber,
which has already been retrofitted with safety equipment.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mayor Sidhu explained the City Council is following
state guidelines and are in compliance for conducting meetings.
Council Member Moreno expressed concern that Mayor Sidhu was asking the Governor for
assistance in opening the City but refuses to open the City Council Chamber. Council Member
Moreno advised several other boards were meeting in person and advised, that under the current
rules, Governor Newsom would not be able to meet with City Council.
In response to Council Member Barnes, Mr. Garcia reported funding was submitted to Visit Anaheim
and they have used it to do some basic marketing to try to keep things in place and reschedule
conferences. He advised the majority of the funding has been held to wait for the right time to do a
full-blown marketing plan, which was always part of the proposal but he did not have specific figures
as to what was spent. He advised he would reach out to Visit Anaheim to obtain an exact amount of
funding that is being held for the future marketing plan.
Council Member Barnes thanked Fire Chief Russell for his service at the EOC along with the entire
EOC staff. She recommended looking at items in the City Council budget that will not be used and
see how they can be used for the community and asked it be brought forward.
Council Member O'Neil thanked Mayor Sidhu for appealing to Governor Newsom on how to open the
Anaheim Resort safely.
Council Member Moreno noted he was surprised to hear that Visit Anaheim was holding the money,
as he understood there was a sense of urgency in getting them the $6,500,000. He advised that
former City Manager Chris Zapata had suggested not providing them the full amount but to instead
determine how, when, and why to provide the money for which he ultimately lost his job.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Garcia reported the Rent Relief Program funds
were currently being distributed to needy residents. He advised approximately 900 applications were
approved for the first round of Rent Relief Program funds but he would send Council Member Moreno
more detailed numbers. Council Member Moreno reported the City is receiving good information from
ACF that is helpful. He concurred with Council Member Barnes's request to look at the City Council
budget and determine if any additional funding can be used for the Anaheim community.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Lyster reported the City's primary
communication effort is through social media and the primary focus is on the Spanish language
because of its predominance as the second most common language in the City with updates being
provided weekly. Council Member Moreno advised he will provide an email to Mr. Lyster to connect
with a company that has worked with the school district and in other areas of the City to assist with
social media messing to the Vietnamese, Korean, and other Asian -speaking communities in
Anaheim.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 24 of 33
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Vanderpool reported staff looks to City Council
for direction on how to conduct its meetings. Mr. Garcia reported the Police Review Board itself
explored different meeting options and decided to try the online meetings. He noted every
commission and board addresses their meeting preferences. Council Member Moreno requested to
discuss this separately with Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Lyster advised the City would also like to see guidelines for the Anaheim Convention Center as it
also plays a very vital role and it would be very encouraging for an economic recovery roadmap. He
noted the City would also like to see events resume in a more normal fashion at both the stadium and
the arena, but know it will be some time before such guidance is received.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Garcia advised it was safe to say that staff has
been working with State officials and stakeholders and representatives for guidance for the Anaheim
Resort, Disneyland, Angel Stadium, the Honda Center, and the Anaheim Convention Center.
Informational item - No action taken.
At 9:51 P.M., Mayor Sidhu recessed the Anaheim City Council at and reconvened at 10:01 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING:
C350 27. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
C410 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2019-00529
C420 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO.16 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
C220 (SPN92-2Y)
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-06041
VARIANCE NO. 2020-05132
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2019-00001
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2019-00437
(DEV2019-00148)
OWNER: Sean Namvar, FDC Trust LLC, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 400, Los Angeles,
CA 90034
APPLICANT: Clay Cheek, RH Anaheim Barn, LLC, 745 Merchant Street, Los Angeles, CA
90021
PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project is located at 1730 South Clementine Street,
approximately 600 feet north of Katella Avenue.
REQUEST: The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Amendment to create a new density category for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP)
(SP92-2); Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow valet parking; Variance to allow a narrower
landscaped street setback than required by the Code; Final Site Plan to confirm the project
complies with the ARSP; and Administrative Adjustment for a reduction in the number of
parking spaces required by the code. The proposed project includes demolition of a vacant
industrial building and construction of a six -story, 125 -room hotel. The hotel would include a
rooftop pool, guest lounge, fitness room, small market and cafe.
ENVIRONMENTAL DE_TERMINATIO_N: The City Council will consider whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved and recommended City
Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (PC2020-030, per the revised resolution
as submitted by staff), General Plan Amendment No. 2019-00529 (PC2020-031), Specific
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 25 of 33
Plan Amendment No. 16 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (PC2020-032), Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06041, Variance No. 2020-05132, Final Site Plan No. 2019-
00001, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2019-00437 (PC2020-033, per the revised
resolution as submitted by staff and with modifications to the conditions of approval as stated
during the public hearing). VOTE: 6-1 (Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong,
Lieberman, Meeks, Mulleady, and Vadodaria voted yes. Commissioner White voted no.)
(Planning Commission meeting of August 17, 2020).
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for proposed General Plan
Amendment No. 2019-00529, Specific Plan Amendment No. 16 to the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan (SPN92-2Y), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06041, Variance No. 2020-
05132, Final Site Plan No. 2019-00001, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2019-00437
(DEV2019-00148) (1730 South Clementine Street).
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending the General Plan of the City of Anaheim and making findings in
connection therewith (General Plan Amendment No. 2019-00529; DEV2019-00148) (1730
South Clementine Street).
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-06041, Variance No. 2020-
05132, Final Site Plan No. 2019-00001, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2019-00437 and
making certain findings in connection therewith (DEV2019-00148) (1730 South Clementine
Street).
ORDINANCE NO. 6494 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending portions of Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP
92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2 (Amendment No. 16 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan).
Planning and Building Director Ted White reported the item is a request for multiple entitlements to
construct a 125 -room hotel in the Anaheim Resort. He advised the Planning Commission
recommended City Council approval of the project and all associated entitlements by a 6-1 vote.
Mr. White provided a brief overview of the site and advised it is .68 acres and consists of a vacant
industrial building and surface parking areas. He advised the site is located within the Commercial
Recreation district of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and is within the medium density designation
or category and provided surrounding land uses. He reported the applicant proposes to construct a
six -story, 125 -room boutique hotel. He advised vehicular circulation, including valet drop off and pick
up areas, will be located on the north side of the property; except for four accessible parking spaces
all proposed parking would be operated by a valet attendant.
Mr. White reported the applicant requests several entitlements to construct the hotel including
General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to create a new density category called Medium Density
(Modified), a Minor Conditional Use Permit for valet parking, a Variance for a narrower street setback,
a Final Site Plan to confirm compliance with standards of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and an
Administrative Adjustment for reduced parking.
Mr. White reported the applicant is requesting approval of a new density category for the project site.
He advised the General Plan would identify this new density category as "Medium Density (Modified
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 26 of 33
A)" and permit a maximum density of up to 127 rooms to accommodate the proposed 125 rooms and
870 square feet of accessory commercial uses. He reported the proposed amendment to the General
Plan maintains the internal consistency of the plan since there is no proposed change in land use and
is consistent with the General Plan designations of the surrounding properties. He reported the Initial
Study prepared to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project
analyzed the effects of the development of up to 127 rooms on the project site and concluded that the
infrastructure capacity is sufficient to accommodate the proposed density increase.
Mr. White reported the amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan would also create the
Medium Density (Modified A) category to accommodate the proposed project. He advised the
amendment maintains and contributes to the balance of the land uses within the City by encouraging
tourism and entertainment -related industries in an area of the City specifically designated for this type
of development.
Mr. White reported the applicant proposes to utilize valet parking as its sole parking option for guests
to maximize parking spaces within the structure, with the majority of the parking spaces within a
mechanical stacker system that would be the first of its kind in the City. He advised the City's Traffic
Engineer approved the proposed valet operations plan, which identifies the paths of travel for valet
attendants, and confirms that only valet attendants would be able to access the rear parking area.
Mr. White reported the Anaheim Municipal Code requires a 20 -foot wide landscaped setback for
buildings up to 75 feet tall. He advised the applicant proposed a 10 -foot setback where the outdoor
seating area is proposed and a 16 -foot setback to the building. He noted that staff believes that there
are special circumstances applicable to this property due to the small size of the lot and the request
would be consistent with the setback of hotel properties to the north and south, which have 10 -foot
setbacks.
Mr. White reported an Administrative Adjustment is required for parking and the applicant is
requesting a deviation for the number of spaces required by the Code. He advised the project
requires 107 parking spaces and 86 spaces are proposed. He advised a parking study was analyzed
for the proposed number of parking spaces and the conclusion was that there would be a sufficient
number of parking spaces to accommodate all visitors to the site.
Mr. White reported staff reviewed the proposal and has determined that except for the
aforementioned setback variance and parking variance, the project complies with all applicable
standards of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and therefore is supportive of the final site plan. He
advised an Initial Study (IS) was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, which
determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) could be prepared for the project. Lastly, he
reported staff recommends approval of the entitlements required to facilitate the development of the
hotel.
DISCUSSION: Council Member Moreno reported ex parte communications with the developer. In
response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White clarified the room size is not a concern for
the City. Project Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi reported the hotel does have slightly smaller hotel
rooms than typically seen in the resort because typically hotels gear their rooms for larger families.
She advised the room is 12 feet wide by 24 feet deep which is enough room for a restroom, bed,
television, and chair but noted there is not a lot of common space in the room. She noted the idea is
that the amenities would be throughout the hotel and customers would be staying at the hotel would
be enjoying amenities throughout the resort area as well. Mr. White recommended the applicant
speak to its business model in regards to the room size.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 27 of 33
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White reported there are similar densities of
approximately 125 rooms per acre in other areas of the resort but this would be exclusive to this
property for this area as a modified density. Mr. White advised the environmental reports in the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan were set up to plan out the infrastructure and facilitate the
development of hotels. He noted hotels can come to the resort area and build with typically only
requiring a Final Site Plan. He advised, in this case, the applicant was required to go through
significant environmental analysis as well as a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan
Amendment to accommodate it. He reported the IS/MND had a series of technical studies that were
produced to confirm the infrastructure could handle the project. He advised the actual number of
rooms is fairly minimal in terms of the infrastructure impact and there is significant infrastructure
capacity to handle this request.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. White advised this is a fairly unique parcel with
a unique business model and noted staff does not see a lot of requirements for a modified standard
like this. He reported staff would continue to look for trends and shifts in market demands for this type
of smaller hotel.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Principal Planner Susan Kim reported the area
around the Anaheim Convention Center sees hotels with 125 rooms per acre. She noted this is a
location where there are more high-rise hotels and noted density increases towards the 1-5 Freeway.
She advised the Hyatt House and the Hilton would be examples of high-density hotels. Mr. White
clarified the property would be next to a 12 -story timeshare project and immediately across the street
from a 13 -story J.W. Marriott property. He clarified the proposed project has parking, just a different
form of parking in that it would be full valet.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. White reported the Fire & Rescue Department
has fully reviewed the project and did not have any concerns about the safety of the building.
Ms. Thienprasiddhi reported the parking adjustments being requested for this project were the same
ratio that was recently approved for the project that Ms. Kim mentioned further north on Manchester
Avenue referenced as a Dual Hilton that is two brands within a single building.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. White reported he was excited about the use of
technology to provide a more efficient building footprint and noted parking is a colossal expense and
inefficient use of land. He noted, as a planner, it is an exciting project and unique for the area.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiries, Mr. White reported the building will meet all fire
and building codes. He suggested Council Member Barnes ask the applicant about occupancy but
believed there was a single double bed in each room.
Mayor Sidhu, Mayor Pro Tem Faessel, and Council Members Barnes, Brandman, Kring, Moreno, and
O'Neil reported ex parte communications with the applicant.
Mayor Sidhu opened the public hearing.
Mr. Clay Cheek, applicant, thanked the City Council for considering the project, thanked staff for their
hard work, and thanked the Planninq Commission for recommending approval. He reported he is with
a small development partnership in Los Angeles which has developed several unique hotels.
Mr. Cheek reported the project has smaller rooms than many of the hotel hotels in the area and noted
there is a mix of single and multiple bed types and they are targeting a different demographic. He
reported many other brands are rolling out smaller rooms, including a Marriott brand that has rooms
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 28 of 33
as small as 180 square feet, while they are proposing 300 square feet per room. He believed they
were investing their dollars into what they feel will be the future of Anaheim and are very excited
about the project. He noted they worked with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) to develop
a bus stop to help lower-income and seniors get around the area.
Council Member Kring expressed support for the project and noted it was a wonderful project.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel expressed support for the project and acknowledged it was a complex site.
He noted there were smaller rooms than this in four or five diamond properties in Chicago and New
York. He reported he was very impressed with the project and was supportive of the risk the
applicant was taking.
Council Member Brandman expressed support for the project and looked forward to its completion.
Council Member Moreno expressed support for the project, which seems to match a niche market,
and was thankful they have chosen Anaheim.
In response to Council Member Moreno, Mr. Cheek confirmed there would be minimal staffing and
has a business model of select service where technological elements will be used to reduce some
staffing. Mr. Cheek was unable to provide the number of construction jobs that would be made
available for the project.
Council Member Moreno advised it was the priority of the City to promote local hiring. In response to
Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Cheek confirmed he would make it a priority to work with a
contractor who can hire locally.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Cheek reported, in terms of density and zoning,
it sounds like a significant percentage increase but it is not that significant of an increase in terms of
rooms itself and noted it complies with all of the building, occupancy, and fire codes. He advised the
project is six stories and noted they are next to a 12 -story high-rise building.
Council Member Moreno reported he received a letter of support for the project from J.W. Marriott.
Council Member O'Neil expressed support for the project.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Cheek reported a parking study was completed
which determined the project has enough project space even if the property was fully booked. He
acknowledged the Planning Commission also asked about backup parking. Mr. Cheek advised they
will have the valet operator monitor parking closely and will add additional staff or resources, if
necessary. Council Member Moreno expressed concern that ride -sharing options such as Uber and
Lyft may not exist based on potential legislation in California.
In response to Council Member Moreno's inquiry, Mr. Cheek reported they are receptive to overflow
parking arrangements and noted an extensive parking study was completed that determined there is
adequate capacity. He advised they worked with ATN to incorporate a bus stop in the front of the
hotel so parking demand can be further reduced.
Council Member Barnes expressed concern regarding the parking and did not feel it was adequate.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. Cheek reported Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
Engineers (LLG), one of the City's preferred consultants, prepared the parking study. He advised LAZ
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 29 of 33
Parking prepared the Valet Study and is also a big operator in the area. He also noted the City had a
third -party peer reviewer review the studies as well.
Council Member Barnes believed there might be a need for an adjustment to the parking spaces in
the future.
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported five (5) public comments related to Public Hearing Item No. 27
were received, which was distributed to the City Council, posted to the City's website, and made part
of the official record. — See Appendix.
Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Sidhu expressed support for the project and was thankful a developer was
willing to work with the site to make it an important piece of the economic engine for Anaheim.
MOTION: Council Member Kring moved to approve the project as presented by adopting three
resolutions and introducing an ordinance, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Faessel. ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES - 7 (Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Barnes, Brandman, Moreno, Kring, and
O'Neil); NOES — 0. Motion carried; ordinance introduced.
F130.2 28. This is a public hearing to consider granting non-exclusive franchises for the operation of 205
taxicabs in Anaheim for the remainder of the current ten-year term ending June 28, 2022.
ORDINANCE NO. 6495 (INTRODUCTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a non-exclusive franchise to Cabco Yellow, Inc. dba California
Yellow Cab, for the purpose of operating taxicab service in the City of Anaheim (155 taxicabs).
ORDINANCE NO. 6496 (INTRODUCTION) AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a non-exclusive franchise to American Ground Transportation,
Inc. and American Ground Transportation, LLC dba 24/7 Taxi Cab, for the purpose of
operating taxicab service in the City of Anaheim (50 taxicabs).
Planning and Building Director Ted White reported the item is a public hearing to award two taxi
franchises for the remainder of the current ten-year term, which ends on June 28, 2022. He noted
City Council has been asked to grant these franchise licenses in the middle of the franchise period
due to the closure of two taxi companies that previously held franchises in the City including Yellow
Cab of Greater Orange County which closed in May of 2020.
Mr. White reported a Request for Proposal (RFP) was distributed in July for 205 taxicab permits and
was distributed to interested taxi companies. He reported the City received responses from California
Yellow Cab and 24/7 Taxi Cab. He reported the City Manager appointed a Taxi Advisory Committee
(TAC) consisting of city staff from the Convention Center, Police Department,
Neighborhood and Human Services, and Community Preservation, as well as a representative of Visit
Anaheim. He advised the TAC is authorized by the Municipal Code to evaluate franchise applications
and make recommendations to the City Council on the awarding of franchises.
Mr. White reported, on August 25, the City Council set a public hearing to review and grant non-
exclusive franchises for the operation of 205 taxicabs in Anaheim for the remainder of the current ten-
year term ending June 28, 2022. He advised there are a total of 255 taxicab permits for this franchise
term and California Yellow Cab is the only current franchise holder with 50 permits, leaving 205
permits are available.
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 30 of 33
Mr. White reported the TAC was provided with the City's RFP before evaluating the proposals
received by each company. He advised as part of their respective proposals, California Yellow Cab
requested all 205 available licenses and 24/7 Taxi Cab requested 100 licenses. He advised the TAC
evaluated both proposals and felt both met the minimum requirements but felt California Yellow Cab
demonstrated a strong organizational infrastructure and capacity to expand their operations to
incorporate a larger volume of additional taxicabs. He noted 24/7 Taxi Cab demonstrated some
limited capacity to expand their operations and the TAC expressed reservations about the service
provider's ability to successfully deploy and operate a fleet of 100 taxicabs.
Mr. White reported the TAC recommends that 155 licenses be awarded to California Yellow Cab (with
their current 50 licenses, this brings their total to 205 licenses), and 50 licenses be awarded to 24/7
Taxi Cab. Lastly, he reported the TAC's recommendation to both service providers is based, in part,
on the desire to maintain an element of competition and avoid a monopoly in the taxi marketplace to
encourage a high quality of service to taxicab customers.
Mr. White reported staff received correspondence from Mr. Konstantinos Roditis, who represents 24/7
Taxi Cab, who believes the City should have issued two separate RFPs for the available licenses
including one for the 50 licenses that were already available and one for 155 vacated due to the
closure of Yellow Cab of Greater Orange County. He advised staff reviewed Mr. Roditis's letter and
believes conducting one RFP for all of the available taxicab permits was the most efficient way to
fulfill the remaining term of the franchise. He advised Mr. Roditis would be available to answer any
questions and was unsure of the availability of a representative from California Yellow Cab.
City Clerk Theresa Bass reported two (2) public comments related to Public Hearing Item No. 28
were received, which was distributed to the City Council, posted to the City's website, and made part
of the official record. — See Appendix.
Mayor Sidhu closed the public hearing.
DISCUSSION: In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Mr. Roditis reported 24/7 Taxicab is
one of the largest taxicab companies in Orange County and when they were not awarded the
franchises in 2012 and 2016 they began focusing their business on emergency medical
transportation. He reported they do have contracts with hospitals that require them to operate and
pick up in Anaheim and due to the Anaheim Municipal Code moved most of their fleet to a Private
Carrier of Passengers (PCP) program with the State. He confirmed most taxicab companies in
Orange County have gone completely out of business or transitioned to new license types. He
reported there are 190 registered taxicabs in Anaheim.
In response to Council Member Barnes's inquiry, Mr. Roditis reported 24/7 Taxicab LLC is the driver -
owned company with each driver being a member of the company, which has helped with customer
service and noted assisting drivers in and out of vehicles is part of the medical side of the service and
part of their training.
Council Member Kring reported Mr. Roditis has always done a great job in Anaheim and expressed
support for awarding the franchise.
In response to Council Member O'Neil's inquiry, Mr. Roditis confirmed he requested 100 permits and
staff is recommending 50 permits. Mr. Roditis reported he recommended that 50 permits be issued to
24/7 Taxicabs alone because he does not think the taxicab industry is where it needs to be,
especially with the pandemic. He believed the recommendation that TAC made of 50 to 24/7 and 205
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 31 of 33
permits to California Yellow Taxi Cab creates a monopoly, as his competitor would have over 80% of
the permits. He believed it would be incredibly difficult to compete in such a marketplace. He advised
the City has a requirement of plus or minus 15% of the fleet and recommended it increase to plus
50% of the fleet, which he believed would be adequate for the next 19 months and would not create
an unlawful monopoly. He noted his last recommendation is to have taxicab fleet requirements
match the RFP.
Community Preservation & Licensing Manager Sandra Sagert reported the consultant who did the
10 -year franchise for the City determined 255 taxicabs were needed. She acknowledged industry
conditions have changed over the last few years, but the City is still operating under the current
consultant recommendations for a 10 -year franchise. She confirmed Mr. Roditis was correct that
there is a 15% overage for expansion, if needed. She explained that, with the current pandemic
situation, it was possible the Anaheim Convention Center and the Anaheim Resort could open quickly
so the City was still abiding by the 255 permits. She advised the City would be looking at this
franchise with another consultant when this franchise comes to a close to look at the future. She
advised there is a ballot measure in November that will dictate if there is a need for another 10 -year
franchise and how many taxicabs would be needed.
Ms. Sagert reported she believed a monopoly was one company. She advised the TAC decided,
since there were only two proposals, they would have two companies to have some competition and
avoid one large company as seen with Yellow Cab who recently went out of business which was a
huge blow to the City. She does understand that California Yellow Cab was taking over many of
Yellow Cabs' former fleet. She reported, under the franchise that California Yellow Cab currently has,
the 2014 vehicles are okay along with the 2012 and 2013 ADA and Clean Air Vehicles on file with the
City which had additional life years. She advised they would be working with both companies, if
approved, to make sure they are under the current RFP franchise and meet all the requirements.
City Attorney Robert Fabela reported the City is under an order to do an RFP for 50 permits, which
dates back to 2016 and the action the City took back then. He reported the additional 155 permits
became available for independent reasons and he did not think it was inconsistent with the current
judicial orders to consider those 50 plus the additional number that had become available at this time.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Faessel's inquiry, Ms. Sagert reported the contract with Western
Transit contract is with Community Services, who were discussing looking at other companies, but
was unsure if a separate RFP would be issued. She believed both companies would be willing to
assist in providing that service, should Community Services need additional help.
Mayor Sidhu noted the taxicab industry has changed in recent times and thanked Yellow Cab of
Greater Orange County for their service. He expressed support for approving the item.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Faessel moved to approve granting non-exclusive franchises for the
operation of 205 taxicabs in Anaheim for the remainder of the current ten-year term ending June 28,
2022 by introducing two ordinances, seconded by Mayor Sidhu. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES — 6
(Mayor Sidhu and Council Members Faessel, Barnes, Brandman, Kring, and O'Neil; NOES — 0;
ABSTAIN — 1 (Council Member Moreno). Motion carried; ordinances introduced.
Report on Closed Session Actions: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS {non -agenda items): None
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 32 of 33
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION:
Council Member Moreno requested an agenda item to move City Council meetings to Zoom and
allow the public to call in comments beginning September 29 and, if able to, return to meeting in the
Council Chamber, concurred by Council Member Barnes (request failed for lack of second
concurrence). He announced he may ask for a resolution, upon receipt of more information, to
condemn alleged mass hysterectomies of women incarcerated by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. He recognized Central American Independence Day on September 15 and Mexican
Independence Day, EI Grito, on September 16 and wished all happy celebrations. He also
acknowledged the beginning of Hispanic Heritage Month. He encouraged everyone to complete the
Census to assist with City resources and political representation. He expressed appreciation for the
virtual town halls being held regarding Angel Stadium, stated that no Council agenda item had
occurred to provide direction or discuss the community benefits component in the last 10 months,
hoped for additional outreach, encouraged the public to attend meetings and read the documents to
learn more about the deal, its timeline, its components, and related costs for affordable housing and
parks, and formally requested the Mayor to postpone agendizing this item until Council could meet in
person or via video conferencing with live, direct comment by residents.
Council Member Barnes expressed gratitude for the generous food donations to west Anaheim,
particularly from Islands Restaurant. She thanked Vineyard Church for working diligently on multiple
food distribution events and thanked the Boys and Girls Club and Caterina's Club for serving dinners
at the West Anaheim Youth Center each Wednesday at 4:00 P.M. She applauded the efforts of
Muzeo Interim Executive Director Katie Farrell for championing efforts for Indigenous Peoples Day in
Anaheim. She encouraged those in need of food to contact City Hall, recognized the work of several
food banks, and thanked City staff for assisting in the distributions. She reiterated her request to
know how the funding to Visit Anaheim is being spent, encouraged residents to pay attention to the
Angel Stadium transaction, addressed the need to hear directly from residents and her colleagues via
in-person or Zoom meetings, and encouraged residents to learn about candidates for the November
election.
Council Member Brandman reported the drive-thru mask giveaway at Magnolia Baptist Church last
weekend where over 500 Anaheim families received a pack of 40 disposable mask and thanked
everyone who coordinated the event. He announced the next mask giveaway will be at Anaheim
First Christian Church at 520 W. South St. He reported his office had received numerous calls, texts,
and emails from District 2 residents regarding the growing number of unsheltered individuals and
increasing homelessness in west Anaheim, including right-of-way blocking near Brookhurst St. He
thanked City staff and leadership for their quick response to the urgent matter, but noted that
homelessness and its many second/third order effects are/have been on the rise, especially in light of
the pandemic. He thanked the residents who contacted him, to provide feedback needed to keep the
system working and assist with representation and addressing concerns. He noted he has asked the
City management team to help communicate to residents how the homeless policy will be adapted to
address this specific set of circumstances in west Anaheim and ensure a plan is in place and
operative. Council Member Brandman was temporarily absent from the meeting between 11:44 P.M.
and 11:46 P.M. He stated there is a path forward to not leave anyone behind, including residents and
those in need. He reminded everyone to complete the Census at www.m 202Ocensus. ov, and to
wear masks and practice social distancing to save lives.
Council Member Kring concurred with Council Brandman about the homeless and spoke of the
homeless and crime at Ball Rd. and Harbor Blvd. last week. She thanked staff and Sandra Sagert for
doing a great job and addressing those concerns. She announced that this week, September 15 -26,
is Orange County Restaurant Week and encouraged residents to support local restaurants hit by
City Council Minutes of September 15, 2020
Page 33 of 33
COVID. She highlighted there is a new phase in dining, where you can order to go or dine outside;
she encouraged residents to wear masks and dine local. Council Member Kring thanked all
emergency workers throughout California, Oregon, and Washington battling the terrible wild fires
across the west coast. She thanked all police personnel helping with evacuations and other
emergency situations and providing shelter for many displaced families. She commended the
Anaheim Fire and Rescue for providing mutual aid to the EI Dorado Fire, encouraged residents to
create an emergency plan and visit www.ready.gov for more information and tips, because being
prepared can help save you, family, neighbors, and emergency responders. She requested the
meeting adjourn in memory of Senior Airman Jason Khai Phan who died in a vehicle accident while
serving in Kuwait.
Mayor Pro Tem Faessel thanked Council Member Kring for acknowledging Senior Airman Phan, a
26 -year-old Anaheim native. He appreciated the explanation by Council Member Moreno regarding
Hispanic Heritage Month. He reported he helped facilitate a new wheelchair for a District 5 Miraloma
resident and thanked Dr. Hassan of Ideal Home Care for providing the new wheelchair. He reported
his participation at several food distributions, including Miraloma Family Resource Center, with ICNA
Relief on State College Blvd., Boys & Girls Club at La Palma Park, a surplus copier donated by
Republic Services to the Boys & Girls Club, ICNA Relief at the Sabina/Sycamore neighborhood, and
a large walk-up event at Ambassador Church. He announced an upcoming fundraiser drive on
September 26 at St. Anthony Claret Church featuring Sean Oliu.
Council Member O'Neil addressed an inclusionary housing policy, and how neither he nor the
committee wanted to entertain that idea, as such policies increase the costs of housing as they make
it more expensive for developers to produce. He said land values were effected, and if such a policy
was in place, the appraisal and ultimate sale price in the Angels deal would have been affected. He
requested the recommendations / items in the Housing and Affordable Housing Action Plan that need
further Council approval be brought back for Council consideration by staff in an appropriate and
strategic manner, concurred by Council Member Kring and Mayor Pro Tem Faessel. He requested
the meeting also adjourn in memory of District 6 resident and former Housing and Community
Development Commissioner Chris Emami.
Mayor Sidhu offered thoughts and prayers to the two Los Angeles Sherriff Deputies who were
ambushed and severely injured last Saturday, thanked the City Manager and staff for a great
meeting, asked his Council colleagues to address questions with staff between the posting of the
agenda packet on Thursday and the Council meeting on Tuesday, and encouraged all to continue
safety precautions including mask, six-foot distancing, and hand washing and sanitizing. He extend
best wishes to those in the Jewish community on the upcoming holiday Rosh Hashanah starting at
sundown Friday, September 18 through sundown Sunday, September 20.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 11:57 P.M., Mayor Sidhu adjourned the City Council meeting in memory of Senior Airman Jason
Khai Phan and former Housing and Community Development Commissioner Chris Emami.
Res ectfully subnii-tted,
r
Teresa Bass, CIVIC
City Clerk
Public Comment
From:
Pat D
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:06 PM
To:
Public Comment
Cc:
Denise Barnes; Jose Moreno
Subject:
Agenda comments
Sorry so brief but times are very busy.
There are several items on your agenda this afternoon. One very important to me at this critical time during
which housing the unhoused is so critical is item 25. I was pleased to read that the update is moving forward. It
certainly included some important pieces and one hopes that a Housing First model focused on meeting the
RHNA goals is in fact the priority. In reviewing the housing ad hoc committee report I find it quite curious that
in terms of your stakeholders there were no housing advocates or other engaged people not attached to either
pass service providers or those in the building industry. I hope that will be rectified and as you move forward
and preparing the response to the next stage of planning to meet Rena goals you will include community
members like myself who are quite intrested in Being honest and forthcoming in our response. They see is truly
an opportunity to bring community gather to best understand what we need to do as a community to house those
across the spectrum of and comes past practices of building priorities and moderate and above moderate income
levels is not going to make a difference in a community where workforce and affordable housing is rare. You're
continuing the STR program contributes to the housing shortage we now find ourselves in
Item 3 — Section 8 — Changes yes. Plus increased need to build and acquire more vouchers and housing stock.
Item 14 — Mercy House K with CHIPP continues to concern me. They cherry pick those served and provide
little in way of consistent followup.
Item 16 — Yes any help can get to our unhoused friends and their pets
Item 21 YES Broadband support to those who don't have the resources or infrastructure to support the many
needs for adequate connection. Families with children and work from home most in need. Is this enough?
Thank you
Pat Davis
Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and typos.
Public Comment
From: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 6:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Loretta Day
Subject: Item #14 -Strong Support
Good evening,
We are writing to express our strong support for Item #14. This project is incredibly important to continue. In
short, the funds help the chronically homeless stay housed and without this continued program they would,
after successfully staying housed, be back out on the streets. Mercy House has and continues to provided
exceptional services to the homeless individuals in the City of Anaheim and continues to keep these individuals
off of the streets by assisting with housing among other supportive services. We respectfully ask for a yes vote.
Thank you.
14. A rove a Professional Services Agreernent with Mercy House LlvinqQ g_n'g_rs un substantial form In an
.a
a_r:
Public Comment
From:
Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent:
Friday, September 11, 2020 7:08 PM
To:
Public Comment
Cc:
Jose Moreno; Mariso) Ramirez; Karen Romero Estrada
Subject:
Item #16 -Support
Good evening,
We are writing to express our support for item #16. Councilman Moreno brought this to Council's attention
awhile back and has since been holding online public meetings regarding the issue. It is extremely clear that
this is much needed, although we would prefer to see a much higher dollar amount, hence our support as
opposed to strong support. We do not believe that $1,000,000 is even close to the amount needed but at least
it is a start. I have attached a screenshot from one of the public meetings Dr. Moreno held. It is our strong
suggestion and hope that you review all of the information he brings to the table from the different stakeholders
he has met with to determine the extent of the need and strongly consider any amendments that meet such
need. However, we absolutely support approving assistance for this issue as soon as possible. Thank you for
your time.
16. A rove an Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Pro ram In an arnount a to $1 aaa aaa to
assist residents who have been Irnoacted by COVID-1g by orovldino financial assistance towards broadband
inte_rnet services for distance V_ a_rnin. and telecorm"nutinq.
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Public Comment
From: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 7:11 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jose Moreno; Mariso) Ramirez; Karen Romero Estrada
Subject: RE: Item #16 -Support
I realize our stance may not be clear... it is Support
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
714-337-7851
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
From: Tamara Jimenez
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 7:08 PM
To: publiccomment@anaheim.net
Cc: Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>; Marisol Ramirez <MaRamirez@anaheim.net>; Karen Romero Estrada
<KRomeroEstrada@anaheim.net>
Subject: Item #16 -Support
Good evening,
We are writing to express our support for item #16. Councilman Moreno brought this to Council's attention
awhile back and has since been holding online public meetings regarding the issue. It is extremely clear that
this is much needed, although we would prefer to see a much higher dollar amount, hence our support as
opposed to strong support. We do not believe that $1,000,000 is even close to the amount needed but at least
it is a start. I have attached a screenshot from one of the public meetings Dr. Moreno held. It is our strong
suggestion and hope that you review all of the information he brings to the table from the different stakeholders
he has met with to determine the extent of the need and strongly consider any amendments that meet such
need. However, we absolutely support approving assistance for this issue as soon as possible. Thank you for
your time.
16. A rove an Income -Qualified Internet Assistance Rebate Pro ram In an arnount a0 to $1 000 000 to
assist residents who have been Irnoacted by COVID-1g by orovldino financial assistance towards broadband
inte_rnet services for distance V_ a_rnin. and telecorm"nUtinq.
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Public Comment
From: Edgar Arellano
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:49 AM
To: Public Comment; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Denise Barnes; Lucille Kring; Trevor O'Neil;
Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Police Review Board
Subject: No on Item 20, but also No on Item 19
Hello councilmembers,
Given that you will most likely not read this correspondence, this is for the public record
No on Consent Calendar Item 20 on today's Agenda.
It is misuse of the State's Taxpayer money especially with their main premise of using "Best Practice
Strategies" as stated in the grant descriptions. A major Best Practice that has taken hold due to recent Police
Violence against our Community, is the scaling back of Policing in Traffic & Transportation Programs. Many
traffic advocacy groups & many transportation professionals that are vocally refuting enforcement as a method
to increase safety in transportation.
The Safe Routes to School Partnership has dropped Enforcement from the 6 E's of Safe Routes to Schools,
and The Vision Zero Network also pledged to no longer recommend police enforcement as strategy to make
streets safer. It is evident that further enforcement will not create safe travel and will instead continue
endangering our community as has been the case when police murdered: Oscar Grant (Oakland 2009), Cesar
Rodriguez (Long Beach 2018), William Crawford (Los Angeles 2019), & Dijon Kizzee (Los Angeles 2020).
These are but a few instances when officers have escalated a situation resulting in the murder of a person
using public transportation or the right of way; the tactics currently being used by PDs are resulting in many
more arrests due to benign & unreasonable contacts with police.
I've also been writing to you for weeks as I capture dashcam evidence of Police speeding in our
neighborhoods. Over the years, our community has noticed the reckless ways they use equipment to
'dominate' our streets, particularly their constant speeding in small neighborhood streets. I can hardly say that I
trust Anaheim PD in upholding & encouraging safe use of public streets. I am a Transportation Professional & I
am familiar with the methods that Police Depts have used these grants to collect data via enforcement, and to
do "community policing" via community events; The grant's language allows for overtime pay, which is what
many community events are classified as, the events are also a place for PD to show off their
equipment/militarization.
Finally, I want to continue reminding you that you are still violating our 4th & 5th amendment rights with your
vote in favor of resolution 19 on the June 9, 2020 council meeting. The ACLU continues to condemn the abuse
of for-profit contracts to overrule citizens privacy rights as afforded by the 4th and 5th amendment. There is no
accountability nor transparency in the APD's use of this technology equipment, and they actively refuse
inquiries due to non -disclosure agreements. The answers provided by Chief Cisneros are not satisfactory in
the slightest, the doubt was loud in the ways which staff, the city manager, & police chief have avoided the
privacy violation questions. If PD is reckless with their squad cars, then I have no confidence in their ability to
have good judgement in using the "stingray" surveillance technology.
No on Item 19, other departments are looking at limiting expenditures, so should PD and Cadets are low
hanging fruit. We don't need more police hopefuls to believe that even during economic stresses, we can
expect for wages & employment to remain normal. Other departments are finding ways, while APD continues
to maintain & grow their expenditures.
Do Better,
Edgar Arellano
Resident & business owner
District 2
Public Comment
From: Edgar Arellano
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Public Comment; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Denise Barnes; Lucille Kring; Trevor O'Neil;
Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Police Review Board
Subject: Re: No on Item 20, but also No on Item 19
Did I mention that there are better candidates with long standing expertise in both bike/ped safety education, as
well as public/community engagement. They are carrying out a similar program with OCTA currently and you
know them from the COVID19 testing they did here at Anaheim High School and elsewhere. CalWalks is
another group that does similar work.
This is one of the ways that we can stop committing to policing & instead uplift other community organizations.
A method within "refund the police".
To speak more candidly, APD sucks at taking on bike rodeo & similar programs. The events end up being
prioritized around photo ops and less around interactive education and enrichment for participating youth.
Do better,
Edgar
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:49 AM Edgar Arellano
Hello councilmembers,
wrote:
Given that you will most likely not read this correspondence, this is for the public record
No on Consent Calendar Item 20 on today's Agenda.
It is misuse of the State's Taxpayer money especially with their main premise of using "Best Practice
Strategies" as stated in the grant descriptions. A major Best Practice that has taken hold due to recent Police
Violence against our Community, is the scaling back of Policing in Traffic & Transportation Programs. Many
traffic advocacy groups & many transportation professionals that are vocally refuting enforcement as a
method to increase safety in transportation.
The Safe Routes to School Partnership has dropped Enforcement from the 6 E's of Safe Routes to Schools,
and The Vision Zero Network also pledged to no longer recommend police enforcement as strategy to make
streets safer. It is evident that further enforcement will not create safe travel and will instead continue
endangering our community as has been the case when police murdered: Oscar Grant (Oakland 2009),
Cesar Rodriguez (Long Beach 2018), William Crawford (Los Angeles 2019), & Dijon Kizzee (Los Angeles
2020). These are but a few instances when officers have escalated a situation resulting in the murder of a
person using public transportation or the right of way; the tactics currently being used by PDs are resulting in
many more arrests due to benign & unreasonable contacts with police.
I've also been writing to you for weeks as I capture dashcam evidence of Police speeding in our
neighborhoods. Over the years, our community has noticed the reckless ways they use equipment to
'dominate' our streets, particularly their constant speeding in small neighborhood streets. I can hardly say that
I trust Anaheim PD in upholding & encouraging safe use of public streets. I am a Transportation Professional
& I am familiar with the methods that Police Depts have used these grants to collect data via enforcement,
and to do "community policing" via community events; The grant's language allows for overtime pay, which is
what many community events are classified as, the events are also a place for PD to show off their
equipment/militarization.
Finally, I want to continue reminding you that you are still violating our 4th & 5th amendment rights with your
vote in favor of resolution 19 on the June 9, 2020 council meeting. The ACLU continues to condemn the
abuse of for-profit contracts to overrule citizens privacy rights as afforded by the 4th and 5th amendment.
There is no accountability nor transparency in the APD's use of this technology equipment, and they actively
refuse inquiries due to non -disclosure agreements. The answers provided by Chief Cisneros are not
satisfactory in the slightest, the doubt was loud in the ways which staff, the city manager, & police chief have
avoided the privacy violation questions. If PD is reckless with their squad cars, then I have no confidence in
their ability to have good judgement in using the "stingray" surveillance technology.
No on Item 19, other departments are looking at limiting expenditures, so should PD and Cadets are low
hanging fruit. We don't need more police hopefuls to believe that even during economic stresses, we can
expect for wages & employment to remain normal. Other departments are finding ways, while APD continues
to maintain & grow their expenditures.
Do Better,
Edgar Arellano
Resident & business owner
District 2
Public Comment
From: Edgar Arellano
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:38 PM
To: Public Comment; Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Denise Barnes; Lucille Kring; Trevor O'Neil;
Stephen Faessel; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Police Review Board
Subject: Re: No on Item 20, but also No on Item 19
*Latino Health Access is the first group I hinted at alongside CalWalks. They deliver dynamic educational
programming around traffic safety.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 3:28 PM Edgar Arellano wrote:
Did I mention that there are better candidates with long standing expertise in both bike/ped safety education, as
well as public/community engagement. They are carrying out a similar program with OCTA currently and you
know them from the COVID19 testing they did here at Anaheim High School and elsewhere. CalWalks is
another group that does similar work.
This is one of the ways that we can stop committing to policing & instead uplift other community
organizations. A method within "refund the police".
To speak more candidly, APD sucks at taking on bike rodeo & similar programs. The events end up being
prioritized around photo ops and less around interactive education and enrichment for participating youth.
Do better,
Edgar
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:49 AM Edgar Arellano
Hello councilmembers,
wrote:
Given that you will most likely not read this correspondence, this is for the public record
No on Consent Calendar Item 20 on today's Agenda.
It is misuse of the State's Taxpayer money especially with their main premise of using "Best Practice
Strategies" as stated in the grant descriptions. A major Best Practice that has taken hold due to recent Police
Violence against our Community, is the scaling back of Policing in Traffic & Transportation Programs. Many
traffic advocacy groups & many transportation professionals that are vocally refuting enforcement as a
method to increase safety in transportation.
The Safe Routes to School Partnership has dropped Enforcement from the 6 E's of Safe Routes to Schools,
and The Vision Zero Network also pledged to no longer recommend police enforcement as strategy to make
streets safer. It is evident that further enforcement will not create safe travel and will instead continue
endangering our community as has been the case when police murdered: Oscar Grant (Oakland 2009),
Cesar Rodriguez (Long Beach 2018), William Crawford (Los Angeles 2019), & Dijon Kizzee (Los Angeles
2020). These are but a few instances when officers have escalated a situation resulting in the murder of a
person using public transportation or the right of way; the tactics currently being used by PDs are resulting in
many more arrests due to benign & unreasonable contacts with police.
I've also been writing to you for weeks as I capture dashcam evidence of Police speeding in our
neighborhoods. Over the years, our community has noticed the reckless ways they use equipment to
'dominate' our streets, particularly their constant speeding in small neighborhood streets. I can hardly say
that I trust Anaheim PD in upholding & encouraging safe use of public streets. I am a Transportation
Professional & I am familiar with the methods that Police Depts have used these grants to collect data via
enforcement, and to do "community policing" via community events; The grant's language allows for overtime
pay, which is what many community events are classified as, the events are also a place for PD to show off
their equipment/militarization.
Finally, I want to continue reminding you that you are still violating our 4th & 5th amendment rights with your
vote in favor of resolution 19 on the June 9, 2020 council meeting. The ACLU continues to condemn the
abuse of for-profit contracts to overrule citizens privacy rights as afforded by the 4th and 5th amendment.
There is no accountability nor transparency in the APD's use of this technology equipment, and they actively
refuse inquiries due to non -disclosure agreements. The answers provided by Chief Cisneros are not
satisfactory in the slightest, the doubt was loud in the ways which staff, the city manager, & police chief have
avoided the privacy violation questions. If PD is reckless with their squad cars, then I have no confidence in
their ability to have good judgement in using the "stingray" surveillance technology.
No on Item 19, other departments are looking at limiting expenditures, so should PD and Cadets are low
hanging fruit. We don't need more police hopefuls to believe that even during economic stresses, we can
expect for wages & employment to remain normal. Other departments are finding ways, while APD continues
to maintain & grow their expenditures.
Do Better,
Edgar Arellano
Resident & business owner
District 2
Public Comment
From:
Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:35 PM
To:
Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Jose Moreno; Denise Barnes; Stephen Faessel; Lucille Kring;
Trevor O'Neil; Jordan Brandman; Annie Mezzacappa; Nam Bartash; Amanda Edinger;
Cynthia Ward; Helen Myers; Mariso) Ramirez; Karen Romero Estrada; Samantha Saenz;
Sarah Bartczak; Justin Glover
Cc:
Loretta Day; Public Comment
Subject:
Item #23 -OPPOSE -POSTPONE VOTE
Attachments:
item231h.pdf
Importance: High
Good evening,
I have serious concerns about item 23. Please see attached letter. This item should be postponed on Tuesday. As experts
in the field we are advising this item be revisited and brought back to council at another date. The ordinance as now
written, despite what the city attorney states, violates current state and federal laws among other numerous problems.
It will also result in us losing beds. In other words this will negatively affect us and force us to shut down part of our
operation, which by the way was just recognized as one of the top facilities in the US by Newsweek. Anaheim Lighthouse
has served this city for over 2 decades in the area of substance abuse. I would like to bring to your attention that
although we met with and gave direction to the planning department they only made minor changes and did not make
the changes suggested by our CEO who is also an attorney. We have been doing this a very long time and would like to
assist the city in creating good policy as opposed to watch the city pass bad policy and try to fix it later in legal battles,
which is what happens in other cities that do so. We would be happy to sit down with Council or staff to help you
achieve your goals in the best way possible. Please remember, we have supported this council and this city on many
fronts. We have helped you with some of your legal battles in court over the past few years, helped you with the
homeless issue, we have scholarshipped countless clients into treatment for city, the police department, the Drug Free
Anaheim Program (We took the I" participant), and for the various shelters throughout Anaheim. We have partnered
with City Net, Mercy House, Eli Home, Pathways of Hope, Anaheim Police Department Homeless Outreach Team,
Chrysalis, and many others. We actively participate in all of the city's events (pre-covid of course). We have invested a
lot into the City of Anaheim and all we are asking is that you trust us to help you with this serious issue. You are dealing
with many things from disability rights, to ADA laws, to health care, and most importantly peoples lives. We are talking
about life and death for the residents of these homes. This isn't a zoning issue to be compared to or treated like a
hotelier. We are dealing with something much more. We are simply asking that you take the time to meet with us and
understand what it is you are voting on before doing so. Anaheim is supposed to "do it better". Let's do it better
together!
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
I
September 10, 2020
Re: Item #23 -Oppose -Requesting Postponement
Dear Anaheim City Council Members:
We are writing to express that Anaheim Lighthouse has concerns about the City's proposed ordinance
regarding recovery residences also known as sober livings, and group homes. We have been operating in
the city of Anaheim in the field of recovery for over two decades. We understand the City's concern that
recovery residences are not required to be licensed and are not required to be regulated by the State or any
other governmental organizations. Additionally, we understand the City is concerned about over
concertation of these homes and operators who do not have any structure or oversight. What makes this
even harder is that is difficult to determine how many actual recovery residences are in the City.
We have similar concerns, but the proposed ordinance does not address the issues. In fact, it is making it
difficult for good operators to provide the needed services. Requiring residences to be specific distances
from each other and requiring staff meet certain requirements is very discriminating. Not only does the
ordinance violate state laws, it also violates federal laws.
We are also founding members of the Orange County Recovery Collaboration (OCRC), which consists of
representatives from law enforcement, treatment providers, recovery residences, state and local political
representatives, County Behavioral Health and local organizations that offer non -treatment services such
as food and housing to individuals in need only identified eight recovery residences, and those were
Sheriff Certified providers.
The number of sober livings or recovery residences are purely guesstimating and are inflated with
substance abuse treatment providers, group homes and transitional housing numbers. As there are no
licensing requirements to operate a recovery residence it is very difficult to identify how many recovery
residences exist in the city. According to the Recovery Residences report submitted by the Orange
County Recovery Collaboration to the city of Anaheim, 8 residences in Anaheim were identified. This
number came from the Orange County Sheriffs Sober Living Certification List. Antidotally OCRC
believes there are no more than 25, which is most likely a very high estimate, recovery residences in the
city of Anaheim. The rest of the homes in Anaheim are some type of group or transitional living home
for special populations (seniors, disabled, mentally ill etc.) that are not for persons with substance use
issues.
In short, we are requesting that the Council postpone approving the City's Ordinance regarding recovery
residences and group homes. Review the responses from OCRC, including a very thorough report on
recovery residences and support or consider the recommendations from that report.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tamara Jimenez Community Relations Manager
1320 W Pearl Street 0 Anaheim, CA 92801 0 Phone: (714) 780-1174 • Fax: (714) 844-2068
Public Comment
From: Ron Perry <Ron@roquecenterinc.org>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 6:46 AM
To: Public Comment; Loretta Day; Jose Moreno; Denise Barnes; Jordan Brandman; Harry
Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Lucille Kring; Trevor O'Neil
Cc: Dana
Subject: Item #23 -Oppose
Attachments: ron@roquecenter.org_20200911_060001.pdf
**********CONFIDENTIAL **********
Please Note: This email (a) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 u.s.c. §§2510-2521 and is legally privileged,
(b) may otherwise contain proprietary information, privileged information, or work product, and, (c) contains confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this email in error, please immediately notify the above sender via reply email, and destroy all copies, whether in
electronic or hard copy, of this email.
From: ron@roquecenter.org <cnccopiers@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 4:00 AM
To: Ron Perry <Ron@roquecenterinc.org>
Subject: Scanned image from MX -4101N
Reply to: ron@roquecenter.org <ron@roquecenter.org>
Device Name: Not Set
Device Model: MX -4101N
Location: Not Set
File Format: PDF MMR(G4)
Resolution: 200dpi x 200dpi
Attached file is scanned image in PDF format.
Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document.
Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL:
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe
Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries.
http://www.adobe.com/
Roque Center, Inc.
Residcntial, Social Model Detox Services
09/11/2020
Re: Item #23 -Oppose -Requesting Postponement
Dear Anaheim City Council Member:
My organization is Roque Center, Inc,, and I have concern about the City's proposed ordinance regarding
recovery residences also known as sober livings, and group homes. I have been working in the field of
recovery for S years. I understand the City's concern that recovery residences are not required to be
licensed and are not required to be regulated by the State or any other governmental organizations.
Additionally, I understand the City is concerned about over concentration of these homes and operators
who do not have any structure or oversight. What makes this even harder is that is difficult to
determine how many actual recovery resideftes are in the City.
I have similar concerns, but the proposed ordinance does not address the issues. In fact, it is making it
difficult for good operators to provide the needed services. Requiring residences to be specific distances
from each other and requiring staff meet certain requirements is very discriminating.
am a member of the Orange County Recovery Collaboration (OCRC), which consists of representatives
from law enforcement, treatment providers, recovery residences, state and local political
representatives, County Behavioral Health and local organizations that offer non -treatment services
such as food and housing to individuals in need only identified eight recovery residences, and those are
Sheriff Certified providers.
The number of sober livings or recovery residences are purely guesstimating and are inflated with
substance abuse treatment providers; group homes and transitional housing numbers. As there are no
licensing requirements to operate a recovery residence it is very difficult to identify how many recovery
residences exist in the city. According to the Recovery Residences report submitted by the Orange
County Recovery Collaboration to the city of Anaheim, 8 residences in Anaheim were identified. This
number came from the Orange County Sheriff's Sober Living Certification List. Anecdotally, OCRC
believes there are no more than 25, which is most likely a very high estimate, recovery residences in the
city of Anaheim. The rest of the horties in Anaheim are some type of group or transitional living home
for special populations (seniors, disabled,�mentally ill etc.) that are not for persons with substance use
issues.
In short, I am requesting that the Council. postpone approving the City's Ordinance regarding recovery
residences and group homes, review the responses from OCRC, including a very thorough report on
recovery residences and support or consider the recommendations from that report.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 1 can be reached at 714,952.4032.
11
14936 Dale avenue + SIAEU011, Calif, mini Q00 + (714)951,4032 + Fax: (714) 952A075 + ROIu-Ccnter,or- + —�
1 info�i�o��ueCeiuer"ur:;
1(';U"[F0RNI \ \E V PR FI"l iY�RPE�i :11'li)\ +
STATE L.[CENSEn AND CE:RT[FIEL), RES1 DENT IAL D'ETOX PRti�1P, +,\{
Public Comment
From: Dana <Dana@roquecenterinc.org>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 11:27 AM
To: Public Comment; Loretta Day; Jose Moreno; Denise Barnes; Jordan Brandman; Harry
Sidhu (Mayor); Stephen Faessel; Lucille Kring; Trevor O'Neil
Cc: Ron Perry
Subject: Item #23 -Oppose
Attachments: Opposeltem23.pdf
Please see attached letter that opposes Item # 23.
Dana Scott
Roque Center, Inc
Executive Director
— - --- - -ell
Roque Center, Inc.
09/11/2020
Re: Itern #23 -Oppose -Requesting Postponement
Dear Anaheim City Council Member:
Residential, Social Model Derox Services
My organization, Roque Center, Inc. and I have concern about the City's proposed ordinance regarding
recovery residences also known as sober livings, and group homes. I have been working in the field of
recovery for 20 years. I understand the City's concern that recovery residences are not required to be
licensed and are not required to be regulated by the State or any other governmental organizations.
Additionally, I understand the City is concerned about over concertation of these homes and operators
who do not have any structure or oversight. What makes this even harrier is that is difficult to
determine how many actual recovery residences are in the City.
I have similar concerns, but the proposed ordinance does not address the issues. In fact, it is making it
difficult for good operators to provide the needed services. Requiring residences to be specific distances
from each other and requiring staff meet certain requirements is very discriminating.
Roque Center provides housing to people that are waiting to get into a residential program & people
after completing residential that are transitioning to Outpatient. These clients would otherwise be
homeless. We provide a safe place to live while they get stronger in their recovery & transition to a
place of their own.
I am a member of the Orange County Recovery Collaboration (OCRC), which consists of representatives
from law enforcement, treatment providers, recovery residences, state and local political
representatives, County Behavioral Health and local organizations that offer non -treatment services
such as food and housing to individuals in need only identified eight recovery residences, and those
were Sheriff Certified providers.
The number of sober livings or recovery residences are purely guesstimating and are inflated with
substance abuse treatment providers, group homes and transitional housing numbers. As there are no
licensing requirements to operate a recovery residence it is very difficult to identify how many recovery
residences exist in the city. According to the Recovery Residences report submitted by the Orange
County Recovery Collaboration to the city of Anaheim, 8 residences in Anaheim were identified. This
number came from the Orange County Sheriff's Sober Living Certification List. Antidotally OCRC believes
there are no more than 25, which is most likely a very high estimate, recovery residences in the city of
Anaheim. The rest of the homes in Anaheim are some type of group or transitional living home for
special populations (seniors, disabled, mentally ill etc.) that are not for persons with substance use
issues.
In short, I am requesting that the Council postpone approving the City's Ordinance regarding recovery
residences and group homes. Review the responses from OCRC, including a very thorough report on
recovery residences and support or consider the recommendations from that report.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I can be reached at 714-952-4032.
Dana Scott
Executive Director
10936 Dale Avenue P Stanton, California 90680 a (714) 952.40.32 6 Fax: (714) 952-4075 + RoqueCenrer.org 0 infooRoqueCenter.org
A CALIFORNIA 40N�PROFITC'ORP(:)RATION1 0 STATE LICE�NISED AND CERTIFIED, RESIDENTIAL. DETOX PROGRAM
IIEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
September 15, 2020
Ted White
Planning & Building Director
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92508
Dear Ted,
Via
Per out telephone conversation last week, I am writing this 1
proposed ordinance. As we discussed, the Anaheim LPghthc
relationship it has with the entire City of Anaheim since 20(
our efforts to provide quality substance abuse treatment and
the City of Anaheim community.
We also appreciate your efforts to include us in the process a:
proposed ordinance. As I mentioned in our conversation, we
of local cities to develop a reasonable solution to the probleir
providers of sober living environments. We followed the Cit
following the City of Costa Mesa case(s).
151 KalmuDrive, Suite K-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone 7147384-3339
Fax 714-384-3879
11
,r regarding the above -referenced.
" truly appreciates` the business
Yob have been very supportive in
a good neighbor and member of
-und the development of the
re very familiar with the attempt
created by less than quality
of Newport case(s) and are
While we recognize and support the City of Anaheim's position around this issue; we see some
potential litigation issues for the City of Anaheim, not unsimilar to those the Cities of Newport
Beach and Costa Mesa face(d). I have attached a memo that I modified since the I last circulated
it. It addresses each concern.
The main thrust of this legislation appears to be tl
of sober living homes in the City of Anaheim and
complaints" about overcrowding, parking, noise a
provided that supports an ordinance that may rests
suspect the City gets many more complaints regar
residents use their garage for storage and park on
statement at there is an overconcentration
Le City "receives continuous resident
loitering. Yet, there is no factual basis
t constitute Drial rights of a protected class. I
ng parking where large apartment complex
local streets-
If the City does receive complaints, they must be
number of complaints to support this action. Tha
ordinance. It begs the question, "Why have they
listed as a basis for this action can be address wit]
(overcrowding), nuisance (noise), loitering and p€
The City offers the statement that there are 2051
and an additional 67 sober living beds. They be]
supporting that assertion. These numbers surely
"overconcentration" or "impairing the integrity (
number of beds in relation to the population of tl
attached memorandum, it is less than '/2 of 1 %.
would be
of offered
Why not provid
)d factual suppo
s information."
current orfinances related to
king code enforcement actioi
beds in the
the exact
for the
'he other issues
of Anaheim
ve there aw, more, but have no facts
moot be el vated to a status of
residential neighborhoods". It is a paltry
City of Anaheim. As I pointed out in the
So, those are our concerns. Our sober living beds are only
successfully completed our residential treatment program.
them back to society successfully. We don't have an issue
we see a bigger potential issue for the City. We urge the cc
and caution on this issue. Whatever their decision, we will
City of Anaheim and support the City whenever possible.
Sincerely
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., dba Anah
By:
Timothy J alyer, Esq., CEO
Cc; Tamara Jimenez
Attachment: Memo re Legislation
L by residents why
offer that service
I compliance, but
it to proceed Witt
ain a contributing
have
o transition
as stated above,
member of the
SAFfles\HMCity ofAnaheir&SLE Regu[ationlCorresPondence1202009 5 tis 2 ted white; city f wlaheirn re sle ordinance.doc
Attachment to Letter dated September 15, 2020
Anaheim Lighthouse Comments on Ordinance No.
Proposed Ordinance & Zoning Code Amendment No. 2020-001-0170
City of Anaheim
1. The seventh "WHEREAS" contains reference to the Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs ("ADP"). ADP no longer exists for several years. They were replaced with the
Department of Health Care Services ("DHCS"). This was addressed in the second draft.
2. The nineth "WHEREAS" has a typo on line four "and non -state". Separate "and" and
"non". This issue was addressed in the second draft.
3. The thirteenth "WHEREAS" states Anaheim has 205 licensed and/or certified alcoholism
and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities providing 205 beds. The City of Anaheim
is the largest city in Orange County by population with 347,000 residents. The 205 beds
represent .059% of the total population, which is miniscule;
4. The sixteenth "WHEREAS" says, "overconcentration of these facilities in residential
neighborhoods may lead to the institutionalization and commercialization of such
neighborhoods..." This is a clearly false assumption inasmuch as they represent on
.059% of the total population of the City of Anaheim;
5. The twentieth "WHEREAS" cites a 1997 study by the American Planning Association to
support the proposition that "limiting the number of recovering addicts that can be placed
in a single-family home enhances the potential for their recovery..." This is a study that
is 23 years old. It is NOT prepared by a "clinically qualified" organization that has
studied addiction treatment for the last 23 years where significant strides have been made
in the treatment field. At least cite a clinically qualified study. This looks like a boot
strap argument to anyone in the addiction field. If there is a study regarding the number
of addicts living in a home, it could be cited, but it is highly doubtful;
6. The twenty-first "WHEREAS" argues that sober living homes do NOT "provide the
disabled with an opportunity to `live in normal residential surroundings' but rather places
them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional,
campus, and/or dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide
relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life
in a normal residential surrounding..." Sober living homes were never intended to do
that. They are intended to be a temporary intermediary step between institutions and
home. This is consistent with every clinical study and several national institutions who
proscribe a "continuity of care" curriculum for recovery, such as, ASAM, SAMHAS and
the Department of Mental Health. This "WHEREAS" misses the point completely as
written;
7. The twenty-second "WHEREAS" points out some non-essential and irrelevant
distinctions between a sober living environment and a single residential housing unit.
The first one (1) is not true. Recovering addicts generally have more significant ties than
a family. Their ties are life threatening and of utmost importance. A normal household
has ties that are not "chosen". The second (2) one is not correct either. The "head" of the
"family" makes that decision, just as the head of the family makes that decision in a
normal household. It is really a hair-splitting distinction. The same with the third (3)
one. There is no "sharing" of costs between the parents and the children. The parents
pay for everything. Additionally, what significance is that? Number (5) is not true either.
First, most all sober living homes operate in a similar fashion as a normal household.
There are rules to follow. When broken, they are afforded additional chances to comply.
Only when a member fails to comply in a repeated manner they are asked to leave, unless
it is a cardinal transgression. This is similar to a normal household. That is why there are
so many juveniles in juvenile halls in Orange County;
8. The twenty-third "WHEREAS" is really incorrect. ALL neighborhoods have parking
problems when teenagers drive. Many households have 5 or 6 cars, depending on how
many teenagers live there;
9. The twenty-fourth "WHEREAS" is not correct. The City of Newport Beach, for
instance, has such a parking problem on the peninsula and in Newport Heights, that ALL
those areas have parking restriction and a sticker system. They have extended the
parking restriction into the Dover Shores area. This is ONE city in Orange County. It
has zero to do with sober living homes. It has everything to do with tourists and
teenagers, especially in Newport Heights by the high school. Parking problems in cities
cannot be blamed on sober living homes. This is especially true in Anaheim, where 205
beds represent only .059% of the total population;
10. The twenty-fifth "WHEREAS" is misleading. The distance requirements of the "State
Law" applies ONLY to mental health facilities. Again, at .059% of the total population,
there can be no valid argument related to "overconcentration" in Anaheim;
11. The twenty-sixth "WHEREAS" again is based on the fiction that there "may" be an
overconcentration of sober living homes in the City of Anaheim. Again, the City of
Anaheim is the largest city in Orange County. .059% sober living beds to population
ratio is infinitesimal. You cannot make a serious argument that this number represents a
threat of overconcentration in Anaheim. Therefore, there is no need, nor any basis, for
this legislation and the distancing requirements;
12. The twenty -seventy "WHEREAS" makes little sense at all. The recovering addict DOES
get preferential treatment to assist in their recovery. Both the State and Federal
government believe this is a socially beneficial situation and that is why they formulated
the State and Federal Fair Housing and Employment Acts and the Cal. Health and Safety
Code, sections 11830, et. seq.;
13. The twenty-eighth "WHEREAS" states reasons for this legislation, which are really
unnecessary. There are existing nuisance laws and other personal protection laws that
can be used to assure facilities are not operated in a way that constitutes a nuisance; as
stated above, there cannot be a valid argument regarding "overconcentration" of
neighborhoods; and, the City of Anaheim can provide sober living homes community
housing resource information in person or on its website.
2
C:AUsers\jhall\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\lNetCacheAContent.Outlook\7R57J5GD\20200803 City of Anaheim Ordinance comments
v2 .docx
Public Comment
From: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:38 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Loretta Day
Subject: Fwd: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Attachments: 20200803 City of Anaheim Ordinance comments v2..docx; ATT00001.htm; 20200915
tjs 2 ted white re ordinance.pdf, ATT00002.htm
Please see below
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient
Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts.
160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise provided for in the regulations. The
Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a written consent is obtained from the person to
whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol
or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Timothy Salyer<tsalye r@Iighthousetreatment.com>
Date: September 15, 2020 at 11:22:52 AM PDT
To: Ted White <TedWhite@anaheim.net>
Cc: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>,
Subject: RE: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Ted, attached please find a copy of:
1. Letter to you regarding ordinance;
2. Memo re proposed ordinance.
I would appreciate it if you could see that all council members get a copy of each. I appreciate working
with you on this. Tim
Lighthouse
151 Kalmus Dr., K-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-328-3230 Cell
The information in this e-mail and in any attachments, documents, files or previous email
messages attached to it, are confidential, privileged and intended solely for the use of the
person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution,
copying or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. This communication may contain information that is subject to legal, professional,
or other privilege, or may otherwise be protected by privilege, work product, immunity or other
legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without the sender's authority. Any
unauthorized disclosure, distribution and/or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly
prohibited. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709, the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, interception of e-mail is a crime.
From: Ted White <TedWhite@anaheim.net>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 4:58 PM
To: Timothy Salyer<tsalyer@lighthousetreatment.com>
Subject: CCF Draft Ordinance _City of Anaheim
Ti m,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I appreciate your perspective, and the on-going
service that your organization provides to the Anaheim community. Per our discussion, please find
attached a copy of the draft ordinance that will be considered by the City Council next Tuesday. I also
included the documents that summarize the changes proposed for ease of reference.
For the complete staff report and all attachments, you can find them hese. as part of the City Council
agenda.
Please call or email if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Ted White
Planning & Building Director I City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
714.765.5209
tedhit(nhimen_t
For information on any modified services during the declared Emergency Health Crisis, please click here or visit
https://www.a na heim. net/5464/City-Hal I -Services -Du ri ng -Coronavirus.
IIEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
September 15, 2020
Ted White
Planning & Building Director
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92508
Dear Ted,
Via
Per out telephone conversation last week, I am writing this 1
proposed ordinance. As we discussed, the Anaheim LPghthc
relationship it has with the entire City of Anaheim since 20(
our efforts to provide quality substance abuse treatment and
the City of Anaheim community.
We also appreciate your efforts to include us in the process a:
proposed ordinance. As I mentioned in our conversation, we
of local cities to develop a reasonable solution to the probleir
providers of sober living environments. We followed the Cit
following the City of Costa Mesa case(s).
151 KalmuDrive, Suite K-1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone 7147384-3339
Fax 714-384-3879
11
,r regarding the above -referenced.
" truly appreciates` the business
Yob have been very supportive in
a good neighbor and member of
-und the development of the
re very familiar with the attempt
created by less than quality
of Newport case(s) and are
While we recognize and support the City of Anaheim's position around this issue; we see some
potential litigation issues for the City of Anaheim, not unsimilar to those the Cities of Newport
Beach and Costa Mesa face(d). I have attached a memo that I modified since the I last circulated
it. It addresses each concern.
The main thrust of this legislation appears to be tl
of sober living homes in the City of Anaheim and
complaints" about overcrowding, parking, noise a
provided that supports an ordinance that may rests
suspect the City gets many more complaints regar
residents use their garage for storage and park on
statement at there is an overconcentration
Le City "receives continuous resident
loitering. Yet, there is no factual basis
t constitute Drial rights of a protected class. I
ng parking where large apartment complex
local streets-
If the City does receive complaints, they must be
number of complaints to support this action. Tha
ordinance. It begs the question, "Why have they
listed as a basis for this action can be address wit]
(overcrowding), nuisance (noise), loitering and p€
The City offers the statement that there are 2051
and an additional 67 sober living beds. They be]
supporting that assertion. These numbers surely
"overconcentration" or "impairing the integrity (
number of beds in relation to the population of tl
attached memorandum, it is less than '/2 of 1 %.
would be
of offered
Why not provid
)d factual suppo
s information."
current orfinances related to
king code enforcement actioi
beds in the
the exact
for the
'he other issues
of Anaheim
ve there aw, more, but have no facts
moot be el vated to a status of
residential neighborhoods". It is a paltry
City of Anaheim. As I pointed out in the
So, those are our concerns. Our sober living beds are only
successfully completed our residential treatment program.
them back to society successfully. We don't have an issue
we see a bigger potential issue for the City. We urge the cc
and caution on this issue. Whatever their decision, we will
City of Anaheim and support the City whenever possible.
Sincerely
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., dba Anah
By:
Timothy J alyer, Esq., CEO
Cc; Tamara Jimenez
Attachment: Memo re Legislation
L by residents why
offer that service
I compliance, but
it to proceed Witt
ain a contributing
have
o transition
as stated above,
member of the
SAFfles\HMCity ofAnaheir&SLE Regu[ationlCorresPondence1202009 5 tis 2 ted white; city f wlaheirn re sle ordinance.doc
Attachment to Letter dated September 15, 2020
Anaheim Lighthouse Comments on Ordinance No.
Proposed Ordinance & Zoning Code Amendment No. 2020-001-0170
City of Anaheim
1. The seventh "WHEREAS" contains reference to the Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs ("ADP"). ADP no longer exists for several years. They were replaced with the
Department of Health Care Services ("DHCS"). This was addressed in the second draft.
2. The nineth "WHEREAS" has a typo on line four "and non -state". Separate "and" and
"non". This issue was addressed in the second draft.
3. The thirteenth "WHEREAS" states Anaheim has 205 licensed and/or certified alcoholism
and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities providing 205 beds. The City of Anaheim
is the largest city in Orange County by population with 347,000 residents. The 205 beds
represent .059% of the total population, which is miniscule;
4. The sixteenth "WHEREAS" says, "overconcentration of these facilities in residential
neighborhoods may lead to the institutionalization and commercialization of such
neighborhoods..." This is a clearly false assumption inasmuch as they represent on
.059% of the total population of the City of Anaheim;
5. The twentieth "WHEREAS" cites a 1997 study by the American Planning Association to
support the proposition that "limiting the number of recovering addicts that can be placed
in a single-family home enhances the potential for their recovery..." This is a study that
is 23 years old. It is NOT prepared by a "clinically qualified" organization that has
studied addiction treatment for the last 23 years where significant strides have been made
in the treatment field. At least cite a clinically qualified study. This looks like a boot
strap argument to anyone in the addiction field. If there is a study regarding the number
of addicts living in a home, it could be cited, but it is highly doubtful;
6. The twenty-first "WHEREAS" argues that sober living homes do NOT "provide the
disabled with an opportunity to `live in normal residential surroundings' but rather places
them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional,
campus, and/or dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide
relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life
in a normal residential surrounding..." Sober living homes were never intended to do
that. They are intended to be a temporary intermediary step between institutions and
home. This is consistent with every clinical study and several national institutions who
proscribe a "continuity of care" curriculum for recovery, such as, ASAM, SAMHAS and
the Department of Mental Health. This "WHEREAS" misses the point completely as
written;
7. The twenty-second "WHEREAS" points out some non-essential and irrelevant
distinctions between a sober living environment and a single residential housing unit.
The first one (1) is not true. Recovering addicts generally have more significant ties than
a family. Their ties are life threatening and of utmost importance. A normal household
has ties that are not "chosen". The second (2) one is not correct either. The "head" of the
"family" makes that decision, just as the head of the family makes that decision in a
normal household. It is really a hair-splitting distinction. The same with the third (3)
one. There is no "sharing" of costs between the parents and the children. The parents
pay for everything. Additionally, what significance is that? Number (5) is not true either.
First, most all sober living homes operate in a similar fashion as a normal household.
There are rules to follow. When broken, they are afforded additional chances to comply.
Only when a member fails to comply in a repeated manner they are asked to leave, unless
it is a cardinal transgression. This is similar to a normal household. That is why there are
so many juveniles in juvenile halls in Orange County;
8. The twenty-third "WHEREAS" is really incorrect. ALL neighborhoods have parking
problems when teenagers drive. Many households have 5 or 6 cars, depending on how
many teenagers live there;
9. The twenty-fourth "WHEREAS" is not correct. The City of Newport Beach, for
instance, has such a parking problem on the peninsula and in Newport Heights, that ALL
those areas have parking restriction and a sticker system. They have extended the
parking restriction into the Dover Shores area. This is ONE city in Orange County. It
has zero to do with sober living homes. It has everything to do with tourists and
teenagers, especially in Newport Heights by the high school. Parking problems in cities
cannot be blamed on sober living homes. This is especially true in Anaheim, where 205
beds represent only .059% of the total population;
10. The twenty-fifth "WHEREAS" is misleading. The distance requirements of the "State
Law" applies ONLY to mental health facilities. Again, at .059% of the total population,
there can be no valid argument related to "overconcentration" in Anaheim;
11. The twenty-sixth "WHEREAS" again is based on the fiction that there "may" be an
overconcentration of sober living homes in the City of Anaheim. Again, the City of
Anaheim is the largest city in Orange County. .059% sober living beds to population
ratio is infinitesimal. You cannot make a serious argument that this number represents a
threat of overconcentration in Anaheim. Therefore, there is no need, nor any basis, for
this legislation and the distancing requirements;
12. The twenty -seventy "WHEREAS" makes little sense at all. The recovering addict DOES
get preferential treatment to assist in their recovery. Both the State and Federal
government believe this is a socially beneficial situation and that is why they formulated
the State and Federal Fair Housing and Employment Acts and the Cal. Health and Safety
Code, sections 11830, et. seq.;
13. The twenty-eighth "WHEREAS" states reasons for this legislation, which are really
unnecessary. There are existing nuisance laws and other personal protection laws that
can be used to assure facilities are not operated in a way that constitutes a nuisance; as
stated above, there cannot be a valid argument regarding "overconcentration" of
neighborhoods; and, the City of Anaheim can provide sober living homes community
housing resource information in person or on its website.
2
C:AUsers\jhall\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\lNetCacheAContent.Outlook\7R57J5GD\20200803 City of Anaheim Ordinance comments
v2 .docx
Public Comment
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please see attached.
Sherry Daley
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:41 PM
Public Comment
Public Comment RE: Item 23, Recovery residence Zoning Proposal
Anaheim City Council 9_15_2020 Final.pdf, Attachment A legislative counsel
opinion.pdf
Sherry Daley
Vice President of Governmental Affairs and
Corporate Communications
111�;�Pp
Professionals
California Consortium of
Addiction Programs and
Professionals
September 15, 2020
The Honorable Harry Sidhu
Mayor
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
2400 Marconi Ave. T (916) 338-9460 ccapp.us
Sacramento, CA 95821 F (916) 338-9468
Re: Item 23, Recovery Residence Ordinance
Dear Mayor Sidhu:
On behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP) - the largest
statewide consortium of community-based for profit and nonprofit recovery residences - we
respectfully request your "no" vote on item 23, a discriminatory ordinance against people in recovery
that will subject the City of Anaheim to significant litigation costs and increase homelessness in the
jurisdiction.
Simply put, the ordinance is discriminatory at every level because it asks people of a disabled class to
adhere to regulation that people who are not disabled are not required to conform to. Employment
checks, 24-hour supervision of adults in recovery, and distance requirements are glaringly not
"reasonable accommodations," in any sense of the definition. The ordinance has been crafted in an
extreme manner which will assuredly lead to its rejection by the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing, as well as significant litigation from the disabled persons being impacted by it.
CCAPP met with city representatives concerning this ordinance and provided written suggestions for its
construction. Although some minor changes were made by the Planning Commission, the prima facie
discriminatory nature of the ordinance has not been addressed. Rather than address the discrimination
created by the ordinance, staff has surrendered to political direction, driven by NIMBY pressure, that
seems to say, "We know the city will be sued, but this is what `council' wants."
Staff has cited a recent rejection of the temporary injunction in the Yellowstone Womens First Step
Nouse Inc et al v. City of Costa as reason to assure council that taking this route will somehow result in a
positive outcome in litigation. This is a completely false narrative being promoted by Costa Mesa council
members facing re-election and biased media sources. In Pacific Shores et. al. v. City of !Newport Beach,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against a temporary injunction when that case began; this
was not a harbinger for successful litigation in this arena. That suit resulted in the City of Newport Beach
agreeing to pay $5.25 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a group of recovery residences. Given
the settlement and both outside and in-house counsel, this case cost the City of Newport Beach well
over $10 million over the seven year course of trying to defend its actions.
Given the precarious budget issues facing all cities in California at this time, council members must
consider the cost that will be required to defend the ordinance, and, as staff has pointed out, there are
other cities with similar ordinances now being sued. Wouldn't it be prudent to delay passage of the
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
ordinance until one or more of these cases is settled? There seems to be no urgency that would warrant
council taking such a drastic, litigation -prone approach to resolving conflict between neighbors and
people in recovery.
Some of the items in the proposed ordinance (see detailed list attached), including the requirement of
24-hour paid supervision for a six bed residence, will assuredly close recovery residences, making
vulnerable people who have made all of the right steps to reintegrate into society, subject to
homelessness. It is incomprehensible, in this economy and with homeless at a critical level, that this
legislative body would consider exacerbating this issue at this time.
CCAPP presented planning commission with suggested language for an ordinance that does not impact
recovery residences that do not pose problems for neighbors, and that we believe is nondiscriminatory
in nature. CCAPP recommends that all local governments use nationally recognized certification of
homes as a means to determine disability class within the jurisdiction. Simply put, if the city is
experiencing problems with a "so-called" recovery residence (drug use, safety issues for the residents or
neighbors) it could compel that entity to prove its Americans with Disabilities Act standing by requiring it
to become certified. If the entity cannot establish certification, or has had its certification revoked by the
national affiliate, it would no longer meet fair housing protections and the city could move to close it on
the grounds that it would be a boarding house where not properly zoned. This approach would allow
experts with decades of experience to provide the city with accurate information as to the nature of the
living situation in question, thus providing the city with solid evidence to remove the "recovery
residence" standing from the operator. This is also a no cost solution which will avoid future litigation.
Before moving forward with an ordinance at this time, CCAPP implores the council to consider this
alternative approach (attached). The council can always return to the ordinance proposed tonight
should another city (doubtful) successfully litigate an ordinance such as the one being presented for
your consideration tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
c.c.: Mayor Fro Tern Stephen Foessef, Councilmembers: Barnes, Brandmon, Moreno, Kring, and O'Neil
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Specific Considerations Obiectionable in the Ordinance
1. WHEREAS, over the past several years, cities within Orange County and the State have seen an
increase in the number of homes in residential neighborhoods being utilized as state licensed
and non -state licensed community care facilities; state -licensed AOD facilities; and, nonstate
licensed facilities such as Sober Living Homes. This increase in such facilities has become a rising
concern in many cities and counties in the State, and as such, there have been numerous state
attempts at legislative fixes that have failed; and
Fails to point out that these numerous state measures have failed because they were deemed
contrary to state and federal law (see attached Legislative Counsel Opinion).
WHEREAS, records from DH CS dated May 28, 2020 show that the City is home to 15 licensed
and/or certified alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities, providing 205 beds.
The City is one of 10 cities in Orange County that has 10 or more facilities within its jurisdiction,
and one of four cities in Orange County that provides more than 200 beds within its jurisdiction;
and
The City of Anaheim has a population of 352,000 residents. A survey of American adults
revealed that drug use disorder is common, co-occurs with a range of mental health disorders
and often goes untreated. The study, funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the National Institutes of Health, found that about 4 percent of
Americans met the criteria for drug use disorder in the past year and about 10 percent have
had drug use disorder at some time in their lives. 4% of Anaheim's population is 14,080.
Anaheim has a severe shortage of necessary AOD beds for its population.
WHEREAS, the Orange County Sheriff Department ("OCSD") administers Orange County Adult
Alcohol & Drug Sober Living facilities Certification Program, which is a voluntary certification
program for Sober Living Homes.
The county has a voluntary certification program — huge distinction. CCAPP is recommending
that a voluntary approach be taken unless there is a substantiated need to determine ADA
status.
WHEREAS, overconcentration of community care facilities, ADD Facilities and Sober Living
Homes impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods and may lead to the institutionalization
and commercialization of such neighborhoods;
Discriminatory on face value. Would a concentration of birdwatchers Living together degrade a
neighborhood? Would a concentration of LGBTQ individuals degrade a neighborhood? There
are no services in a recovery residence; they are not institutions.
5. WHEREAS, the City receives continuous resident complaints regarding residential facilities
expressing concerns such as overcrowding, parking, noise, and loitering; and
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
CCAPP has asked for evidence of "continuous" from staff and received no response. CCAPP
will submit a Public Records Act request to evaluate whether these complaints include
defamatory and discriminatory comments about the nature of the disability this group of
people has. Are staff and council developing policy due to unmitigated code violations, or
complaints about "those people?" There are code enforcement provisions to address noise
and parking — why is this class of people being treated differently from other who may violate
noise or "overcrowding" ordinances?
0. WHEREAS, permitting six or fewer residents in non -licensed community care facilities and Saber
Living Homes and establishing separation requirements is reasonable and nondiscriminatory
because: (1) the State legislature, in establishing state- licensed community care and alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery or trea-,ment facilities as a residential use, found that six residents was a
sufficient number to provide the supportive living environment that experts agree is L-eneficial
to recovery; (2) the official positon of the American Planning Association as reflected in the
Policy Guide on Community Residences (1997) recommends that residential care facilities
should not be concentrated in a single neighborhood or block and that if they were to locate
next to another or be placed on the same block, the ability of the residents of such facilities to
be normalized into the community would be compromised; and, (3) limiting the number of
recovering addicts that can be placed in a single-family home enhances the potential for their
recovery as it prevents overcrowding and provides for comfortable living environments; and
(1) Point (1) has no factual context. Staff was asked to provide any evidence to demonstrate
the Legislature found this; none was received. Also, persons in treatment do not "live" in a
treatment program. Their treatment episode is limited in duration. Recovery residences
are not treatment facilities; the statement has no bearing even if it were factual. The
Legislature has specifically rejected attempts to regulate these homes as recently as
January, 2020:
The Legislature has rejected more than 15 bills attempting to regulate this housing due to its
conflict with state and federal statute. The most recent measure, SB 486 (Bates) was rejected
by Senate Health Committee on January 15, 2020, with repudiation from its Chair, Senator
Richard Pan:
"The challenge is that fundomentally we can't basically say that, well these are sober living
homes and that these ore "other houses," right? So whatever rule we apply. it has to apply
across all living situations. That's what the FHA Says. If we are going to take any approach
(to regulating) on the homes side, we have to think about things that apply equally to all
houses. The fundamental issue is, unfortunately, the bill runs afoul of civil rights law and
housing laws.»
(2) There is no evidence to support paint (3). The study cited is 23 years old and is NOT
prepared by a "clinically qualified" organization that has studied addiction treatment.
Significant strides have been made in the treatment field over more than two decades, as
has societal acceptance of alternative living groups. Those representing recovery
residences are the experts and they agree that a recovery residence in proximity to a
treatment facility is healthy and encourages participation in alumni activities that
promote long term sobriety for the residents and clients currently in treatment.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
WHEREAS, non -state licensed community care facilities, especially Sober Living Homes, often do
not function as a single housekeeping unit nor do they fit the City's zoning definition of a single
housekeeping unit, as proposed, for the following reasons: (1) the residents generally do not
have established ties to each other when they move in; (2) the residents have little to no say
about who lives or does not live in the home; (3) the residents do not generally share expenses;
(4) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (5) when
residents disobey house rules they are often simply removed from the house; (6) there is a third
party property manager (i.e. house manager) that oversees the operation of the facility; and
Recovery residences that are certified with national standards, as well as others
operating with no certification, DO operate as a single housekeeping unit. Specific
standards require them to do so as follows:
Zoning as a Single Family' Residential Unit:
Typically, recovery residences operate as a single household for living and sleeping purposes, having only
one kitchen and separate toilet facilities. They are single households where the occupants of the dwelling will
have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other,
share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. They have no indications that they will
not be operating as single household: members of the household do not have separate, private entrances from
other members; members of the household do not have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the
household do not have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.
Homes that have been certified by the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals meet
the National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standard 14 which requires a family -like setting:
"14. The residence is comfortable, inviting, and meets residents' needs b. Verification that
furnishings are typical of those in single family homes or apartments as opposed to institutional
settings; c. Verification that entrances and exits are home -like vs. institutional or clinical.; d.
Verification of 50+ sq. ti per bed per sleeping room. h. Verification that laundry services are
accessible to all residents."
A family atmosphere is also required for certification. Participants must have established ties and familiarity
with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and
expenses and responsibilities. Homes that are certified by the California Consortium of Addiction Programs
and Professionals meet the National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards 15, 23. b, 27. a -f, and 28. a-
d, which requires interaction and joint use of common areas:
"15. The living space is conducive to building community a. Verification that a meeting space is
large enough to accommodate all residents, b. Verification that a comfortable group area provides
space for small group activities and socializing; c. Verification that kitchen and dining area(s) are
large enough to accommodate all residents sharing meals together. d. Verification that
entertainment or recreational areas and/or furnishings promoting social engagement are provided."
Additionally, CCAPP certified recovery residences are required to operate as a family as follows. -
2 7.
ollows:
27. Sustain a "functionally equivalent family" within the residence by meeting at least 50% of the
following: a. Residents are involved in food preparation. b_ Residents have a voice in determining
with whom they live. e. Residents help maintain and clean the home (chores, etc.). d. Residents
share in household expenses_ e. Community or residence meetings are held at least once a week_ f
Residents have access to common areas of the home. 28. Foster ethical, peer -based mutually
supportive relationships among residents and staff a. Engagement in informal activities is
encouraged. b_ Engagement in formal activities is required. c Community gatherings, recreational
events and/or other social activities occur periodically. d. Transition (e.g. entry, phase movement
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
and exit) rituals promote residents sense of helnnging and confer progressive status and increasing
opportuniti(.-s within the recovery living envirouunent cuid conununity."
The insistence on staffs part to refer to these homes as "facilities' is erroneous. They are not
facilities. Persons living in them form close social bonds and meet to decide important issues,
including roommate selection.
Discriminatory nature of four tests four "single housekeeping units:"
"Established ties" before moving in: Many recovery residence participants know one
another from having completed treatment together or through mutual aid societies. Will the
standard of whether all persons know a new resident before he or she becomes a member
of the group, be applied to other groups of persons living together? Will college roommates
be required to prove they have "established ties" with each new roommate betore allowing
them to live together? Will families who invite a distant relative to move in be required to
prove their children know and approve of the new roommate? If the answer is "no," the city
is applying a divergent standard to a disabled class pf people.
Say about who lives or does not live in the home: Recovery resident participants agree when
choosing this lifestyle to give other recovering persons a chance to belong to their family
unit. In choosing this lifestyle, each commits to accepting new roommates who will become
part of the family. Each expects that there will be some members of the family farther along
on their personal recovery journey and others who are just beginning, This is PRECISELY why
this family unit works and why persons in recovery choose this lifestyle. To say participants
have no choice is false. They choose to live in this manner from the first day of moving into
the home.
Shared expenses: Of course residents share expenses. All contribute to rent, utilities, and
dedicate time and energy to the upkeep of the home. Laundry is typically accessible to all
persons living in the household. Like other families, people are expected to do their own
laundry and clean up after themselves. Yes; residents pay their own phone bills. Will all
families that require young people living in their homes to pay their cellular telephone bills
be expected to follow this ordinance for lack of "shared expenses?"
4. See above.
Removal from the home: In (2) staff states that residents have little choice concerning
roommates and here staff states that persons can be removed for disobeying a set of rules
the roommates have agreed upon. Removal of residents is generally driven by other
residents' desire to maintain the healthy family unit that has pledged a drug-free lifestyle.
Residents do have a say in roommate situations where they are unconducive to the family's
goals. It is not uncommon for other families to ask a member of a family who is using drugs
and disrupting other members' daily lives to move out. Will other families be required to
prove they are a single housekeeping unit if their "policy" is to ask members who will not
comply with family norms to leave, or is this provision only for people living in recovering
family units?
Third party property manager that oversees the operation of the facility: All rental
properties have a third party property manager; will all rentals need to abide by this
ordinance? There is NO facility and there is no "operation" being overseen. House
managers live with residents and are part of the family in much the same way a parent
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
would act as mentor, leader, and person who encourages that rules are followed, chores
are completed, and disputes are amicably resolved.
8. WHEREAS, because of the residents' independence from each other, non -state licensed
community care facilities and Sober Living Homes, may present impacts not typically associated
with more traditional single-family uses, including a disproportionate numbers of cars
associated with the facility, which may cause parking problems in the neighborhood; and
If there is already a residential parking permit program in the city, why is this group of citizens
required to have a separate regulation that is more specific and stringent? Is this
discriminatory? Do large families who are not in recovery face similar consequences?
9. WHEREAS, a 3001 -foot distance requirement for non -state licensed community care facilities is
appropriate as it is consistent with State Law, which states that there is an overconcentration of
certain state -licensed community care facilities if such facilities are separated by a distance of
300 feet or less; and
The types of facilities where distance requirements may be imposed is set by state statute.
This ordinance is contrary to this statute. State statute applies to licensed facilities only and
the arbiter who decides whether "overconcentration" exists is the Department sof Health Care
Services:
1520.5. (b) The Legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of the state to prevent
overconcentrations of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential
neighborhoods. Therefore, the department shall deny an application for a new
residential facility license if the department determines that the location is in a
proximity to an existing residential facility that would result in overconcentration.
10. WHEREAS, a 800 -foot distance requirement for Sober Living Homes is appropriate, as it is
consistent with an average block length of a typical residential neighborhood in the City and
provides a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of a Sober Living Home in the City
while preventing overconcentration; and
Why is this "'appropriate?" Even for state licensed facilities, 300 feet is what statute dictates.
Again, is the city acting in a discriminatory manner by requiring three times the distance for
this disabled class of people who are not living in a licensed facility?
11. WHEREAS, even with the separation requirements, this ordinance provides non -state licensed
community care facilities and Sober Living Homes with preferential treatment in that non -
disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e. boarding house) cannot reside in single
family residential zones; and
What "non -state licensed community care facilities" are being referenced? All community care
facilities providing services are required to be licensed as per Health and Safety Code 1503.5:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(a) A facility shall be deemed to be an "unlicensed community care facility" and
"maintained and operated to provide nonmedical care" if it is unlicensed and not
exempt from licensure and any one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) The facility is providing care or supervision, as defined by this chapter or the rules
and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(2) The facility is held out as or represented as providing care or supervision, as defined
by this chapter or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(3) The facility accepts or retains residents who demonstrate the need for care or
supervision, as defined by this chapter or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to
this chapter.
(4) The facility represerils itself as a licensed crummuniLy care facility.
(5) The facility is performing any of the functions of a foster family agency or holding
itself out as a foster family agency.
(6) The facility is performing any of the functions of an adoption agency or holding itself
out as performing any of the functions of an adoption agency as specified in paragraph
(9) of subdivision (a) of Section 1502 or subdivision (b) of Section 8900.5 of the Family
Code.
(b) No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in
this state.
(c) Upon discovery of an unlicensed community care facility, the department shall refer
residents to the appropriate local or state ombudsman, or placement, adult protective
services, or child protective services agency if either of the following conditions exist:
(1) There is an immediate threat to the clients' health and safety.
(2) The facility will not cooperate with the licensing agency to apply for a license, meet
licensing standards, and obtain a valid license.
Is this term "unlicensed comm unity care facility" being inserted into this ordinance in a veiled
attempt to reduce the discriminatory nature of the ordinance by requiring that it apply to
others who are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
12. .0102 Operator's Permit. Any person desiring to operate a Community Care Facility - Unlicensed
(Small), or a Sober Living Home (Small) without a valid Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug
Sober Living Facilities Certification issued by the Orange County Sheriff's Department shall first
obtain an Operator's Permit in compliance with the provisions of this section. All such
applications shall be referred to the Chief of Police (or his or her designee), who shall conduct all
necessary investigations.
In what other instance is law enforcement invited to inspect the residence of a person or
family? This is one of the most egregious requirements of the ordinance which will assuredly
be deemed discriminatory and a violation of privacy. On what basis will the chief make this
decision? Why is law enforcement involved in housing decisions? Do other families need
permission from the chief of police to live in the neighborhood they choose? If this standard
were applied to another select group of people, Black, blind, LGBTQ, etc., wouldn't it
immediately be seen as discriminatory?
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
13. .04 The owner/operator or staff person of a Sober Living Horne fails to immediately take
measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-
prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from
contact with all other sober residents.
The ordinance asks for "immediate removal' of persons not "actively participating" in a
"legitimate recovery program" and to ban communication with other residents,
Substance use disorder is prone to relapse. A person should not become homeless for relapse.
What immediate measures are to be taken? The staff report complains about "throwing
people out" and the ordinance requires this. Is this consistent? Substance use disorder is a
medical issue. Anyone relapsing may be in physical danger and in need of detoxification or
treatment. It takes time to contact family, arrange for detoxification, and find an open
treatment bed. If someone dies due to "immediate removal," wouldn't the city be exposed to
litigation? Council should be aware that "immediate removal" of a client in a licensed
treatment program is prohibited by regulation due to safety concerns for the relapsing client.
Many recovering people are not in need or do not desire to participate in recovery
programming. This is their right. If hiking in the wilderness and reuniting with family are the
recovery activities that enhance and individuals' recovery journey, they have a right to devise
any and all methods to support their recovery as possible. Will city staff, with no knowledge of
recovery define what is "legitimate?" What will constitute "active participation?" People in
recovery are mature adults with civil rights which include the right to pursue personal
recovery activities as they choose. This onerous requirement will assuredly draw civil rights
litigation.
To prove program attendance, requires violating the disabled persons' privacy (particularly if
the attendance involves outpatient treatment, a medical service, as opposed to mutual aid
meetings). Many persons in long term recovery do not necessarily attend meetings or have a
need for outpatient services. How does the city intend to take this into account? Is forcing a
person to attend a religious group or seek medical attention they no longer need contrary to
the civil rights of this group of disabled individuals? Has staff consulted any civil rights
attorneys to determine if this policy will draw civil rights organizations into any future
litigation? Is Council aware that the City of Dana Point has successfully sued a recovery
residence for requiring that outside services be attended as a violation of state licensing law
for alcohol drug treatment facilites? Does this requirement make recovery
residences "integral facilities" that require licensing? Has staff posed this question to the
licensing authority (DHCS)?
14- .01 Any owner/operator or staff person of the facility has an employment history in which he or
she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual
harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test, and selling or furnishing illegal drugs
or alcohol. .02 Any owner/operator or staff person of the facility has been convicted of or
pleaded nolo contendere, within the previous five (5) years for an owner/operator or within the
previous three (3) years for a staff person, to any of the following offenses:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(e) Any offenses in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11550 or any offense
involving the illegal sale, distribution or possession of a controlled substance specified in
California Health and Safety Ccde Sections 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057 or 11058, as may be
amended., 11055, 11056, 11057 or 11058, as may be amended.
Where would the city obtain employment and criminal background information? Many people
with substance use disorder lose employment for reasons stated in the ordinance. House
managers live at the residence. Denial of housing based on employment history is beyond
reasonable. Realizing that people in early recovery often have legal issues connected to
previous drug use, denial of housing based on criminal history, including simple possession of
cannabis, is discriminatory and specifically designed to limit this type of housing. Are other
renters in the jurisdiction denied housing for this broad array of criminal acts? Has staff
consulted housing attorneys about denial of housing based on criminal background or
employment loss? Are other businesses who provide housing held to this standard?
15. .0203 The facility shall have a house manager who resides on site or any number of persons
acting as a house manager who are present at the facility on a 24-hour basis or who will be
available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week to physically respond within forty-
five (45) minutes notice and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility.
Recovery residences are homes, not facilities. What is the "day to day operation?" What is the
house manager responsible for? This requirement, particularly for smaller homes will make it
economically unfeasible to exist. Recovery residences cannot simply require 24-hour
supervision without paying the persons responsible for providing this service. Typically, house
managers, senior residents, or mentors are paid a small stipend for thir contributions to the
leadership they provide. To change this model to 24-hour supervision would make this type
of housing unaffordable. Three 8 -hour shifts at $15 per hour would increase the cost to the
unit to $2,520 per week, or $110,080 per month. If it is the City's intention to expel this housing
from the jurisdiction via onerous financial requirements, the resulting homelessness increase
should be taken into consideration.
Persons in this stage of recovery are not in need of supervision as determined by the
American Society of Addiction Medicine:
Although persons in recovery are afforded protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the disability concerned does not imply that persons in recovery are in need of physical
assistance (dressing, feeding) or in need of supervision. In fact, the American Society of
Addiction Medicine placement criteria for addiction patients, originally published in 1991 and
now in its third edition (2013), directly contradicts the notion that persons in recovery
residences are being supervised, in a clinical sense. Use of this criteria is a decades old industry
standard and is now required for all programs licensed or certified by the Department of Health
Care Services. By definition, persons living in a recovery residence do not require supervision.
Applying ASAM criteria, persons in a supportive living environment would, at most, be classified
as level 1.0, although many in long term recovery may not even be assessed as needing any
treatment:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
ASAM PLACEMENT CRITERIA
LEVELS OF 1 OUTPT 2 INTENSIVE 3 MEQ s MEQ
OF CARE OUTPT MOW INPT MGD INPT
1, Bloc la w risk minxnal am* rrsk severe risk
W01111111110111111er1aR/Cal 24 -ter acute
MXdleat med care
no risk manageable requ1W faeglMeled
2444 psych
pesydVBB tav a atit�Wort
C,O npkag4tM no risk mild severity ntt ft to TX necWW
cooperafes 24-
heed
iiaadl►Kits but raqueres needs 24 -ht
Fix Cha -v Cooperative structure motrvatrng �.
mor@ symplarns, unable to
Raw" maem7aens needsclose contr'OI uia in
potenhw abstmcnce mmtonng outpt care
= danw toe
lass support log sbcal
ROCDMV W? MIUCILIrc encapactly
EntirannWint suppnrtrve c:rr1 COW 1- autpt
At ASAM Level I placement/Recovery Environment, it is clear that medical experts do not
consider supervision to be necessary. Likening this level to a mental health scenario, one could
compare this level to a patient who has received a higher level of care, inpatient or otherwise,
and is now perhaps receiving medication and attending weekly therapy.
16. .0207 Sober Living Home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by
Section 10501(a) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations, as may be amended: detoxification,
educational counseling, individual or group counseling sessions, and treatment or recovery
planning.
Section 10501(a) includes supervision as a service:
(3) "Care and Supervision" means any one or more of the following activities provided by a
person or facility to meet the reeds of the clients:
(A) Assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing and other personal hygiene.
(B) Assistance with taking medication, as specified in section 80075.
(C) Central storing and/or distribution of medications, as specified in section 80075.
(D) Arrangement of and assistance with medical and dental care.
(E) Maintenance of house rules for the protection of clients.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(F) Supervision of client schedules and activities.
(G) Maintenance and/or supervision of client cash resources or property.
(H) Monitoring food intake or special diets.
(1) Providing basic services as defined in section 80001(b)(2).
The ordinance both requires and prohibits: "(E) Maintenance of house rules for the protection
of clients." Perhaps the ordinance was rushed if staff did not perform a simple review of
referenced regulations and should be tabled until a thorough examination of the ordinance
can be performed. Additionally, the State of California and the nation are rapidly moving
toward medicated assisted treatment for opioid use disorder which requires central storing of
medications (C) for some in early recovery. Prohibiting the illegal use of prescribed
medications while prohibiting one of the means to accomplish this by banning central storage
of medicines is contradictory and could put some residents at risk of opioid overdose when
recovery residences in the jurisdiction are forced to deny persons using medication assisted
treatment to live in recovery residences due to this prohibition.
17. .0209 .03 A good neighbor policy, which, at minimum, requires residents to be considerate of
neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane, or obnoxious
behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling
unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house
manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
Are other citizens prohibited from profanity or being "obnoxious?" Are other families
required to respond to neighbor's complaints? Who decides what "unduly interfering" means?
There are code compliance mechanisms in place to handle such complaints for other persons
in the jurisdiction. Why is this disabled class being subjected to different criteria with
consequences that can lead to removal of housing for them? Should all citizens in the
jurisdiction who violate noise codes or use their First Amendment rights to express
themselves in poor taste be subject to loss of residency and homelessness? Is an arbitrary "be
good" clause a reasonable accommodation?
18. .0210 .01 An active program participation policy that requires ail residents, other than the house
manager, to actively participate in legitimate recovery programs located off-site. The sober
living home operator shall maintain current records of program attendance.
Who decides how much attendance is necessary for each person? What if working and
reuniting with family is what enables a person to maintain sobriety and there is no need for a
"program?" Why do residents need to leave to go to a meeting; what if the meeting is at their
home? Maintaining records regarding medical and spiritual attendance for an individual is a
violation of privacy, and in the case of outpatient treatment, a violation of Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Asking city staff to review the personal health and
spiritual activities of any of its citizens is a violation of privacy on every level.
1.9. "Family." 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
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
occupying a boardinghouse, lodging house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or any
residential or group care facility requiring a conditional use permit.
Current Anaheim Municipal Code defines a family as persons living together who share a
"domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments to each other." That is
precisely what these living environments are doing. To selectively remove them from this
definition based on their disability is poor policy from a financial, humanitarian, and societal
basis.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
RECOVERY RESIDENCE LOCAL REGULATION GUIDELINES
Presented by l ire California Consortiuni of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Rale of CCAPP:
CCAPP represents over 700 recovery residences in California and is an affiliate of the National
Alliance for Recovery Residences. CCAPP formed by consolidation with the oldest certifying
organization for recovery residences who has implemented quality standards for this type of
housing since 1979. CCAPP regularly inspects recovery residences throughout the state to ensure
they are meeting national standards for quality and adherence to recovery residence principles
which include maintaining a family -like environment in each home.
Emphasis on recovery residences as families:
In a 1980 California Supreme Court decision, City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, the court ruled,
based on privacy rights, that definitions of "family" for purposes of zoning cannot distinguish
between related and unrelated individuals. Following are examples of legal definitions of family
local governments can use:
Example 1
One or more persons living together as single house -keeping unit
Example 2
One or more persons, related or unrelated, living together as a single integrated
household in a dwelling unit
Recovery residences and other independent living environments for persons with addiction, that
function as a family, do not provide care, treatment, individual or group counseling, case
management, medication management, or treatment planning, and do not supervise daily
activities. Therefore, sober living and independent living residences that function as families are
not subject to state licensure requirements. What they do provide is a supportive family -like
setting for unrelated adults. Typical characteristics of a family found in recovery residences may
include: the formation of close emotional and psychological bonds, commitment to each other
and emotional support, rotation of chores, eating evening meals together, and socializing
together and engaging in shared activities of their choosing.
Recovery Residences (Sober Living Homes) are very different from treatment centers, assisted
living, medical residences, and mental health houses. The activities in the home do not require
anyone to directly supervise residents or provide health/physical assistance. Residents form a
supportive peer-to-peer family unit. The family structure of the Iiving space within a recovery
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
residence is a critical element to its success. It is difficult to overestimate the degree to which
participants interact as a family would. They share each other's challenges; contribute to one
another's successes; and often develop lifelong relationships with one another.
Role of Fair Housing Accommodations
To prevent discriminatory decisions regarding zoning or regulation of recovery residences,
policy makers must remove the lens of the disability that these types of household members
share. Two helpful tests follow:
Birdw atcher Analogy
Assume that the family unit being examined for regulation or zoning, taking into consideration
Santa Barbara v. Adamson, consists of a group of eight women over 50 who share a common
interest: birdwatching. The eight women live in a private residence in a residential neighborhood.
Some of the women have lived at the residence longer than others. Over a period of time, one or
more of the eight (Nancy and Cathy) take on responsibilities such as gathering rent from the
other members, making chore lists to ensure that the home stays presentable, organizing outings
for bird watching trips, and mediating disputes between house members.
Recovery residences developed from their earliest existence in this way. Members are not paying
for services or being supervised. They live together as a family and akin to all families, some
members provide leadership and generally keep the home in working order both physically and
psychologically.
If this group of housemates is not required to "register," agree to abstinence, seek a permit to live
in a residential neighborhood, or agree to restrictions that other families do not submit to, any
ordinance that seeks to treat people with addiction differently than birdwatchers, would be
considered to be based upon the disability of the residents (addiction). It would therefore be
considered discriminatory on its face.
LGBTQ Analogy
Assume that the family unit being examined for regulation or zoning, taking into consideration
Santa Barbara v. Adamson, consists of a group of eight young adults who are gay or bi-sexual,
who share a common need to support each other from a society that discriminates against their
sexual orientation and decide that, for their safety and security, sharing a home together is a
preferable option.
Although this household likely is not common, it would never be considered for an ordinance to
"regulate" it so that neighbors feel safe living near it. No local jurisdiction would contemplate
crafting an ordinance to compel a household of gay men to come forward, make itself known,
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
submit to "registering," agree to rules that if not followed would leave them homeless, or require
them to prove they are anything other than an ordinary family unit.
If a proposed ordinance cannot be applied to a home with a group of gay men living together,
likewise it cannot be reasonably applied to people with addiction who choose to live together,
without being considered equally discriminatory.
This household of gay men enjoys another protection not shared by the birdwatchers. Under
California law discrimination based on sexual preference is explicitly illegal. Individuals in
recovery from substance use disorders are considered disabled for purposes of access to housing,
and share the same statutory protection, under both California and federal law.
Addressing Problem Homes without Discrimination
CCA -PP's mission is to improve the quality of and access to addiction treatment and recovery
services. For decades, CCAPP has actively sought to eliminate abusive or poorly run "recovery
residences." The safety of people in recovery is the organization's primary objective. As such,
CCAPP has spent years gathering data, meeting with attorneys, and working with the Legislature
and Administration to create guidance that will assist local government in protecting people in
recovery, while encouraging harmony for recovering people and the communities they have
always lived in.
The first rule for addressing problem homes is to treat them in the same way that any
neighborhood problem would be addressed. Strong code enforcement is critical to ridding
neighborhoods of nuisance homes. This approach does not violate the rights of the disabled
because it is applied evenly, to all members of the community.
CCAPP is abundantly aware that some operators victimize people in early recovery, offering
cheap rooms with little or no "family environment" and no attempt to collaborate on supporting
residents' goals in recovery. These types of arrangements are NOT family units and do not fall
under the definition of recovery residence. They should be evaluated according to their structure
(boarding house, group home, assisted living, etc.) and zoned as such.
CCAPP also recognizes that there are times when a local government may be unable to
determine whether a particular congregate living situation meets the definition of a bona fide
recovery residence. In these instances, the local jurisdiction should be allowed to compel a home
to become certified by an organization aff f ated with the National Alliance for Recovery
Residences to settle any disputes about the classification of the home.
To address nuisance homes that fail to utilize quality standards to the extent that they impact the
health and safety of the residents and community, CCAPP recommends that local ordinances
require continuous certification for violators. In this way, a local jurisdiction could challenge the
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
zoning classification of boarding houses that masquerade as "sober living." It would also allow
local jurisdictions to classify the use of a property as other than single family occupancy if its
certification is revoked by the certifying organization for failing to fulfill its contractual
agreements for quality and consumer protection.
The use of certification to determine proper classification for property use is a way to ensure that
a community can rid itself of poorly run boarding houses white leaving recovery residence
families to continue to live without fear of discrimination.
CCAPP has crafted a draft local ordinance for use in updating codes to reflect the needs of
communities to address imposter recovery residences. The model ordinance relies on anti-
discrimination foundations that CCAPP believes will withstand legal challenge from disability
rights advocates and fair housing representatives. It is attached for your consideration.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Recovery Residence
Model Local Ordinance
Proposed by:
The California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Title: Recovery Residence Housing
A. Recovery Residence. "Recovery residence" means a residential dwelling that provides primary
housing for individuals who seek a cooperative living arrangement that supports personal recovery from
a substance use disorder and that does not require licensure by the Department of Health Care Services
and does not provide licensable services, pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 11834.01)
of the Health and Safety Code. A recovery residence may include, but is not limited to, residential
dwellings commonly referred to as "sober living homes," "sober living environments," or "unlicensed
alcohol and drug free residences."
B. Recovery Residence Zoning
1. Residents of a recovery residence shall be considered a family and the recovery residence shall be
considered a residential use of property.
2. A recovery residence shall be allowed as a use by right in the following zoning classifications: dist all
locations where dwelling units are allowed.
3. A recovery residence shall comply with the development standards for one family or multiple family
dwellings, as applicable, located within the same zone.
4. To distinguish a recovery residence from other congregate living, group facility, or health facility
designations, when the manner in which the residence is operated cannot be accurately categorized as a
recovery residence, evidence of current certification from a recognized nonprofit certifying organization,
as defined in C., shall be considered shall constitute proof that such residence is a recovery residence. A
recovery residence shall be allowed 90 days from the date of notice of violation, or equivalent formal
notification from a city or county agency, to apply for and be certified by the recognized nonprofit
certifying organization.
C. For purposes of this article, a recognized nonprofit certifying organization means an organization that
is currently a recognized affiliate of the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR), or a successor
agency, and has adopted the standards approved by NARR, including at least the following:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
1. The recovery residence is being used as a residence for persons recovering from substance use
disorder and participants are engaged in recovery programs of their choosing;
2. The recovery residence observes and promotes a zero tolerance policy regarding the
consumption or possession of alcohol and controlled substances, except for prescription
medications used in accordance with the prescription;
3. The recovery residence has no sanitation or structural issues that pose a threat to the safety and
wellbeing of the participants;
4. The recovery residence has a written policy for addressing relapse and the use of drugs or
alcohol;
5. The recovery residence operates as a family unit: sharing chores and responsibilities, working
together to support residents' personal goals, socializing together with meals and activities, and
determining policies and goals together that benefit the family unit.
D. The (insert city, county, or city and county) or local law enforcement that has documented, that a
recovery residence within its jurisdiction is not operating in compliance with NARR standards to an
extent that resident or community safety is being impacted, in a manner that suggests fraudulent
activity is occurring, or in a manner that would require licensure as a residential treatment facility,
shall report these findings to the Department of Health Care Services for suspected unlicensed activity,
to the County District Attorney for suspected fraudulent activity, or to the NARR affiliate that provides
certification for the recovery residence for not operating in compliance with NARR standards.
E. A recovery residence shall provide no on-site, clinical services such as, but not limited to, educational
counseling, counseling sessions, treatment planning, or detoxification.
F. A recovery residence that cannot obtain certification, when required for determining zoning
classification, or has its certification revoked by a recognized nonprofit certifying organization, shall no
longer be considered a recovery residence and must comply with requirements for the designated
property classification assigned to it.
G. No recovery residence shall be required to register with, seek a permit from, or disclose its location to
the (city/county) or to any of its subdivisions, departments or agencies. Where certification of a
recovery residence is necessary to determine that the residence meets the definition of recovery
residence, the recovery residence shall request that a verification letter be mailed directly from the
recognized nonprofit organization to the (city/county) and the (city/county) may verify the ongoing
status of the certification by viewing the organization's public database or by contacting the
organization directly.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
LEGRSLAr IVE COUNSEL. A TRADITION OF TRUSTED LEGAL SERVICE
Diane E Boyer -Vine TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
I uter DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
Aaron D. Silva. O V N S E L 925 L STREET
PRINCIPAL DEPUTIES V EAU SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
Joe Ayala TELEPHONE (916) 341-8000
Sergio E. Carpio
AmyJean Haydt
Thomas J. Kerbs
Kirk S. Louie
Fred A. Messerer
Lara Bierman Nelson
Robert A. Pratt
Stephen G. Dehrer
Lisa C. Goldkuhl
L. Erik Lange
William. E. Moddelmog
Sheila R. Mohan
Gerardo Partida
Robert D. Roth
Michelle L. Samore
Stephanie Lynn Shirkey
DrPUTIES
JudyAnne Alanis
Paul Arata
Jennifer Klein Baldwin
Jeanette Barnard
Jennifer M. Barry
Vanessa S. Bedford
Robert C. Binning
Brian Bitzer
Rebecca Bitzer
Brian Bobb
Ann M. Bumstero
William Chan
Elaine Chu
Paul Coaxum
Byron D. Damiani,.Jr.
Thomas Dombrowski
Roman A. Edwards
Sharon L. Everett
Krista M. Ferns
Jessica S. Gosuey
Nathaniel W. Grader
Ryan Greenlaw
Mari C. Guzman
Ronny Hamed-Troyansky
Jacob D. Hettinger
Alex Hirsch
Stephanie Elaine Hoehn
Russell H. Holder
Cara L. Jenkins
Valerie R. Jones
Lori Ann Joseph
Dave Judson
Alyssa Kaplan
Amanda C. Kelly
Christina M. Kenzie
Michael]. Kerins
Deborah Kiley
Mariko Kotam
Felicia A. Lee
Kathryn W.Loudenberg
Richard Mahiea
Anthony P Marquez
Aimee Martin
Francisco Martin
Amanda Mattson
Abigail Maurer
Natalie R. Moore
Lindsey S. Nakano
Yooli Choi O'Brien
Christine Paxinos
Sue-Atn, Peterson
Lisa M. Plummer
Stacy Saechao
Kevin Schmitt
Any E. Schweitzer
Melissa M. Scolari
Jessica L. Steele
Mark Franklin Terry
Josh Tosney
Daniel Vandekoolwyk
Joanna E. Varner
Bradley N. Webb
Rachelle M. Weed
Genevieve Wong
Armin G. Yazdi
Jack Zorman
FACSIMILE (916) 341-8020
INTERNET WWW.LEGISLATIVECOUNSELCA.GOV
July 6, 2018
Honorable Bob Wieckowski
Room 4085, State Capitol
SOBER LIVING HOMES: DISCRIMINATORY
ZONING: ENFORCEMENT - #1810121
Dear Senator Wieckowski;
QUESTION
If a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or
continued operation of a sober living home' in a manner that violates state or federal laws that
prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities, which government entities may
bring an action to invalidate the ordinance?
DISCUSSION
A zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or continued operation of a
sober living home may violate several state and federal statutes that prohibit housing
discrimination against persons with disabilities
Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142
statutes and their enforcement provisions below.
Federal Fair Housing Act
(See Pacific Sbores Properties, LLC v. City of
(hereafter Pacific Shores).) We discuss these
The federal Fair Housing Act (hereafter FHA) (42 U.S.C. 4 3601 et seq.) renders
it unlawful to "discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a
Although the term "sober living home" is not defined in statute, it is generally understood
to mean an unlicensed facility that provides a residence for people who are recovering from alcohol or
drug addiction, (See, e.g., California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California; Options for
State and Local Regulation (Oct. 2016), p.2, available at <httpst//www.library.ca.gov/Content/
pdf/ crb/reports/CRB_SoberLivingReport_2016,pdf> [as of June 25, 2018].)
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121— Page 2 of 5
dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap ...." (42 U.S.C. 4 3604(f)(1),) Courts
have determined that a person who is recovering from drug or alcohol addiction is disabled2
under the FHA and therefore protected from housing discrimination. (Pacific Shores, supra,
730 F.3d at p. 1156-1157; see 42 U.S.C. 4 3602(h).)
Government zoning practices may violate the FHA if they result in the unavailability
of housing for disabled persons and therefore discriminate against those individuals. (Pacific
Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157.) Moreover, the FHA expressly preempts state and local laws
that conflict with its provisions, providing that "any law of a State, a political subdivision, or
other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a
discriminatory housing practice under [the FHA] shall to that extent be invalid."
(42 U.S.C. 4 3615,) Thus, a zoning ordinance is invalid if it amounts to a discriminatory
housing practice under the FHA. (See Gibson v. County of Riverside (C.D. Cal. 2002)
181 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1084.)
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereafter
HUD) and the United States Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing the
FHA. (42 U.S.C, 44 3610, 3612,) The FHA gives HUD the power to receive, investigate,
and conciliate complaints of discrimination, including complaints that a state or local
government has discriminated in exercising its land use and zoning powers.
(42 U.S.C. 4 3610.) After receiving a complaint, HUD must determine whether, based on
the facts presented in the complaint, reasonable cause exists to believe that housing
`discrimination has occurred. ' 2 U.S.C: § 3610(g)(1)0 If, after making the reasonable cause
determination, HUD further determines that a complaint relates to "the legality of any State
or local zoning or other land use law or ordinance," it is required to "immediately refer the
matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action" in civil court.
(42 U.S.C, 4 3610(g)(2)(C).) The United States Attorney General has discretion to bring
suit against the locality within 18 months after the practice at issue occurred.
(42 U,S.C. 4 3614(b).)
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (hereafter ADA) (42 U.S.C. 4 12101
et seq.) protects persons with disabilities from discrimination in employment, public services,
and public accommodations. The ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the
benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity." (42 U.S,C. 4 12132.) Like the FHA, this provision
prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against disabled persons through zoning.
2 Although the FHA uses the term "handicap," courts generally use the preferred term
"disabled" when discussing these provisions, (Pacific Shores Properties, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1156,
fn. 15.)
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121 — Page 3 of 5
(Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157.) The ADA's protections also extend to persons
recovering from drug or alcohol addiction. (Ibid.)
The standards regarding disparate treatment claims under the FHA and the ADA
are typically identical, and courts accordingly "interpret them in tandem." (Pacific Shores, supra,
730 F.3d at p. 1157.) Therefore, if an ordinance violates the FHA on the basis that it
discriminates against disabled persons through zoning, the ordinance would also likely violate
the ADA,
The United States Attorney General is the federal entity responsible for
administering and enforcing the ADA with respect to all programs, services, and regulatory
activities relating to planning and development by public entities. (42 U.S.C. § 12133;
28 C.F.R. § 35.190.) An individual who believes that he or she has been subjected to
discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may file a complaint with the
United States Attorney General, (28 C.F.R. § 35,170,) The United States Attorney General
is required to investigate the complaint and, if appropriate, attempt informal resolution of any
matter being investigated, (28 C.F.R. § 35,172.) If the public entity being investigated declines
to enter into voluntary compliance negotiations or if negotiations are unsuccessful, the
United States Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action to enforce the ADA.
(42 U.S.C, § 12133; 28 CRR. § 35.174.)
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
(hereafter FEHA)' prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of certain characteristics,
including disability. (§ 12955,) Like the FHA and ADA, courts have recognized that persons
recovering from alcohol and drug abuse are disabled for purposes of FEHA, (See City of
Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg, Code Council (1994) 18 F.3d 802.) Moreover, courts analyze
FEHA claims under the same standards as FHA claims, (Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F,3d at
p. 1156, fn. 14.) Thus, an ordinance that violates the FHA on the basis that it discriminates
against disabled persons through zoning would also violate FEHA,
The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereafter DFEH) and
the California Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing FEHA, (§ 12930 et seq,)
A person may file a complaint with the DFEH alleging that a zoning ordinance violated
FEHA by discriminating on the basis of disability. (§§ 12955, subd, (1), 12980 subd, (a).)
Upon the filing of a complaint, the DFEH is required to commence an investigation.
(§ 12980, subd. (f).) If the DFEH determines that a FEHA violation occurred, but is unable
to eliminate the violation through conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion, it is
required to bring a civil action on behalf of the aggrieved person as a real party in interest.
(§ 12981.)
3 All further section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121 — Page 4 of 5
The California Attorney General is also authorized to bring a civil action to
enforce FEHA upon referral from the DFEH or if he or she has reasonable cause to believe
that any person or group is engaged in a pattern of denying others the rights granted by
FEHA or that denial of those rights raises an issue of general public importance. (§ 12989.3.)
These procedures apply to complaints that concern local land use ordinances. (§ 12981,
subd. (b).)4
Thus, if a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts sober living
homes in a manner that violates FEHA, the DFEH or the California Attorney General may
bring an action to invalidate the ordinance.
California Planning and Zoning Law
A zoning ordinance that prohibits or restricts sober living homes may also violate
the state Planning and Zoning Law (§ 65000 et seq.). Section 65008, which forms part of the
Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits local governments from discriminating against
residential developments on the basis that the intended occupants have any of the
characteristics protected by FEHA, including disability. (§ 65008, subd. (b).) That section
provides that a local government action is "null and void" if it interferes with the residency of
a person on the basis of those characteristics (id. at subd. (a)) and prohibits local governments
from imposing different requirements on developments because of the characteristics,
including disability, of the intended occupants (id. at subd. (d)(2)).
In general, the Planning and Zoning Law serves "the same purpose [as] and
contains similar language to the federal Fair Housing Act." (Keith v. Volpe (9th Cir. 1988)
858 F.2d 467, 485.) Therefore, by "proving a claim under the Fair Housing Act, plaintiffs also
establish[] a violation of section 65008(6)." Jbid.)
The state Department of Housing and Community Development (hereafter
DHCD) and the California Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing the
antidiscrimination provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law. (§ 65585.) If the DHCD
determines that a local government has taken an action in violation of section 65008, it may
notify the California Attorney General of this violation. (§ 65585, subd. (j).) The California
Attorney General "has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is interested,"
except for matters pertaining to the University of California and certain state boards and
officers, so he or she may pursue a civil suit on behalf of the DHCD to invalidate an ordinance
that violates the Planning and Zoning Law. (§ 12511; see Keith v. Volpe (C.D. Cal. 1986)
644 F.Supp.1317, 1321.)
4 Section 12981, subdivision (b) provides that if the DFEH "determines that an
allegation concerns the legality of any zoning or other land use law or ordinance, the department
or the Attorney General shall take appropriate action with respect to the complaint according to
the procedures established in this part for other complaints of housing discrimination."
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request* 1810121 — Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
If a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or
continued operation of a sober living home in a manner that violates state and federal laws
prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities, the following government entities
may bring a civil action to invalidate the ordinance; the United States Attorney General, the
California Attorney General, and the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Additionally, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
state Department of Housing and Community Development may investigate a complaint of
housing discrimination and refer the matter to the United States Attorney General or the
California Attorney General, respectively, for appropriate action in civil court,
Very truly yours,
Diane F. Boyer -Vine
Legislative Counsel
By
Natalie R, Moore
Deputy Legislative Counsel
NRM.blt
Jennifer L. Hall
From:
Theresa Bass
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 3:03 PM
To:
Jennifer L. Hall
Subject:
Item #23
Attachments:
Anaheim City Council 9_15_2020 Final.pdf, ATT00001.htm; Attachment A legislative
counsel opinion.pdf, ATT00002.htm
The below/attached was distributed to the City Council.
From: Tamara Jimenez<tiimenez@lighthousetreatment.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Denise Barnes <DBarnes@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel
<SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Lucille Kring <LKring@anaheim.net>; Jordan
Brandman <JBrandman@anaheim.net>; Trevor O'Neil <TONeil@anaheim.net>
Subject: Item #23
Please see below before tonight & call Sherry Daley with any questions
Have a great day,
Tamara Jimenez
Community Relations Manager
Lighthouse
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message is protected under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Patient Records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA"), 45 C.F.R. Pts. 160 & 164 and cannot be disclosed without written consent unless otherwise
provided for in the regulations. The Federal rules prohibit any further disclosure of this information unless a
written consent is obtained from the person to whom it pertains. The Federal rules restrict any use of this
information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sherry Daley
Date: September 15, 2020 at 2:42:00 PM PDT
To: Tamara Jimenez <tjimenez o,lighthousetreatment.com>
Subject: Council Submission
Sherry Daley
Vice President of Governmental Affairs and
Corporate Communications
AIM6
p
Addiction Programis and
Professionals
California Consortium of
Addiction Programs and
Professionals
September 15, 2020
The Honorable Harry Sidhu
Mayor
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
2400 Marconi Ave. T (916) 338-9460 ccapp.us
Sacramento, CA 95821 F (916) 338-9468
Re: Item 23, Recovery Residence Ordinance
Dear Mayor Sidhu:
On behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP) - the largest
statewide consortium of community-based for profit and nonprofit recovery residences - we
respectfully request your "no" vote on item 23, a discriminatory ordinance against people in recovery
that will subject the City of Anaheim to significant litigation costs and increase homelessness in the
jurisdiction.
Simply put, the ordinance is discriminatory at every level because it asks people of a disabled class to
adhere to regulation that people who are not disabled are not required to conform to. Employment
checks, 24-hour supervision of adults in recovery, and distance requirements are glaringly not
"reasonable accommodations," in any sense of the definition. The ordinance has been crafted in an
extreme manner which will assuredly lead to its rejection by the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing, as well as significant litigation from the disabled persons being impacted by it.
CCAPP met with city representatives concerning this ordinance and provided written suggestions for its
construction. Although some minor changes were made by the Planning Commission, the prima facie
discriminatory nature of the ordinance has not been addressed. Rather than address the discrimination
created by the ordinance, staff has surrendered to political direction, driven by NIMBY pressure, that
seems to say, "We know the city will be sued, but this is what `council' wants."
Staff has cited a recent rejection of the temporary injunction in the Yellowstone Womens First Step
Nouse Inc et al v. City of Costa as reason to assure council that taking this route will somehow result in a
positive outcome in litigation. This is a completely false narrative being promoted by Costa Mesa council
members facing re-election and biased media sources. In Pacific Shores et. al. v. City of !Newport Beach,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against a temporary injunction when that case began; this
was not a harbinger for successful litigation in this arena. That suit resulted in the City of Newport Beach
agreeing to pay $5.25 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a group of recovery residences. Given
the settlement and both outside and in-house counsel, this case cost the City of Newport Beach well
over $10 million over the seven year course of trying to defend its actions.
Given the precarious budget issues facing all cities in California at this time, council members must
consider the cost that will be required to defend the ordinance, and, as staff has pointed out, there are
other cities with similar ordinances now being sued. Wouldn't it be prudent to delay passage of the
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
ordinance until one or more of these cases is settled? There seems to be no urgency that would warrant
council taking such a drastic, litigation -prone approach to resolving conflict between neighbors and
people in recovery.
Some of the items in the proposed ordinance (see detailed list attached), including the requirement of
24-hour paid supervision for a six bed residence, will assuredly close recovery residences, making
vulnerable people who have made all of the right steps to reintegrate into society, subject to
homelessness. It is incomprehensible, in this economy and with homeless at a critical level, that this
legislative body would consider exacerbating this issue at this time.
CCAPP presented planning commission with suggested language for an ordinance that does not impact
recovery residences that do not pose problems for neighbors, and that we believe is nondiscriminatory
in nature. CCAPP recommends that all local governments use nationally recognized certification of
homes as a means to determine disability class within the jurisdiction. Simply put, if the city is
experiencing problems with a "so-called" recovery residence (drug use, safety issues for the residents or
neighbors) it could compel that entity to prove its Americans with Disabilities Act standing by requiring it
to become certified. If the entity cannot establish certification, or has had its certification revoked by the
national affiliate, it would no longer meet fair housing protections and the city could move to close it on
the grounds that it would be a boarding house where not properly zoned. This approach would allow
experts with decades of experience to provide the city with accurate information as to the nature of the
living situation in question, thus providing the city with solid evidence to remove the "recovery
residence" standing from the operator. This is also a no cost solution which will avoid future litigation.
Before moving forward with an ordinance at this time, CCAPP implores the council to consider this
alternative approach (attached). The council can always return to the ordinance proposed tonight
should another city (doubtful) successfully litigate an ordinance such as the one being presented for
your consideration tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer
c.c.: Mayor Fro Tern Stephen Foessef, Councilmembers: Barnes, Brandmon, Moreno, Kring, and O'Neil
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Specific Considerations Obiectionable in the Ordinance
1. WHEREAS, over the past several years, cities within Orange County and the State have seen an
increase in the number of homes in residential neighborhoods being utilized as state licensed
and non -state licensed community care facilities; state -licensed AOD facilities; and, nonstate
licensed facilities such as Sober Living Homes. This increase in such facilities has become a rising
concern in many cities and counties in the State, and as such, there have been numerous state
attempts at legislative fixes that have failed; and
Fails to point out that these numerous state measures have failed because they were deemed
contrary to state and federal law (see attached Legislative Counsel Opinion).
WHEREAS, records from DH CS dated May 28, 2020 show that the City is home to 15 licensed
and/or certified alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities, providing 205 beds.
The City is one of 10 cities in Orange County that has 10 or more facilities within its jurisdiction,
and one of four cities in Orange County that provides more than 200 beds within its jurisdiction;
and
The City of Anaheim has a population of 352,000 residents. A survey of American adults
revealed that drug use disorder is common, co-occurs with a range of mental health disorders
and often goes untreated. The study, funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the National Institutes of Health, found that about 4 percent of
Americans met the criteria for drug use disorder in the past year and about 10 percent have
had drug use disorder at some time in their lives. 4% of Anaheim's population is 14,080.
Anaheim has a severe shortage of necessary AOD beds for its population.
WHEREAS, the Orange County Sheriff Department ("OCSD") administers Orange County Adult
Alcohol & Drug Sober Living facilities Certification Program, which is a voluntary certification
program for Sober Living Homes.
The county has a voluntary certification program — huge distinction. CCAPP is recommending
that a voluntary approach be taken unless there is a substantiated need to determine ADA
status.
WHEREAS, overconcentration of community care facilities, ADD Facilities and Sober Living
Homes impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods and may lead to the institutionalization
and commercialization of such neighborhoods;
Discriminatory on face value. Would a concentration of birdwatchers Living together degrade a
neighborhood? Would a concentration of LGBTQ individuals degrade a neighborhood? There
are no services in a recovery residence; they are not institutions.
5. WHEREAS, the City receives continuous resident complaints regarding residential facilities
expressing concerns such as overcrowding, parking, noise, and loitering; and
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
CCAPP has asked for evidence of "continuous" from staff and received no response. CCAPP
will submit a Public Records Act request to evaluate whether these complaints include
defamatory and discriminatory comments about the nature of the disability this group of
people has. Are staff and council developing policy due to unmitigated code violations, or
complaints about "those people?" There are code enforcement provisions to address noise
and parking — why is this class of people being treated differently from other who may violate
noise or "overcrowding" ordinances?
0. WHEREAS, permitting six or fewer residents in non -licensed community care facilities and Saber
Living Homes and establishing separation requirements is reasonable and nondiscriminatory
because: (1) the State legislature, in establishing state- licensed community care and alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery or trea-,ment facilities as a residential use, found that six residents was a
sufficient number to provide the supportive living environment that experts agree is L-eneficial
to recovery; (2) the official positon of the American Planning Association as reflected in the
Policy Guide on Community Residences (1997) recommends that residential care facilities
should not be concentrated in a single neighborhood or block and that if they were to locate
next to another or be placed on the same block, the ability of the residents of such facilities to
be normalized into the community would be compromised; and, (3) limiting the number of
recovering addicts that can be placed in a single-family home enhances the potential for their
recovery as it prevents overcrowding and provides for comfortable living environments; and
(1) Point (1) has no factual context. Staff was asked to provide any evidence to demonstrate
the Legislature found this; none was received. Also, persons in treatment do not "live" in a
treatment program. Their treatment episode is limited in duration. Recovery residences
are not treatment facilities; the statement has no bearing even if it were factual. The
Legislature has specifically rejected attempts to regulate these homes as recently as
January, 2020:
The Legislature has rejected more than 15 bills attempting to regulate this housing due to its
conflict with state and federal statute. The most recent measure, SB 486 (Bates) was rejected
by Senate Health Committee on January 15, 2020, with repudiation from its Chair, Senator
Richard Pan:
"The challenge is that fundomentally we can't basically say that, well these are sober living
homes and that these ore "other houses," right? So whatever rule we apply. it has to apply
across all living situations. That's what the FHA Says. If we are going to take any approach
(to regulating) on the homes side, we have to think about things that apply equally to all
houses. The fundamental issue is, unfortunately, the bill runs afoul of civil rights law and
housing laws.»
(2) There is no evidence to support paint (3). The study cited is 23 years old and is NOT
prepared by a "clinically qualified" organization that has studied addiction treatment.
Significant strides have been made in the treatment field over more than two decades, as
has societal acceptance of alternative living groups. Those representing recovery
residences are the experts and they agree that a recovery residence in proximity to a
treatment facility is healthy and encourages participation in alumni activities that
promote long term sobriety for the residents and clients currently in treatment.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
WHEREAS, non -state licensed community care facilities, especially Sober Living Homes, often do
not function as a single housekeeping unit nor do they fit the City's zoning definition of a single
housekeeping unit, as proposed, for the following reasons: (1) the residents generally do not
have established ties to each other when they move in; (2) the residents have little to no say
about who lives or does not live in the home; (3) the residents do not generally share expenses;
(4) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (5) when
residents disobey house rules they are often simply removed from the house; (6) there is a third
party property manager (i.e. house manager) that oversees the operation of the facility; and
Recovery residences that are certified with national standards, as well as others
operating with no certification, DO operate as a single housekeeping unit. Specific
standards require them to do so as follows:
Zoning as a Single Family' Residential Unit:
Typically, recovery residences operate as a single household for living and sleeping purposes, having only
one kitchen and separate toilet facilities. They are single households where the occupants of the dwelling will
have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other,
share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. They have no indications that they will
not be operating as single household: members of the household do not have separate, private entrances from
other members; members of the household do not have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the
household do not have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.
Homes that have been certified by the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals meet
the National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standard 14 which requires a family -like setting:
"14. The residence is comfortable, inviting, and meets residents' needs b. Verification that
furnishings are typical of those in single family homes or apartments as opposed to institutional
settings; c. Verification that entrances and exits are home -like vs. institutional or clinical.; d.
Verification of 50+ sq. ti per bed per sleeping room. h. Verification that laundry services are
accessible to all residents."
A family atmosphere is also required for certification. Participants must have established ties and familiarity
with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and
expenses and responsibilities. Homes that are certified by the California Consortium of Addiction Programs
and Professionals meet the National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards 15, 23. b, 27. a -f, and 28. a-
d, which requires interaction and joint use of common areas:
"15. The living space is conducive to building community a. Verification that a meeting space is
large enough to accommodate all residents, b. Verification that a comfortable group area provides
space for small group activities and socializing; c. Verification that kitchen and dining area(s) are
large enough to accommodate all residents sharing meals together. d. Verification that
entertainment or recreational areas and/or furnishings promoting social engagement are provided."
Additionally, CCAPP certified recovery residences are required to operate as a family as follows. -
2 7.
ollows:
27. Sustain a "functionally equivalent family" within the residence by meeting at least 50% of the
following: a. Residents are involved in food preparation. b_ Residents have a voice in determining
with whom they live. e. Residents help maintain and clean the home (chores, etc.). d. Residents
share in household expenses_ e. Community or residence meetings are held at least once a week_ f
Residents have access to common areas of the home. 28. Foster ethical, peer -based mutually
supportive relationships among residents and staff a. Engagement in informal activities is
encouraged. b_ Engagement in formal activities is required. c Community gatherings, recreational
events and/or other social activities occur periodically. d. Transition (e.g. entry, phase movement
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
and exit) rituals promote residents sense of helnnging and confer progressive status and increasing
opportuniti(.-s within the recovery living envirouunent cuid conununity."
The insistence on staffs part to refer to these homes as "facilities' is erroneous. They are not
facilities. Persons living in them form close social bonds and meet to decide important issues,
including roommate selection.
Discriminatory nature of four tests four "single housekeeping units:"
"Established ties" before moving in: Many recovery residence participants know one
another from having completed treatment together or through mutual aid societies. Will the
standard of whether all persons know a new resident before he or she becomes a member
of the group, be applied to other groups of persons living together? Will college roommates
be required to prove they have "established ties" with each new roommate betore allowing
them to live together? Will families who invite a distant relative to move in be required to
prove their children know and approve of the new roommate? If the answer is "no," the city
is applying a divergent standard to a disabled class pf people.
Say about who lives or does not live in the home: Recovery resident participants agree when
choosing this lifestyle to give other recovering persons a chance to belong to their family
unit. In choosing this lifestyle, each commits to accepting new roommates who will become
part of the family. Each expects that there will be some members of the family farther along
on their personal recovery journey and others who are just beginning, This is PRECISELY why
this family unit works and why persons in recovery choose this lifestyle. To say participants
have no choice is false. They choose to live in this manner from the first day of moving into
the home.
Shared expenses: Of course residents share expenses. All contribute to rent, utilities, and
dedicate time and energy to the upkeep of the home. Laundry is typically accessible to all
persons living in the household. Like other families, people are expected to do their own
laundry and clean up after themselves. Yes; residents pay their own phone bills. Will all
families that require young people living in their homes to pay their cellular telephone bills
be expected to follow this ordinance for lack of "shared expenses?"
4. See above.
Removal from the home: In (2) staff states that residents have little choice concerning
roommates and here staff states that persons can be removed for disobeying a set of rules
the roommates have agreed upon. Removal of residents is generally driven by other
residents' desire to maintain the healthy family unit that has pledged a drug-free lifestyle.
Residents do have a say in roommate situations where they are unconducive to the family's
goals. It is not uncommon for other families to ask a member of a family who is using drugs
and disrupting other members' daily lives to move out. Will other families be required to
prove they are a single housekeeping unit if their "policy" is to ask members who will not
comply with family norms to leave, or is this provision only for people living in recovering
family units?
Third party property manager that oversees the operation of the facility: All rental
properties have a third party property manager; will all rentals need to abide by this
ordinance? There is NO facility and there is no "operation" being overseen. House
managers live with residents and are part of the family in much the same way a parent
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
would act as mentor, leader, and person who encourages that rules are followed, chores
are completed, and disputes are amicably resolved.
8. WHEREAS, because of the residents' independence from each other, non -state licensed
community care facilities and Sober Living Homes, may present impacts not typically associated
with more traditional single-family uses, including a disproportionate numbers of cars
associated with the facility, which may cause parking problems in the neighborhood; and
If there is already a residential parking permit program in the city, why is this group of citizens
required to have a separate regulation that is more specific and stringent? Is this
discriminatory? Do large families who are not in recovery face similar consequences?
9. WHEREAS, a 3001 -foot distance requirement for non -state licensed community care facilities is
appropriate as it is consistent with State Law, which states that there is an overconcentration of
certain state -licensed community care facilities if such facilities are separated by a distance of
300 feet or less; and
The types of facilities where distance requirements may be imposed is set by state statute.
This ordinance is contrary to this statute. State statute applies to licensed facilities only and
the arbiter who decides whether "overconcentration" exists is the Department sof Health Care
Services:
1520.5. (b) The Legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of the state to prevent
overconcentrations of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential
neighborhoods. Therefore, the department shall deny an application for a new
residential facility license if the department determines that the location is in a
proximity to an existing residential facility that would result in overconcentration.
10. WHEREAS, a 800 -foot distance requirement for Sober Living Homes is appropriate, as it is
consistent with an average block length of a typical residential neighborhood in the City and
provides a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of a Sober Living Home in the City
while preventing overconcentration; and
Why is this "'appropriate?" Even for state licensed facilities, 300 feet is what statute dictates.
Again, is the city acting in a discriminatory manner by requiring three times the distance for
this disabled class of people who are not living in a licensed facility?
11. WHEREAS, even with the separation requirements, this ordinance provides non -state licensed
community care facilities and Sober Living Homes with preferential treatment in that non -
disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e. boarding house) cannot reside in single
family residential zones; and
What "non -state licensed community care facilities" are being referenced? All community care
facilities providing services are required to be licensed as per Health and Safety Code 1503.5:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(a) A facility shall be deemed to be an "unlicensed community care facility" and
"maintained and operated to provide nonmedical care" if it is unlicensed and not
exempt from licensure and any one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) The facility is providing care or supervision, as defined by this chapter or the rules
and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(2) The facility is held out as or represented as providing care or supervision, as defined
by this chapter or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(3) The facility accepts or retains residents who demonstrate the need for care or
supervision, as defined by this chapter or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to
this chapter.
(4) The facility represerils itself as a licensed crummuniLy care facility.
(5) The facility is performing any of the functions of a foster family agency or holding
itself out as a foster family agency.
(6) The facility is performing any of the functions of an adoption agency or holding itself
out as performing any of the functions of an adoption agency as specified in paragraph
(9) of subdivision (a) of Section 1502 or subdivision (b) of Section 8900.5 of the Family
Code.
(b) No unlicensed community care facility, as defined in subdivision (a), shall operate in
this state.
(c) Upon discovery of an unlicensed community care facility, the department shall refer
residents to the appropriate local or state ombudsman, or placement, adult protective
services, or child protective services agency if either of the following conditions exist:
(1) There is an immediate threat to the clients' health and safety.
(2) The facility will not cooperate with the licensing agency to apply for a license, meet
licensing standards, and obtain a valid license.
Is this term "unlicensed comm unity care facility" being inserted into this ordinance in a veiled
attempt to reduce the discriminatory nature of the ordinance by requiring that it apply to
others who are not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
12. .0102 Operator's Permit. Any person desiring to operate a Community Care Facility - Unlicensed
(Small), or a Sober Living Home (Small) without a valid Orange County Adult Alcohol and Drug
Sober Living Facilities Certification issued by the Orange County Sheriff's Department shall first
obtain an Operator's Permit in compliance with the provisions of this section. All such
applications shall be referred to the Chief of Police (or his or her designee), who shall conduct all
necessary investigations.
In what other instance is law enforcement invited to inspect the residence of a person or
family? This is one of the most egregious requirements of the ordinance which will assuredly
be deemed discriminatory and a violation of privacy. On what basis will the chief make this
decision? Why is law enforcement involved in housing decisions? Do other families need
permission from the chief of police to live in the neighborhood they choose? If this standard
were applied to another select group of people, Black, blind, LGBTQ, etc., wouldn't it
immediately be seen as discriminatory?
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
13. .04 The owner/operator or staff person of a Sober Living Horne fails to immediately take
measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-
prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from
contact with all other sober residents.
The ordinance asks for "immediate removal' of persons not "actively participating" in a
"legitimate recovery program" and to ban communication with other residents,
Substance use disorder is prone to relapse. A person should not become homeless for relapse.
What immediate measures are to be taken? The staff report complains about "throwing
people out" and the ordinance requires this. Is this consistent? Substance use disorder is a
medical issue. Anyone relapsing may be in physical danger and in need of detoxification or
treatment. It takes time to contact family, arrange for detoxification, and find an open
treatment bed. If someone dies due to "immediate removal," wouldn't the city be exposed to
litigation? Council should be aware that "immediate removal" of a client in a licensed
treatment program is prohibited by regulation due to safety concerns for the relapsing client.
Many recovering people are not in need or do not desire to participate in recovery
programming. This is their right. If hiking in the wilderness and reuniting with family are the
recovery activities that enhance and individuals' recovery journey, they have a right to devise
any and all methods to support their recovery as possible. Will city staff, with no knowledge of
recovery define what is "legitimate?" What will constitute "active participation?" People in
recovery are mature adults with civil rights which include the right to pursue personal
recovery activities as they choose. This onerous requirement will assuredly draw civil rights
litigation.
To prove program attendance, requires violating the disabled persons' privacy (particularly if
the attendance involves outpatient treatment, a medical service, as opposed to mutual aid
meetings). Many persons in long term recovery do not necessarily attend meetings or have a
need for outpatient services. How does the city intend to take this into account? Is forcing a
person to attend a religious group or seek medical attention they no longer need contrary to
the civil rights of this group of disabled individuals? Has staff consulted any civil rights
attorneys to determine if this policy will draw civil rights organizations into any future
litigation? Is Council aware that the City of Dana Point has successfully sued a recovery
residence for requiring that outside services be attended as a violation of state licensing law
for alcohol drug treatment facilites? Does this requirement make recovery
residences "integral facilities" that require licensing? Has staff posed this question to the
licensing authority (DHCS)?
14- .01 Any owner/operator or staff person of the facility has an employment history in which he or
she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual
harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test, and selling or furnishing illegal drugs
or alcohol. .02 Any owner/operator or staff person of the facility has been convicted of or
pleaded nolo contendere, within the previous five (5) years for an owner/operator or within the
previous three (3) years for a staff person, to any of the following offenses:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(e) Any offenses in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11550 or any offense
involving the illegal sale, distribution or possession of a controlled substance specified in
California Health and Safety Ccde Sections 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057 or 11058, as may be
amended., 11055, 11056, 11057 or 11058, as may be amended.
Where would the city obtain employment and criminal background information? Many people
with substance use disorder lose employment for reasons stated in the ordinance. House
managers live at the residence. Denial of housing based on employment history is beyond
reasonable. Realizing that people in early recovery often have legal issues connected to
previous drug use, denial of housing based on criminal history, including simple possession of
cannabis, is discriminatory and specifically designed to limit this type of housing. Are other
renters in the jurisdiction denied housing for this broad array of criminal acts? Has staff
consulted housing attorneys about denial of housing based on criminal background or
employment loss? Are other businesses who provide housing held to this standard?
15. .0203 The facility shall have a house manager who resides on site or any number of persons
acting as a house manager who are present at the facility on a 24-hour basis or who will be
available twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week to physically respond within forty-
five (45) minutes notice and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility.
Recovery residences are homes, not facilities. What is the "day to day operation?" What is the
house manager responsible for? This requirement, particularly for smaller homes will make it
economically unfeasible to exist. Recovery residences cannot simply require 24-hour
supervision without paying the persons responsible for providing this service. Typically, house
managers, senior residents, or mentors are paid a small stipend for thir contributions to the
leadership they provide. To change this model to 24-hour supervision would make this type
of housing unaffordable. Three 8 -hour shifts at $15 per hour would increase the cost to the
unit to $2,520 per week, or $110,080 per month. If it is the City's intention to expel this housing
from the jurisdiction via onerous financial requirements, the resulting homelessness increase
should be taken into consideration.
Persons in this stage of recovery are not in need of supervision as determined by the
American Society of Addiction Medicine:
Although persons in recovery are afforded protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the disability concerned does not imply that persons in recovery are in need of physical
assistance (dressing, feeding) or in need of supervision. In fact, the American Society of
Addiction Medicine placement criteria for addiction patients, originally published in 1991 and
now in its third edition (2013), directly contradicts the notion that persons in recovery
residences are being supervised, in a clinical sense. Use of this criteria is a decades old industry
standard and is now required for all programs licensed or certified by the Department of Health
Care Services. By definition, persons living in a recovery residence do not require supervision.
Applying ASAM criteria, persons in a supportive living environment would, at most, be classified
as level 1.0, although many in long term recovery may not even be assessed as needing any
treatment:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
ASAM PLACEMENT CRITERIA
LEVELS OF 1 OUTPT 2 INTENSIVE 3 MEQ s MEQ
OF CARE OUTPT MOW INPT MGD INPT
1, Bloc la w risk minxnal am* rrsk severe risk
W01111111110111111er1aR/Cal 24 -ter acute
MXdleat med care
no risk manageable requ1W faeglMeled
2444 psych
pesydVBB tav a atit�Wort
C,O npkag4tM no risk mild severity ntt ft to TX necWW
cooperafes 24-
heed
iiaadl►Kits but raqueres needs 24 -ht
Fix Cha -v Cooperative structure motrvatrng �.
mor@ symplarns, unable to
Raw" maem7aens needsclose contr'OI uia in
potenhw abstmcnce mmtonng outpt care
= danw toe
lass support log sbcal
ROCDMV W? MIUCILIrc encapactly
EntirannWint suppnrtrve c:rr1 COW 1- autpt
At ASAM Level I placement/Recovery Environment, it is clear that medical experts do not
consider supervision to be necessary. Likening this level to a mental health scenario, one could
compare this level to a patient who has received a higher level of care, inpatient or otherwise,
and is now perhaps receiving medication and attending weekly therapy.
16. .0207 Sober Living Home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by
Section 10501(a) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations, as may be amended: detoxification,
educational counseling, individual or group counseling sessions, and treatment or recovery
planning.
Section 10501(a) includes supervision as a service:
(3) "Care and Supervision" means any one or more of the following activities provided by a
person or facility to meet the reeds of the clients:
(A) Assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing and other personal hygiene.
(B) Assistance with taking medication, as specified in section 80075.
(C) Central storing and/or distribution of medications, as specified in section 80075.
(D) Arrangement of and assistance with medical and dental care.
(E) Maintenance of house rules for the protection of clients.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(F) Supervision of client schedules and activities.
(G) Maintenance and/or supervision of client cash resources or property.
(H) Monitoring food intake or special diets.
(1) Providing basic services as defined in section 80001(b)(2).
The ordinance both requires and prohibits: "(E) Maintenance of house rules for the protection
of clients." Perhaps the ordinance was rushed if staff did not perform a simple review of
referenced regulations and should be tabled until a thorough examination of the ordinance
can be performed. Additionally, the State of California and the nation are rapidly moving
toward medicated assisted treatment for opioid use disorder which requires central storing of
medications (C) for some in early recovery. Prohibiting the illegal use of prescribed
medications while prohibiting one of the means to accomplish this by banning central storage
of medicines is contradictory and could put some residents at risk of opioid overdose when
recovery residences in the jurisdiction are forced to deny persons using medication assisted
treatment to live in recovery residences due to this prohibition.
17. .0209 .03 A good neighbor policy, which, at minimum, requires residents to be considerate of
neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane, or obnoxious
behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling
unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house
manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
Are other citizens prohibited from profanity or being "obnoxious?" Are other families
required to respond to neighbor's complaints? Who decides what "unduly interfering" means?
There are code compliance mechanisms in place to handle such complaints for other persons
in the jurisdiction. Why is this disabled class being subjected to different criteria with
consequences that can lead to removal of housing for them? Should all citizens in the
jurisdiction who violate noise codes or use their First Amendment rights to express
themselves in poor taste be subject to loss of residency and homelessness? Is an arbitrary "be
good" clause a reasonable accommodation?
18. .0210 .01 An active program participation policy that requires ail residents, other than the house
manager, to actively participate in legitimate recovery programs located off-site. The sober
living home operator shall maintain current records of program attendance.
Who decides how much attendance is necessary for each person? What if working and
reuniting with family is what enables a person to maintain sobriety and there is no need for a
"program?" Why do residents need to leave to go to a meeting; what if the meeting is at their
home? Maintaining records regarding medical and spiritual attendance for an individual is a
violation of privacy, and in the case of outpatient treatment, a violation of Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Asking city staff to review the personal health and
spiritual activities of any of its citizens is a violation of privacy on every level.
1.9. "Family." 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
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
occupying a boardinghouse, lodging house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or any
residential or group care facility requiring a conditional use permit.
Current Anaheim Municipal Code defines a family as persons living together who share a
"domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments to each other." That is
precisely what these living environments are doing. To selectively remove them from this
definition based on their disability is poor policy from a financial, humanitarian, and societal
basis.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
RECOVERY RESIDENCE LOCAL REGULATION GUIDELINES
Presented by l ire California Consortiuni of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Rale of CCAPP:
CCAPP represents over 700 recovery residences in California and is an affiliate of the National
Alliance for Recovery Residences. CCAPP formed by consolidation with the oldest certifying
organization for recovery residences who has implemented quality standards for this type of
housing since 1979. CCAPP regularly inspects recovery residences throughout the state to ensure
they are meeting national standards for quality and adherence to recovery residence principles
which include maintaining a family -like environment in each home.
Emphasis on recovery residences as families:
In a 1980 California Supreme Court decision, City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, the court ruled,
based on privacy rights, that definitions of "family" for purposes of zoning cannot distinguish
between related and unrelated individuals. Following are examples of legal definitions of family
local governments can use:
Example 1
One or more persons living together as single house -keeping unit
Example 2
One or more persons, related or unrelated, living together as a single integrated
household in a dwelling unit
Recovery residences and other independent living environments for persons with addiction, that
function as a family, do not provide care, treatment, individual or group counseling, case
management, medication management, or treatment planning, and do not supervise daily
activities. Therefore, sober living and independent living residences that function as families are
not subject to state licensure requirements. What they do provide is a supportive family -like
setting for unrelated adults. Typical characteristics of a family found in recovery residences may
include: the formation of close emotional and psychological bonds, commitment to each other
and emotional support, rotation of chores, eating evening meals together, and socializing
together and engaging in shared activities of their choosing.
Recovery Residences (Sober Living Homes) are very different from treatment centers, assisted
living, medical residences, and mental health houses. The activities in the home do not require
anyone to directly supervise residents or provide health/physical assistance. Residents form a
supportive peer-to-peer family unit. The family structure of the Iiving space within a recovery
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
residence is a critical element to its success. It is difficult to overestimate the degree to which
participants interact as a family would. They share each other's challenges; contribute to one
another's successes; and often develop lifelong relationships with one another.
Role of Fair Housing Accommodations
To prevent discriminatory decisions regarding zoning or regulation of recovery residences,
policy makers must remove the lens of the disability that these types of household members
share. Two helpful tests follow:
Birdw atcher Analogy
Assume that the family unit being examined for regulation or zoning, taking into consideration
Santa Barbara v. Adamson, consists of a group of eight women over 50 who share a common
interest: birdwatching. The eight women live in a private residence in a residential neighborhood.
Some of the women have lived at the residence longer than others. Over a period of time, one or
more of the eight (Nancy and Cathy) take on responsibilities such as gathering rent from the
other members, making chore lists to ensure that the home stays presentable, organizing outings
for bird watching trips, and mediating disputes between house members.
Recovery residences developed from their earliest existence in this way. Members are not paying
for services or being supervised. They live together as a family and akin to all families, some
members provide leadership and generally keep the home in working order both physically and
psychologically.
If this group of housemates is not required to "register," agree to abstinence, seek a permit to live
in a residential neighborhood, or agree to restrictions that other families do not submit to, any
ordinance that seeks to treat people with addiction differently than birdwatchers, would be
considered to be based upon the disability of the residents (addiction). It would therefore be
considered discriminatory on its face.
LGBTQ Analogy
Assume that the family unit being examined for regulation or zoning, taking into consideration
Santa Barbara v. Adamson, consists of a group of eight young adults who are gay or bi-sexual,
who share a common need to support each other from a society that discriminates against their
sexual orientation and decide that, for their safety and security, sharing a home together is a
preferable option.
Although this household likely is not common, it would never be considered for an ordinance to
"regulate" it so that neighbors feel safe living near it. No local jurisdiction would contemplate
crafting an ordinance to compel a household of gay men to come forward, make itself known,
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
submit to "registering," agree to rules that if not followed would leave them homeless, or require
them to prove they are anything other than an ordinary family unit.
If a proposed ordinance cannot be applied to a home with a group of gay men living together,
likewise it cannot be reasonably applied to people with addiction who choose to live together,
without being considered equally discriminatory.
This household of gay men enjoys another protection not shared by the birdwatchers. Under
California law discrimination based on sexual preference is explicitly illegal. Individuals in
recovery from substance use disorders are considered disabled for purposes of access to housing,
and share the same statutory protection, under both California and federal law.
Addressing Problem Homes without Discrimination
CCA -PP's mission is to improve the quality of and access to addiction treatment and recovery
services. For decades, CCAPP has actively sought to eliminate abusive or poorly run "recovery
residences." The safety of people in recovery is the organization's primary objective. As such,
CCAPP has spent years gathering data, meeting with attorneys, and working with the Legislature
and Administration to create guidance that will assist local government in protecting people in
recovery, while encouraging harmony for recovering people and the communities they have
always lived in.
The first rule for addressing problem homes is to treat them in the same way that any
neighborhood problem would be addressed. Strong code enforcement is critical to ridding
neighborhoods of nuisance homes. This approach does not violate the rights of the disabled
because it is applied evenly, to all members of the community.
CCAPP is abundantly aware that some operators victimize people in early recovery, offering
cheap rooms with little or no "family environment" and no attempt to collaborate on supporting
residents' goals in recovery. These types of arrangements are NOT family units and do not fall
under the definition of recovery residence. They should be evaluated according to their structure
(boarding house, group home, assisted living, etc.) and zoned as such.
CCAPP also recognizes that there are times when a local government may be unable to
determine whether a particular congregate living situation meets the definition of a bona fide
recovery residence. In these instances, the local jurisdiction should be allowed to compel a home
to become certified by an organization aff f ated with the National Alliance for Recovery
Residences to settle any disputes about the classification of the home.
To address nuisance homes that fail to utilize quality standards to the extent that they impact the
health and safety of the residents and community, CCAPP recommends that local ordinances
require continuous certification for violators. In this way, a local jurisdiction could challenge the
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
zoning classification of boarding houses that masquerade as "sober living." It would also allow
local jurisdictions to classify the use of a property as other than single family occupancy if its
certification is revoked by the certifying organization for failing to fulfill its contractual
agreements for quality and consumer protection.
The use of certification to determine proper classification for property use is a way to ensure that
a community can rid itself of poorly run boarding houses white leaving recovery residence
families to continue to live without fear of discrimination.
CCAPP has crafted a draft local ordinance for use in updating codes to reflect the needs of
communities to address imposter recovery residences. The model ordinance relies on anti-
discrimination foundations that CCAPP believes will withstand legal challenge from disability
rights advocates and fair housing representatives. It is attached for your consideration.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Recovery Residence
Model Local Ordinance
Proposed by:
The California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Title: Recovery Residence Housing
A. Recovery Residence. "Recovery residence" means a residential dwelling that provides primary
housing for individuals who seek a cooperative living arrangement that supports personal recovery from
a substance use disorder and that does not require licensure by the Department of Health Care Services
and does not provide licensable services, pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 11834.01)
of the Health and Safety Code. A recovery residence may include, but is not limited to, residential
dwellings commonly referred to as "sober living homes," "sober living environments," or "unlicensed
alcohol and drug free residences."
B. Recovery Residence Zoning
1. Residents of a recovery residence shall be considered a family and the recovery residence shall be
considered a residential use of property.
2. A recovery residence shall be allowed as a use by right in the following zoning classifications: dist all
locations where dwelling units are allowed.
3. A recovery residence shall comply with the development standards for one family or multiple family
dwellings, as applicable, located within the same zone.
4. To distinguish a recovery residence from other congregate living, group facility, or health facility
designations, when the manner in which the residence is operated cannot be accurately categorized as a
recovery residence, evidence of current certification from a recognized nonprofit certifying organization,
as defined in C., shall be considered shall constitute proof that such residence is a recovery residence. A
recovery residence shall be allowed 90 days from the date of notice of violation, or equivalent formal
notification from a city or county agency, to apply for and be certified by the recognized nonprofit
certifying organization.
C. For purposes of this article, a recognized nonprofit certifying organization means an organization that
is currently a recognized affiliate of the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR), or a successor
agency, and has adopted the standards approved by NARR, including at least the following:
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
1. The recovery residence is being used as a residence for persons recovering from substance use
disorder and participants are engaged in recovery programs of their choosing;
2. The recovery residence observes and promotes a zero tolerance policy regarding the
consumption or possession of alcohol and controlled substances, except for prescription
medications used in accordance with the prescription;
3. The recovery residence has no sanitation or structural issues that pose a threat to the safety and
wellbeing of the participants;
4. The recovery residence has a written policy for addressing relapse and the use of drugs or
alcohol;
5. The recovery residence operates as a family unit: sharing chores and responsibilities, working
together to support residents' personal goals, socializing together with meals and activities, and
determining policies and goals together that benefit the family unit.
D. The (insert city, county, or city and county) or local law enforcement that has documented, that a
recovery residence within its jurisdiction is not operating in compliance with NARR standards to an
extent that resident or community safety is being impacted, in a manner that suggests fraudulent
activity is occurring, or in a manner that would require licensure as a residential treatment facility,
shall report these findings to the Department of Health Care Services for suspected unlicensed activity,
to the County District Attorney for suspected fraudulent activity, or to the NARR affiliate that provides
certification for the recovery residence for not operating in compliance with NARR standards.
E. A recovery residence shall provide no on-site, clinical services such as, but not limited to, educational
counseling, counseling sessions, treatment planning, or detoxification.
F. A recovery residence that cannot obtain certification, when required for determining zoning
classification, or has its certification revoked by a recognized nonprofit certifying organization, shall no
longer be considered a recovery residence and must comply with requirements for the designated
property classification assigned to it.
G. No recovery residence shall be required to register with, seek a permit from, or disclose its location to
the (city/county) or to any of its subdivisions, departments or agencies. Where certification of a
recovery residence is necessary to determine that the residence meets the definition of recovery
residence, the recovery residence shall request that a verification letter be mailed directly from the
recognized nonprofit organization to the (city/county) and the (city/county) may verify the ongoing
status of the certification by viewing the organization's public database or by contacting the
organization directly.
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
LEGRSLAr IVE COUNSEL. A TRADITION OF TRUSTED LEGAL SERVICE
Diane E Boyer -Vine TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
I uter DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU
Aaron D. Silva. O V N S E L 925 L STREET
PRINCIPAL DEPUTIES V EAU SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
Joe Ayala TELEPHONE (916) 341-8000
Sergio E. Carpio
AmyJean Haydt
Thomas J. Kerbs
Kirk S. Louie
Fred A. Messerer
Lara Bierman Nelson
Robert A. Pratt
Stephen G. Dehrer
Lisa C. Goldkuhl
L. Erik Lange
William. E. Moddelmog
Sheila R. Mohan
Gerardo Partida
Robert D. Roth
Michelle L. Samore
Stephanie Lynn Shirkey
DrPUTIES
JudyAnne Alanis
Paul Arata
Jennifer Klein Baldwin
Jeanette Barnard
Jennifer M. Barry
Vanessa S. Bedford
Robert C. Binning
Brian Bitzer
Rebecca Bitzer
Brian Bobb
Ann M. Bumstero
William Chan
Elaine Chu
Paul Coaxum
Byron D. Damiani,.Jr.
Thomas Dombrowski
Roman A. Edwards
Sharon L. Everett
Krista M. Ferns
Jessica S. Gosuey
Nathaniel W. Grader
Ryan Greenlaw
Mari C. Guzman
Ronny Hamed-Troyansky
Jacob D. Hettinger
Alex Hirsch
Stephanie Elaine Hoehn
Russell H. Holder
Cara L. Jenkins
Valerie R. Jones
Lori Ann Joseph
Dave Judson
Alyssa Kaplan
Amanda C. Kelly
Christina M. Kenzie
Michael]. Kerins
Deborah Kiley
Mariko Kotam
Felicia A. Lee
Kathryn W.Loudenberg
Richard Mahiea
Anthony P Marquez
Aimee Martin
Francisco Martin
Amanda Mattson
Abigail Maurer
Natalie R. Moore
Lindsey S. Nakano
Yooli Choi O'Brien
Christine Paxinos
Sue-Atn, Peterson
Lisa M. Plummer
Stacy Saechao
Kevin Schmitt
Any E. Schweitzer
Melissa M. Scolari
Jessica L. Steele
Mark Franklin Terry
Josh Tosney
Daniel Vandekoolwyk
Joanna E. Varner
Bradley N. Webb
Rachelle M. Weed
Genevieve Wong
Armin G. Yazdi
Jack Zorman
FACSIMILE (916) 341-8020
INTERNET WWW.LEGISLATIVECOUNSELCA.GOV
July 6, 2018
Honorable Bob Wieckowski
Room 4085, State Capitol
SOBER LIVING HOMES: DISCRIMINATORY
ZONING: ENFORCEMENT - #1810121
Dear Senator Wieckowski;
QUESTION
If a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or
continued operation of a sober living home' in a manner that violates state or federal laws that
prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities, which government entities may
bring an action to invalidate the ordinance?
DISCUSSION
A zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or continued operation of a
sober living home may violate several state and federal statutes that prohibit housing
discrimination against persons with disabilities
Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2013) 730 F.3d 1142
statutes and their enforcement provisions below.
Federal Fair Housing Act
(See Pacific Sbores Properties, LLC v. City of
(hereafter Pacific Shores).) We discuss these
The federal Fair Housing Act (hereafter FHA) (42 U.S.C. 4 3601 et seq.) renders
it unlawful to "discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a
Although the term "sober living home" is not defined in statute, it is generally understood
to mean an unlicensed facility that provides a residence for people who are recovering from alcohol or
drug addiction, (See, e.g., California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California; Options for
State and Local Regulation (Oct. 2016), p.2, available at <httpst//www.library.ca.gov/Content/
pdf/ crb/reports/CRB_SoberLivingReport_2016,pdf> [as of June 25, 2018].)
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121— Page 2 of 5
dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap ...." (42 U.S.C. 4 3604(f)(1),) Courts
have determined that a person who is recovering from drug or alcohol addiction is disabled2
under the FHA and therefore protected from housing discrimination. (Pacific Shores, supra,
730 F.3d at p. 1156-1157; see 42 U.S.C. 4 3602(h).)
Government zoning practices may violate the FHA if they result in the unavailability
of housing for disabled persons and therefore discriminate against those individuals. (Pacific
Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157.) Moreover, the FHA expressly preempts state and local laws
that conflict with its provisions, providing that "any law of a State, a political subdivision, or
other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a
discriminatory housing practice under [the FHA] shall to that extent be invalid."
(42 U.S.C. 4 3615,) Thus, a zoning ordinance is invalid if it amounts to a discriminatory
housing practice under the FHA. (See Gibson v. County of Riverside (C.D. Cal. 2002)
181 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1084.)
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereafter
HUD) and the United States Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing the
FHA. (42 U.S.C, 44 3610, 3612,) The FHA gives HUD the power to receive, investigate,
and conciliate complaints of discrimination, including complaints that a state or local
government has discriminated in exercising its land use and zoning powers.
(42 U.S.C. 4 3610.) After receiving a complaint, HUD must determine whether, based on
the facts presented in the complaint, reasonable cause exists to believe that housing
`discrimination has occurred. ' 2 U.S.C: § 3610(g)(1)0 If, after making the reasonable cause
determination, HUD further determines that a complaint relates to "the legality of any State
or local zoning or other land use law or ordinance," it is required to "immediately refer the
matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action" in civil court.
(42 U.S.C, 4 3610(g)(2)(C).) The United States Attorney General has discretion to bring
suit against the locality within 18 months after the practice at issue occurred.
(42 U,S.C. 4 3614(b).)
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act
The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (hereafter ADA) (42 U.S.C. 4 12101
et seq.) protects persons with disabilities from discrimination in employment, public services,
and public accommodations. The ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a
disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the
benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
discrimination by any such entity." (42 U.S,C. 4 12132.) Like the FHA, this provision
prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against disabled persons through zoning.
2 Although the FHA uses the term "handicap," courts generally use the preferred term
"disabled" when discussing these provisions, (Pacific Shores Properties, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1156,
fn. 15.)
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121 — Page 3 of 5
(Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F.3d at p. 1157.) The ADA's protections also extend to persons
recovering from drug or alcohol addiction. (Ibid.)
The standards regarding disparate treatment claims under the FHA and the ADA
are typically identical, and courts accordingly "interpret them in tandem." (Pacific Shores, supra,
730 F.3d at p. 1157.) Therefore, if an ordinance violates the FHA on the basis that it
discriminates against disabled persons through zoning, the ordinance would also likely violate
the ADA,
The United States Attorney General is the federal entity responsible for
administering and enforcing the ADA with respect to all programs, services, and regulatory
activities relating to planning and development by public entities. (42 U.S.C. § 12133;
28 C.F.R. § 35.190.) An individual who believes that he or she has been subjected to
discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may file a complaint with the
United States Attorney General, (28 C.F.R. § 35,170,) The United States Attorney General
is required to investigate the complaint and, if appropriate, attempt informal resolution of any
matter being investigated, (28 C.F.R. § 35,172.) If the public entity being investigated declines
to enter into voluntary compliance negotiations or if negotiations are unsuccessful, the
United States Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action to enforce the ADA.
(42 U.S.C, § 12133; 28 CRR. § 35.174.)
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
(hereafter FEHA)' prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of certain characteristics,
including disability. (§ 12955,) Like the FHA and ADA, courts have recognized that persons
recovering from alcohol and drug abuse are disabled for purposes of FEHA, (See City of
Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg, Code Council (1994) 18 F.3d 802.) Moreover, courts analyze
FEHA claims under the same standards as FHA claims, (Pacific Shores, supra, 730 F,3d at
p. 1156, fn. 14.) Thus, an ordinance that violates the FHA on the basis that it discriminates
against disabled persons through zoning would also violate FEHA,
The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereafter DFEH) and
the California Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing FEHA, (§ 12930 et seq,)
A person may file a complaint with the DFEH alleging that a zoning ordinance violated
FEHA by discriminating on the basis of disability. (§§ 12955, subd, (1), 12980 subd, (a).)
Upon the filing of a complaint, the DFEH is required to commence an investigation.
(§ 12980, subd. (f).) If the DFEH determines that a FEHA violation occurred, but is unable
to eliminate the violation through conference, conciliation, mediation, or persuasion, it is
required to bring a civil action on behalf of the aggrieved person as a real party in interest.
(§ 12981.)
3 All further section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request #1810121 — Page 4 of 5
The California Attorney General is also authorized to bring a civil action to
enforce FEHA upon referral from the DFEH or if he or she has reasonable cause to believe
that any person or group is engaged in a pattern of denying others the rights granted by
FEHA or that denial of those rights raises an issue of general public importance. (§ 12989.3.)
These procedures apply to complaints that concern local land use ordinances. (§ 12981,
subd. (b).)4
Thus, if a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts sober living
homes in a manner that violates FEHA, the DFEH or the California Attorney General may
bring an action to invalidate the ordinance.
California Planning and Zoning Law
A zoning ordinance that prohibits or restricts sober living homes may also violate
the state Planning and Zoning Law (§ 65000 et seq.). Section 65008, which forms part of the
Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits local governments from discriminating against
residential developments on the basis that the intended occupants have any of the
characteristics protected by FEHA, including disability. (§ 65008, subd. (b).) That section
provides that a local government action is "null and void" if it interferes with the residency of
a person on the basis of those characteristics (id. at subd. (a)) and prohibits local governments
from imposing different requirements on developments because of the characteristics,
including disability, of the intended occupants (id. at subd. (d)(2)).
In general, the Planning and Zoning Law serves "the same purpose [as] and
contains similar language to the federal Fair Housing Act." (Keith v. Volpe (9th Cir. 1988)
858 F.2d 467, 485.) Therefore, by "proving a claim under the Fair Housing Act, plaintiffs also
establish[] a violation of section 65008(6)." Jbid.)
The state Department of Housing and Community Development (hereafter
DHCD) and the California Attorney General are jointly responsible for enforcing the
antidiscrimination provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law. (§ 65585.) If the DHCD
determines that a local government has taken an action in violation of section 65008, it may
notify the California Attorney General of this violation. (§ 65585, subd. (j).) The California
Attorney General "has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is interested,"
except for matters pertaining to the University of California and certain state boards and
officers, so he or she may pursue a civil suit on behalf of the DHCD to invalidate an ordinance
that violates the Planning and Zoning Law. (§ 12511; see Keith v. Volpe (C.D. Cal. 1986)
644 F.Supp.1317, 1321.)
4 Section 12981, subdivision (b) provides that if the DFEH "determines that an
allegation concerns the legality of any zoning or other land use law or ordinance, the department
or the Attorney General shall take appropriate action with respect to the complaint according to
the procedures established in this part for other complaints of housing discrimination."
Honorable Bob Wieckowski — Request* 1810121 — Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
If a local government enacts a zoning ordinance that restricts the establishment or
continued operation of a sober living home in a manner that violates state and federal laws
prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities, the following government entities
may bring a civil action to invalidate the ordinance; the United States Attorney General, the
California Attorney General, and the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Additionally, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the
state Department of Housing and Community Development may investigate a complaint of
housing discrimination and refer the matter to the United States Attorney General or the
California Attorney General, respectively, for appropriate action in civil court,
Very truly yours,
Diane F. Boyer -Vine
Legislative Counsel
By
Natalie R, Moore
Deputy Legislative Counsel
NRM.blt
Public Comment
From: Cynthia Guerra <cynthiag@ken nedycommission.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:04 PM
To: City Clerk; Public Comment
Cc: Cesar C
Subject: Letter on Items 25 on Anaheim City Council Agenda for 9.15.2020
Attachments: Ltr_Anaheim Stakeholder Meeting -5.30.2019 (1).pdf, Ltr_ltem 25- Anaheim Housing
Ad -Hoc Committee Report_9.15.2020.pdf
Hi,
Please find attached the comments regarding today's Anaheim City Council meeting (9.15.2020):
• Item #25: Report from Housing Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of Council Members O'Neil and Kring and Mayor
Pro Tem Faessel
Also included in this email is the letter sent to Council Member O'Neil, Faessel, and Kring on August 6, 2020 as a follow-up to
the Affordable Housing Roundtable held on May 30th, 2020.
Please confirm receipt of this email and let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your help.
Thank you,
Cynthia Guerra
Cynthia Guerra
The Kennedy Commission
Community Organizer
September 15, 2020
www.kennedycoimnission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Mayor Harry Sidhu and City Council Members 949 250 0909
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Item #25- Report from Housing Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of Council Members
O'Neil and Kring and Mayor Pro Tem Faessel
Dear Mayor Sidhu and City Council Members:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community
organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than
$20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in
partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land -use
policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families.
As the City Council reviews the report from the Housing Ad Hoc Committee, the Commission
strongly encourages the Council consider key elements. The first is that the City of Anaheim must
prioritize building affordable housing over above moderate housing. As the 2014-2021 Housing
Element planning period comes to a close with one year left, it is clear that the City continues to have
a very large need for housing at the very low and low income level and a disproportionate production
of above moderate housing. For the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period, the City has a
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 1,256 very low- and 907 low-income households.
To -date, the City has built 124 or 10% of the 1,256 very low-income units and 121 or 13% of the 907
low-income units.' However, for the above moderate -income units, the City outperformed and
exceeded the RHNA by constructing 7,182 or 287% of the 2,501 above moderate -income RHNA.2
While 948 above moderate units were added in 2019, only 53 units total were added at the very low
and low income levels. With a remaining RHNA need of 1,950 lower income homes and an
excess of 4,681 homes at the above moderate income level, it is urgent that the City evaluate its
current policies and programs that have not facilitated the development of homes affordable to
lower income households in the City. As demonstrated by the unbalanced housing production,
the Adhoc Committee's recommendations continue to support above moderate housing
production and have not yet prioritized affordable housing production for Anaheim's low
income working families. It clearly does not have problem producing above moderate housing.
The Commission participated in the Affordable Housing Roundtable held on May 30th, 2019. Our
recommendations at the Roundtable requested that the City implement a series of specific affordable
housing policies and programs that would effectively increase the production of housing for
Anaheim's very low and low income working families. The Commission followed-up with a letter
sent to the Councilmembers who formed the Ad -Hoc Committee, Council Members Faessel, O'Neil,
and Kring, in which we summarized our policy and program recommendations. The letter is attached
for your convenience. Unfortunately, the recommendations we provided over a year ago have not
been implemented nor have they been incorporated into the City Staff's Housing Action Plan being
'City of Anaheim's 2019 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, p. 2, April 2020.
' City of Anaheim's 2019 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, p. 3, April 2020.
Mayor Harry Sidhu and City Council Members
September 15, 2020
reviewed today. Therefore, it is not surprising that the production imbalance between lower and
above moderate income housing units persists.
Committee members have expressed a preference "to explore options and policies that are market
driven and incentive -based, as opposed to mandates that potentially serve to increase the cost of
housing development and thereby exacerbate affordability."3 Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the
current unbalanced housing production, this strategy has provided only incentives and concessions
that produce above market rate housing that most working families in Anaheim cannot afford. To
truly impact the need and increase the affordable housing the Committee must proactively prioritize
and incentivize affordable housing through setting affordable housing goals and enacting effective
and targeted policies. To -date, the City has followed a "market-driven" approach that has only
incentivized and produced above moderate housing and depleted the City's housing opportunity sites.
Currently market -rate developers can voluntarily choose to include affordable housing units, pay a
voluntary contribution to affordable housing programs, or neither option. Since it is voluntary, many
eschew either providing affordable housing units or provide the voluntary contribution. While
"market rate developers noted their appreciation for its use of incentives and options as opposed to
mandates,"4 it is clear that the housing affordability crisis will only be addressed through
stronger, clearer, and more specific affordability requirements.
The following is a list of a few of the policies and programs that Commission has advocated for over
the years that would increase the production of affordable housing at the very low and low income
levels. The Council should also refer to the letter the Commission submitted a year ago in response to
our participation in the Affordable Housing Roundtable (attached).
1) Create an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan that provides specific goals in the construction of
affordable homes. This is not included in the Plan currently proposed in this agenda item.
2) Engage community stakeholder and experts on affordable housing solutions not just market
rate developers.
3) Prioritize adopting a mixed -income housing ordinance, especially in the Platinum Triangle,
Housing Overlays, and in other areas in which the City is giving away density and incentives.
4) Ensure that development of affordable housing is prioritized in the Platinum Triangle, Honda
Center and Stadium Development opportunity sites. While market -rate housing has been
developed in significant numbers in the current planning period, none of the thousands of units
built in the Platinum Triangle are affordable to lower income households. The City needs to
ensure that planning and housing approvals in the current and upcoming planning period
provide access to housing opportunities for a full spectrum of incomes, especially lower
income households in these economically segregated areas.
5) Examine policies implemented by other jurisdictions, like the City of Irvine and the City of
Santa Ana which have both adopted an inclusionary housing policy that has resulted in robust
production of affordable housing. By giving market -rate developers the option of choosing
between making a percentage of their market -rate housing projects affordable and,
alternatively, paying an in -lieu fee, these cities have been able to exceed Anaheim's production
of affordable housing in their respective jurisdictions. The City of Irvine has produced a total
s City of Anaheim's City Council Staff Report, Item 25, p. 1, September 15, 2020.
4 City of Anaheim's City Council Staff Report, Item 25, p. 3, September 15, 2020.
Page 2 of 3
Mayor Harry Sidhu and City Council Members
September 15, 2020
of 1,012 units at the very low and low affordability level,5 while the City of Santa Ana has
produced 794 units at these affordability levels.6 The inclusionary housing policy allows
jurisdictions to facilitate the production of affordable housing by creating a fund that is
available to subsidize affordable housing projects, which makes these projects more
competitive when applying for state funds and tax credits.
6) Ensure that development of affordable housing is prioritized on the Housing Opportunity Sites
identified in the Housing Element for planning period 2014-2021. The Report being
considered today highlights the City's creation of the Housing Opportunity Sites to facilitate
affordable housing.7 However, while market -rate housing has been developed on these sites, a
minimal amount of affordable housing development has been produced on these sites. For
example, a 20 -acre market -rate development by TRI Pointe Homes, Inc. has been approved in
two of these opportunity sites located in the Residential Overlay Zone. Upon its completion,
the development will provide 546 residential units at the above moderate income level.'
7) Explore creative land use and zoning policies that facilitate the development of affordable
housing. For example, include a housing overlay zone or religious institutions amendment.
8) Support legislation that removes CEQA requirements for affordable housing, not above
moderate housing.
9) Identify and explore allocating city -owned sites that may be well suited for housing for which
there are no other development plans.
10) Continue to support tenant based rental assistance programs that facilitates additional
affordable housing for homeless and low-income individuals.
Finally, the City emphasizes the need to collaborate with the Building Industry Association (`BIA")
to "develop a "tool kit" to facilitate all types of housing development and incentivize private market
developers to help the City address its affordable housing goals." 9 However, the City must make an
explicit effort to also collaborate with The Kennedy Commission and other affordable housing
stakeholders to develop policies and programs that will specifically address affordability. The
City's inability to produce the housing needed at the very low and low income levels, is apparent in
the critically low production of lower income homes and demonstrates that a "market -rate" approach
will not address the affordability crisis.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We look forward to further conversation
regarding this important matter. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings regarding
strategies to increase affordable homes for lower income households in the City. If you have any
questions, please free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
w
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
5 City of Irvine's 2018 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, March 2019.
6 City of Santa Ana's 2018 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, p. 2, March 2019.
City of Anaheim's City Council Staff Report, Item 25, p. 2, September 15, 2020.
s City Council Agenda Report for Item 20, p.1, June, 2019.
9 City of Anaheim's City Council Staff Report, Item 25, p. 5, September 15, 2020.
Page 3 of 3
August 6, 2019
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Councilmember Trevor O'neil 949 250 0909
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard
7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: City of Anaheim Affordable Housing Discussion
Dear Councilmember O'neil:
Thank you for including the Kennedy Commission in the Affordable Housing Discussion at the City
of Anaheim on May 30th, 2019. The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based
coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes
affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the
Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to
create effective housing and land -use policies that has led to the new construction of homes
affordable to lower income working families.
As a follow up to the Affordable Housing Discussion, the Commission is providing the following
recommendations that will help facilitate the development of homes affordable to lower income
households. Given that the City has met and exceeded its production of units at the above moderate
income level based on the City's RHNA requirements, it should now focus on increasing the
opportunities for production at the extremely low, very low, and low income levels.
Housing Opportunity Sites
The City needs to ensure that development of affordable housing is prioritized on the
Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element for planning period 2014-
2021. While market -rate housing has been developed, a minimal amount of affordable
housing development has been produced on these sites. Given the sharp disparity between the
overall production of affordable housing and market -rate housing in the City, it is important
that these sites be prioritized for affordable housing developments. Please see the
Commission's attached March 18th letter submitted to the City Council regarding the City's
Housing Element Annual Progress Report for more information on the City's RHNA
implementation progress.
Recommendation: The City should create a requirement that any housing projects on the
Housing Opportunity Sites include 15%-20% of housing affordable to very low and low
income families, especially in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
Affordable Housing Policies
The City should adopt policies that will provide developers with incentives and rezoning
in consideration for developing affordable housing at the very low and low income level.
This will result in a more robust and balanced production of affordable housing in the City.
For example, the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine have both adopted Housing Opportunity
Councilmember O'neil
August 6, 2019
Page 2 of 2
Ordinances. By giving developers the option of choosing between making a percentage of
market -rate housing projects affordable and paying an in -lieu fee, these cities have been able
to exceed Anaheim's production of affordable housing in their respective jurisdictions. The
City of Irvine has produced a total of 1,012 units at the very low and low affordability level,'
while the City of Santa Ana has produced 794 units at these affordability levels.2 A Housing
Opportunity Ordinance allows jurisdictions to facilitate the production of affordable housing
by creating a fund that is available to subsidize affordable housing projects, making these
projects more competitive when applying for state funds and tax credits.
Recommendation: Anaheim should follow the examples of the City of Irvine and the City of
Santa Ana and adopt a Housing Opportunity Ordinance.
Recommendation: The City should adopt an updated Affordable Housing Strategic Plan that
provides specific goals in the construction of affordable homes.
City Owned Sites
Unlike other jurisdictions in the County, the City of Anaheim's Community Development
Department owns a significant inventory of housing sites that can be used to prioritize the
development of affordable housing.
Recommendation: The Community Development Department should issue and RFP for
these City -owned sites that prioritizes the development of housing affordable to very low and
low income families.
Communication with Affordable Housing Stakeholders
- The City should continue to engage affordable housing stakeholders to discuss other effective
policies and programs that will facilitate the development of homes affordable to lower
income households in the City.
The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City to increase and preserve affordable homes
for lower income households in the City. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings
regarding the City's action to effectively address rent increases in mobile home parks.
If you have any questions, please free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or
cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
1 City of Irvine's 2018 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, March 2019.
2 City of Santa Ana's 2018 Annual Housing Element Progress Report, p. 2, March 2019.
Public Comment
From: buddyfitz
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:41 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Hearing Comments for Sept 15 council Meeting
Attachments: PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS.pdf
Attached Public Hearing Comments.
Anaheim Council Public Hearing Comments for September 15, 202
Public Hearing, Agenda Items # 26 & # 27
Home Owners Maintaining our Environment
Public r ..type" giveaway*by six of
councilthe seven corrupt b ' concerns
where the amount of the "franchise fee" is kept secret fromthe public.
JOHN ARMSTRONG B
ROSA Ar i
MICHELLE B;
KIM KEYS (FAESSEL)
A
Jennifer L. Hall
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 12:53 PM
To: Jennifer L. Hall
Cc: Ted White; Susan Kim
Subject: FW: Letter of Support - 1730 Clementine Hotel Development
Attachments: 1730 Clemtentine 9.15.20 Support.pdf
Jennifer,
I received the attached letter of support for Item No. 27 on CC 9/15.
A
From: Heather Sievers <heather@anaheimchamber.org>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 12:51 PM
To: Harry Sidhu (Mayor) <HSidhu@anaheim.net>; Stephen Faessel <SFaessel@anaheim.net>; Trevor O'Neil
<TONeil@anaheim.net>; Jordan Brandman <JBrandman@anaheim.net>; Lucille Kring <LKring@anaheim.net>; Denise
Barnes <DBarnes@anaheim.net>; Jose Moreno <JMoreno@anaheim.net>
Cc: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <EThien@anaheim.net>; Andy Uk <AUk@anaheim.net>; jwhang@anaheim.net
Subject: Letter of Support - 1730 Clementine Hotel Development
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Please see attached letter of support for Tuesday's City Council Meeting.
Best Regards,
On behalf of Todd Ament
Heather Sievers
Director of Events
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
2099 S. State College, Ste. 650
Anaheim, CA 92806
he:�ther@2 _n hei_ .c. mber.:_org
714.758.0222
1
September 11, 2020
The Honorable Harry Sidhu, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Phone: 714-758-0222
2099 S. State College, Ste. 650
Anaheim, CA 92806
www.anaheimehamber.org
On behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to urge you to approve
item 27 on the September 15, 2020 Council Agenda.
Despite these difficult times in the travel and hospitality sectors, we're excited to see a
developer come forth and move forward with this new hotel development. As we look
forward to recovery, this 125 -room boutique will provide additional options for visitors to
the Resort area in the long term.
The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports building a strong local economy and
bringing more jobs to our residents. The 1730 Clementine hotel development will
continue Anaheim's growth and economic vitality. This is an excellent opportunity to
develop vacant property into something special for Anaheim. With your approval,
Anaheim benefits, providing much-needed jobs, and we welcome a good neighbor to our
community.
The Chamber supports the plans and development of the 1730 Clementine hotel project.
Anaheim benefits with this project.
We urge you to approve item 27.
Sincerely,
Todd Ament
President & CEO
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Build a Strong Local Economy Promote and Brand the Anaheim Community
Create Networking through Business Development Opportunities
Represent Business Interests in Government Political Action
Public Comment
From: Heather Sievers <heather@anaheimchamber.org>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Letter of Support - 1730 Clementine Hotel Development
Attachments: 1730 Clemtentine 9.15.20 Support.pdf
Please see attached letter of support for Tuesday's City Council Meeting.
Best Regards,
On behalf of Todd Ament
Heather Sievers
Director of Events
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
2099 S. State College, Ste. 650
Anaheim, CA 92806
he:�the.rC�2A_n heimch mber.:_org
714.758.0222
September 11, 2020
The Honorable Harry Sidhu, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Anaheim
200 S Anaheim Boulevard, 7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Phone: 714-758-0222
2099 S. State College, Ste. 650
Anaheim, CA 92806
www.anaheimehamber.org
On behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to urge you to approve
item 27 on the September 15, 2020 Council Agenda.
Despite these difficult times in the travel and hospitality sectors, we're excited to see a
developer come forth and move forward with this new hotel development. As we look
forward to recovery, this 125 -room boutique will provide additional options for visitors to
the Resort area in the long term.
The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce supports building a strong local economy and
bringing more jobs to our residents. The 1730 Clementine hotel development will
continue Anaheim's growth and economic vitality. This is an excellent opportunity to
develop vacant property into something special for Anaheim. With your approval,
Anaheim benefits, providing much-needed jobs, and we welcome a good neighbor to our
community.
The Chamber supports the plans and development of the 1730 Clementine hotel project.
Anaheim benefits with this project.
We urge you to approve item 27.
Sincerely,
Todd Ament
President & CEO
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Build a Strong Local Economy Promote and Brand the Anaheim Community
Create Networking through Business Development Opportunities
Represent Business Interests in Government Political Action
L
July 30, 2020
City of Anaheim City Council
200 S Anaheim Boulevard
7th Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Members of the Anaheim City Council,
2099 S. State (,'dlllcWge IElvd. SiJte 600
F 0. IF ox 4270
AruaNu&n, C,d4 92806
7147652800
As a member of the greater Anaheim community for the past 7 % years, I am always excited to
see this city grow. I am writing this letter to urge you to vote in favor of the 1730 Clementine
development that will becoming to your commission on September 15tH
This property has been vacant for 10 years, not generating any benefit for the community. The
developers saw an opportunity to turn a less than an acre of land into something special for
Anaheim. I have met these developers, I have seen their plans, they have a true heart for what
it means to be a part of this community. With this hotel development, Anaheim will benefit
greatly.
In these unforeseen times we are in, our city is going to need to continue to attract investment
to recover, and approving this project will send a signal to the market that Anaheim continues
to be bullish on our future, regardless of short term challenges.
We are excited for this project and hope you will support it. We are hopeful that we will have a
neighbor to add to our community.
Sincerely,
Jay Buress
President & CEO
Visit Anaheim
e8 �)�SN,'E Y1, AND DRIVE |oU11 sxw W|NCOME
aWO ic/w,cxe28m2 � H(}SPH"AUT\'
September loth 2020
Off ice oftheCity [ouncl|
City ofAnaheim
lOOSAnaheim Boulevard
7t' Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: 1730 Clementine Development
Dear Members of the City Council,
As'amomber ofthe Anaheim Resort District for the over 25 years, Uamalways excited tosee this
community grow. I am writing this letter to urge you to vote in favor of the 1730 Clementine
development that will be coming to you for a vote on September 15th.
This property has been vacant for l0years and issitting empty. The developers saw amopportunity to
turn a less than an acre piece of land into something special for Anaheim. I have met these developers, I
have seen their plans, and they have a true heart for what it means to be a part of this community. This
lot ixsitting idle imthe middle ofthe Resort, not generating any benefit for the community. With this
hotel development, Anaheim will benefit greatly. In these unforeseen times weare in, our city isgoing
to need to continue to attract investment to recover, and approving this project will send a signal to the
market that Anaheim continues to be bullish on our future, regardless of short-term challenges.
VVeare excited for this project and hope you will support it. VVeare hopeful that xvewill have aneighbor
toadd tmour community,
Wincome Hospitality
Pa�,� r''l(� 11
Public Comment
From: Konstantinos Roditis
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:14 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item # 28 - Taxi Franchise
Attachments: AGT - 2020 Sept 15 LTR Anaheim City Council w attachmts bkmd.pdf
Here are the public comments from Maryann Cazzell for Cazzell & Associates in regards to tonight's
taxicab franchise public hearing.
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
505 N. Tustin Ave., Sate. 276
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 558-1772 tel.
(714) 558-1883 fax.
September 15, 2020
TO: THE HON. HARRY S. SIDHU, MAYOR
AND THE HON. LUCILLE KRING, MAYOR PRO TEM, -
AND TO CITY COUNCILPERSONS
DENISE BARNES
JORDAN BRANDMAN
JOSE F. MORENO
STEPHEN FAESSEL
and
TREVOR O'NEIL
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., City Council Chambers
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: ITEM #28 on September 15, 2020 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA (Proposed Taxicab Franchise Awards;)
Procedural and Legal Mistakes and Violations permeating the
Recommendations of the Anaheim Planning and Building Department
("STAFF") and the Taxicab Advisory Committee ("TAC") to issue in
excess of fifty (50) taxicab franchises pursuant to the Request for
Proposal ("RFP") circulated by Staff on July 15, 2020; Demand that
these 50 taxicab franchises be awarded to American Ground
Transportation dba 24/7 Taxi Cab ("AGT";)
Demand that any award of up to one hundred fifty-five (155) of the
taxicab franchises previously given to Yellow Cab of Greater Orange
County ("Yellow Cab") in the year 2012 be done by a separate RFP;
and Objection of proposed award of 155 taxicab franchises to CABCO,
INC. dba California Yellow Cab ("CABCO".)
Dear Gentlepersons:
This firm represents AGT in these proceedings; which include without
limitation, matters concerning Agenda Item 928 now before you.
I write in response and opposition to Anaheim's Recommendation to adopt
the Recommendations of TAC as stated in Staff's September 15, 2020
Agenda Report, to award 155 Anaheim taxicab franchises, or to award any
number of franchises, to CABCO pursuant to the RFP circulated on July 15,
2020. Following either course would be wrongful.
I. ANAHEIM WAS REQUIRED TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF 50 TAXICAB FRANCHISES ALONE.
As also noted in the written material submitted by Konstantinos Roditis
(President of AGT) related to this Agenda Item, Anaheim was required by
the Courts to initiate a new RFP for the issuance of an isolated 50 taxicab
franchises. This requirement was in the form of a FILED ORDER dated
October 31, 2019 and entered by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District
of California, Third Division ("COA") in Appellate Case 9G055501, and
made final upon issuance of its Remittitur on February 14, 2020.
Immediately thereafter, Anaheim should have begun the process of issuing
the 50 -franchise RFP, which could have been completed by early March
2020 at the latest. Anaheim absolutely should not have waited until July 15,
2020, four -and -a -half months later, to do this.
The COA made it abundantly clear that the RFP was to be limited to "those
50 taxicab permits." (COA Opinion, page 26.)
These facts are detailed in the recent Court paperwork filed in ongoing
Orange County Superior Court case 930-2013-00688977-CU-MC-CJC,
styled as AGT v. The City ofAnaheim (the "AGT Case.") Portions of
various court documents from the AGT case are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
What is bookmarked here as Exhibit "AI" is pages 3-5 of AGT's Brief
submitted in support of its Motion, that literally traced the 50 franchise
W
permits in question, all the way back to the 2012 RFP. These very franchise
permits were awarded to A White and Yellow Cab, Inc. dba A Taxi Cab
("AWYC,") which held onto them until the Spring of 2016 when it went out
of business. But in the AGT Case the Orange County Superior Court
("OCSC") had already held in June 2016 that Anaheim had acted
unconstitutionally in its August 2012 Rehearing award of those very same
permits (to AWYC;) and that, accordingly, the hearing had to be re -done.
So, new City Council proceedings took place in Anaheim in the Fall of
2016, that paid only "lip -service" to the OCSC Order. Despite AGT's fully -
compliant RFP paperwork, Anaheim "split up" the 50 AWYC franchises
between Yellow Cab and CABCO, and called it a day.
It was Anaheim's Fall 2016 action that the COA declared unlawful, and this
is what lead the COA to ORDER Anaheim to issue a new RFP for those
same 50 permits. This is the task, and the only task, that should now be
before you.
Anaheim Staff and TAC now "recommend" that these 50 permits, the same
ones directly traceable back to2012, at last, be awarded to AGT. In so
doing, Anaheim admits without condition, that AGT should have, and
should have had, these same 50 permits, from way back in 2012. AGT lost a
mint of money, not to mention loss of market share and other economic
opportunity, from being deprived of those permits for over eight (8) years.
AGT continues to lose income and economic opportunities from Anaheim's
failure and refusal to have granted AGT those particular permits back in
2012. Just one obvious example of additional losses caused by Anaheim, is
TAC's degrading of AGT's current RFP submittal, on the grounds that AGT
did not have experience operating in Anaheim! In addition to being untrue,
had Anaheim not treated AGT unfairly, unconstitutionally, and illegally in
2012, 2016, now, and at all points in between, AGT would have been
operating in Anaheim for all of those years and would have scored as much
as another 13.8 in the first three categories of TAC's current RFP Scoring
evaluation, bringing AGT's scoring to at least a total of a 76.0 or higher.
As it is, Anaheim, despite grading AGT with a "62.2" (%) RFP score, still is
now willing to award it 50 franchise stickers. AGT posits that the real
reason that this is so, is that (as explained and in its paperwork in the AGT
3
Case,) Anaheim has manipulated these administrative proceedings in such a
way that an award of 50 franchise stickers has very little value (since
Anaheim proposes to simultaneously award CABCO a taxicab monopoly of
over eighty percent (80%+) of the Anaheim franchises.)
But the discussion should take place. The scoring given AGT by TAC, is
the lowest ever given in the relevant proceedings! In 2012 TAC graded
AGT with a score of 62.25%. In 2016, that score had gone up to 66.60
percent! Yet at that time, Anaheim and its attorneys insisted that any score
in the "60s" was not even a "passing score!" So why, suddenly, is 62.2
percent not only "passing," but "passing" enough to justify an award of 50
franchises?
II. ANAHEIM HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND
WRONGFULLY EXPANDED THIS RFP INTO ONE INCLUDING
YELLOW CAB'S SUBSEQUENTLY -AVAILABLE 155
FRANCHISES, WHICH EMASCULATES MOST OF THE
ADVANTAGE TO AGT FROM ACQUIRING 50 FRANCHISES.
A more detailed explanation of this phenomenon, and how and why it works
to effectively deny AGT of the real value of the 50 permits (that Anaheim
suddenly recommends be awarded to it,) is contained at the portion of the
AGT Case MOVING papers attached and bookmarked as "A2," and that
portion of the REPLY papers attached and bookmarked as "B 1." It is also
addressed in the paperwork simultaneously submitted by AGT pertaining to
this Agenda Item. In summary, the action that Staff and TAC recommend
that the City adopt, awarding AGT 50 franchises, and an additional 155 to
CABCO (which will then hold 205 franchises,) so dilutes the market that
AGT cannot reasonably expect to make a profit. This violates Anaheim
Municipal Code ("AMC") 4.75.045.040, because it unduly burdens AGT as
the other franchisee and prevents it from realistically having an opportunity
to make a profit. It also creates an unlawful "monolopy" in favor of
CABCO (because it causes CABCO to hold a market share of over 80%.)
If Anaheim truly believes that its city now requires more than 100 taxicabs
on the road in Anaheim (plus a 15% overage,) then it is free to initiate a
separate RFP for the same - an RFP of up to the remaining 155 "treasury
M
stock" franchises allowed by the AMC. But it may not do so now, through
this COA-Ordered RFP for "those 50 permits."
III. CABCO'S RECENT ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY
IN KNOWINGLY VIOLATING THE FRANCHISE AND THE AMC
BY OPERATING VEHICLES AS ANAHEIM TAXICABS WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION AND PRIOR TO A NEW FRANCHISE AWARD,
SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED BY AN AWARD OF ADDITIONAL
FRANCHISES (ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE SAME ARE NOT
EVEN ALLOWED UNDER THIS RFP IN THE FIRST PLACE!)
AGT has presented to the OCSC, and also submits herewith, ample
evidence proving that CABCO has been using Yellow Cab's previously -
franchised vehicles, and operating them in the City just as if they belonged
to CABCO and were part of CABCO's franchise. This is not true, of course,
and could not be true. Even as of this date, CARCO holds only 50
franchises. Yellow Cab's franchises are non -transferable (AMC 4.73.120,)
and do not belong to, nor may they be used by, CABCO. AGT has also
submitted to the OCSC and submits herewith, documentary evidence, that
CABCO has been using as part of its Anaheim franchise fleet, vehicles that
exceed the maximum model year date allowed, a further violation of AMC
4.73.030.
In addition to the evidence attested to in AGT's submission of this date,
AGT references the following evidence of CABCO's unlawful acts and
breaches of the franchise, set forth in particular in the AGT Case's MOTION
paperwork (Ex. "A") at p. iii(H) & pp. 2-3; and in the AGT Case's REPLY
paperwork at pp. 1 & 5-7. Further evidence in the form of actual
photographs of CABCO's wrongful acts in breach of the franchise, including
its use of Yellow Cab vehicles and franchise stickers that did not belong to
it, to pick up fares in the City, and its use of overage vehicles as part of its
Anaheim franchise fleet, is included in the AGT Case document attached
hereto as Exhibit "C," the Declaration of Savvas Roditis and its attachments.
CABCO's surreptitious operation of Yellow Cab vehicles is not a "no harm,
no foul" event. In so doing, CABCO has violated the AMC and has
committed a misdemeanor. Anaheim has the right to (and frankly, should,)
61
fine and cite CABCO under AMC 4.73,170, and either terminate CABCO's
franchise under AMC 4.73. 100 or temporarily suspend it under AMC
4.73.110. It should strip CABCO of all of its taxi franchises, not give it
more! And certainly not give it so many taxi franchises that it creates and
hands CABCO an unlawful monopoly!
To conclude, the franchise for consideration, by legal edict, must be limited
to an award of "those 50 franchises" that were awarded to AWYC in 2012
(and subsequently revoked by the OCSC's 2016 Order finding the award
unconstitutional;) then awarded in a split between CABCO and Yellow Cab
(25 each) in 2016 (which award was subsequently held to be unlawful by the
COA in 2019;) and now, finally, up for the COA-Ordered RFP in 2020.
Any RFP for the remaining 155 "treasury stock" franchises, or any portion
of them, must take place later.
Should the City proceed to award any portion of those additional 155
franchises, it should be 50 of them, and they should go to AGT. AGT has
been pursuing a franchise for an aggregate of 100 stickers, since 2012; and
has been qualified to receive them, every time. The unfairness, bias, and
ethnic discrimination must stop.
Thank you in advance for reviewing and considering the contents of this
letter and its attachments.
Very Truly Yours,
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
MARYANN CAZZELL
MC:sc
cc: Client
Attachments: AGT Case documents
no
ll
p
I.,µ.,,..I -
30-2013-
1
0®20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/29/2020 04:01:00 PM.
88977®CU®MC®CJC ® ROP, # 435 ® DAVID H. YAMASA I, Clerk of the Court By Jonathan Aguilar, Deputy
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ. (Bar 9128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzellkmsn.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,
INC., A California Corporation, doing business
as 24/7 Taxi Cab,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM
CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
MC-CJC
[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
PURPOSES TO THE HON.
GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION OF PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR
AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES
UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL
BIAS ON THE PART OF
ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO
OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
9G055501; MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
[DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
AND KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
AND CONCURRENTLY]
HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
DEPT.: C-22
[RESERVATION # 733454 79]
REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
2/14/2020
COMPLT. FIL'G DATE: 11/21/13
TRIAL DATE: NONE
MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
:lerk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT/RESPONDING PARTY
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ("ANAHEIM") AND TO MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV.,
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN, AND TO
ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 20, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Dept. C-22 of the above -captioned Court,
located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, PLAINTIFF/MOVING
PARTY AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC. (hereinafter "AGT") will
and does hereby move this Court for an Order for an immediate award of fifty
ANAHEIM taxicab franchises upon the showing of actual bias on the part of ANAHEIM,
pursuant to the October 31, 2019 OPINION issued by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth
District of California, Division Three ("COA") in case 9G055501 ("OPINION,") and for
further or alternative relief. This Motion is made on the following grounds:
(A) That by means of the OPINION, AGT was determined to be the
prevailing party on the Seventh Cause of Action Writ of the Supplemental Complaint
filed in this case in 2017, which itself followed up on ANAHEIM's failure to have
conducted an entirely new REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ("RFP") in October 2016 (rather
than a cursory "Rehearing,") despite the finding of the Trial Court's June 20, 2016
MINUTE ORDER ("MINUTE ORDER") in favor of AGT on its Fourth Cause of Action
Writ taken from ANAHEIM's franchise award in the year 2012;
(B) That by means of its OPINION the COA ORDERED ANAHEIM to
issue a new RFP for the 50 franchise stickers that had belonged to the former third
ANAHEIM taxicab franchisee A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC. ("A TAXI,") but
which later became available after A TAXI's franchise was terminated by ANAHEIM in
the Fall of 2016;
(C) That in the Fall of 2016, ANAHEIM had scheduled a City Council
Hearing to terminate A TAXI's fifty franchises to take place immediately prior to the
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM ii MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rehearing to award those very franchises in an equal split to its remaining taxicab
franchisees (25 to YELLOW CAB OF GREATER ORANGE COUNTY ("YELLOW
CAB") and 25 to CABCO, INC. dba CALIFORNIA YELLOW CAB ("CABCO"),) to the
exclusion of AGT;
(D) That AGT maintains that in 2016 ANAHEIM had knowingly allowed
YELLOW CAB and CABCO each to use their additional 25 taxi franchises (those
formerly used by A TAXI) as early as April/May 2016 right after A TAXI had gone out
of business, before ANAHEIM had even terminated A TAXI's franchise, and prior to the
time that it had held any sort of public hearing whatsoever about redistributing A TAXI's
fifty franchise permits;
(E) That in the REVERSAL Order of the OPINION, the COA only chose
to "decline (AGT's) invitation to order the City to award it 50 taxicab permits in the first
instance" specifically because it had concluded that "AGT has not demonstrated actual
bias" (OPINION page 22;) yet at the same time, the COA was quick to clarify that "[O]ur
conclusion does not preclude AGT from asserting bias in future proceedings, supported
by concrete facts and not baseless allegations" Ibid.;
(F) That at the urging of this Court, ANAHEIM officially terminated
YELLOW CAB's taxi franchise on July 14, 2020, simultaneously with ANAHEIM's
termination of YELLOW CAB's 25 permits as Ordered by the COA (which 25 -permit
"reduction" "staff did not have time to complete" by the time YELLOW CAB ceased
operations,) but made no specific reference to a termination of CABCO's 25 permits as
Ordered by the COA; and that on the following day, July 15, 2020, ANAHEIM issued
and circulated a new RFP for up to two hundred five (205) new taxicab franchises, but for
a duration of only about two years, and still without making any specific reference to a
termination of CABCO's 25 permits as required by the COA in its OPINION;
1 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT for July 14, 2020 Agenda Item 426,
page 2.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM iii MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(G) That ANAHEIM represented at the last Court Hearing in this case held
July 16, 2020 that CABCO had turned in or had otherwise stopped using the 25
ANAHEIM franchises that the COA had ordered be taken from it and put out for bid
under a new RFP, assuring the Court that CABCO was then only operating in ANAHEIM
under its remaining 50 taxicab franchises; and
(H) That AGT now has documentary proof that CABCO is now and
already operating taxicabs in ANAHEIM well in excess of those allowed under its
franchise; and that this evidence now before this Court establishes the actual bias
necessary to allow this Court to exercise its discretion to direct ANAHEIM to award the
fifty taxicab franchises directly to AGT for the regular 10 -year franchise period.
This MOTION is based upon this NOTICE OF MOTION, on the attached
MEMORANDUM, on the concurrently -submitted DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
RODITIS and KONSTANTINOS RODITIS, on the contents of any and all Responses to
each Public Records Request ("PRR") submitted to ANAHEIM and/or to the ORANGE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("OCTA") on behalf of the ORANGE
COUNTY TAXI ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM ("OCTAP") in July or August 2020
related to this Motion, and on such other matters of which JUDICIAL NOTICE may
respectfully be invited prior to or at the time of the hearing of the Motion, on all of the
pleadings, papers and documents on file herein, and on such oral and documentary
evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
DATED: July 28, 2020
By:
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving Party
AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM iv MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM
1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF CASE POSTURE.-
By
OSTURE:
By now this Court is reasonably familiar with the current posture of this
2013 case, involving ongoing attempts by AGT (in relevant part a taxicab operator) to
secure the right to be able to operate in ANAHEIM. The Court's first hearing upon
remand, held June 25, 2020, was a combined Joint Status Conference and a hearing on
the parties' cross-motions, the salient one being AGT's Motion to Set Matter for Jury
Trial or related relief.
In both its TENTATIVE RULING and in Open (Court -Call) Court, the
Court directed ANAHEIM to comply with the orders of the COA, and to supply the Court
with a copy of its RFP. Since neither of these directives had yet been accomplished, the
Court asked about ANAHEIM's upcoming City Council hearing pertaining to the RFP.
Learning that such hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2020, the Court advanced the
follow-up Further Status Conference to July 16th.
Prior to the July 16' continued hearing, AGT submitted via a REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ("RJN,") ANAHEIM's complete CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REPORT for Item 926 on the July 14'h calendar ("AGENDA REPORT,") concerning the
termination of the taxicab franchise of YELLOW CAB. The Court granted that RJN at
the time of the hearing. ANAHEIM's counsel indicated that it had submitted its own
RJN, a copy of the RFP it had circulated on July 15, 2020. While it hadn't been
processed by the Court as of the time of the hearing, AGT's counsel acknowledged
having reviewed the same.
At the July 16'h hearing, the Court generally discussed the AGENDA
REPORT and the RFP with counsel. AGT's counsel noted that there were several
problems with the RFP as drafted, chief among them being:
2 This was delayed for several months per the Orange County Superior Court's
Administrative Orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
I AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 1 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) That instead of issuing a separate RFP limited to the 50 taxi franchises as ordered
by the COA, ANAHEIM had issued a single RFP soliciting public bids for up to 205
taxicab franchises;
2) That prior to even issuing the RFP, ANAHEIM had failed to conduct its customary
"public convenience and necessity" study, performed by a nationwide taxicab expert, for
the purpose of determining how many taxicab franchises ANAHEIM actually needed at
this time (which was substantially less that slated due both to the COVID-19 pandemic
and the prevalence of non -taxi for -hire vehicles operating in competition to taxicabs, such
as "LIBER" or "LYFT"-type Transportation Network Companies" (TNCs"),) and that the
ANAHEIM transportation market would be flooded with more taxicabs than needed; and
3) That the term of the franchise offered by the RFP, was limited to about two years
rather than the typical ten-year period ANAHEIM had offered in recent years, which
longer period was necessary so that a new franchisee had a realistic ramp -up period
within which to amortize its purchase new or newer vehicles and equipment, which costs
would be over $1,000,000 for the (minium -allowed) fifty -cab fleet.
The Court and counsel also briefly discussed the possibility that the
franchise might ultimately be found to violate a new law initiated as "AB 1069" and now
codified as Cal. Govt. Code sections 53075.51 et sem, which was enacted for the purpose
and with the intent of "opening up" municipal borders for taxicab operations so that taxis
could have a prayer of remaining in business despite crushing governmental regulations,
and having to compete alongside TNCs.
AGT argued that ANAHEIM had still not required CABCO to "give back"
the 25 "vacated" permits as Ordered by the COA, so that these, along with the 25
"vacated"permits then held by YELLOW CAB, could be put out for the 50 -franchise RFP
as directed in the OPINION. AGT opined that in fact CABCO was still operating in
ANAHEIM using its legitimate 50 franchises PLUS the 25 it was required to give back;
pointing out that ANAHEIM had never done the required TERMINATION hearing (just
as it had to do for YELLOW CAB on July 14th, evidenced in the AGENDA REPORT.)
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 2 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANAHEIM's counsel steadfastly denied that CABCO was still using those 25 permits
that were supposed to have been included in the COA-ordered RFP, stating that it had
some sort of documentation for this.
To date, AGT has been made aware of no such documentation. It has,
however, been made aware of this:
ANAHEIM HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN CABCO'S
UNDERHANDED SCHEME TO USE THE ANAHEIM FRANCHISE
STICKERS STILL AFFIXED TO YELLOW CAB'S VEHICLES TO
OPERATE FAR MORE THAN ITS 50 ANAHEIM FRANCHISES.
IL AT ISSUE ARE THE VERY SAME 50 ANAHEIMFRANCHISE STICKERS AS WERE
ORIGINALL Y A WARDED TO A TAXI BYMEANS OF ANAHEIM'S RFP OF M4Y2012.
A bit of "tracing" is in order, as the 50 subject franchises are not of the
"fungible" variety. They had a genesis, and it was the May 2012 taxicab franchise
awards.' These 50 franchises were those same ones originally awarded to A TAXI, then.
' Possibly more accurately, they were first awarded to A TAXI at the time of the first
ANAHEIM taxicab franchise which commenced on February 14, 2002. The other franchisees
were YELLOW CAB, for 130 permits, and CABCO, for its 50 permits.
As this Court has been made aware, CABCO only squeaked into the franchise at the last minute.
With its lackluster "70" RFP score, CABCO was not slated to receive a single franchise sticker.
It snatched victory from the jaws of defeat as a substitute for AMERICAN LIVERY, INC. dba
AMERICAN TAXI, which would have been the third franchisee with 50 permits, but for its
going out of business in the wake of 9/11, a catastrophic event for taxicabs holding airport
contracts (it then held the John Wayne Airport Concession Contract.)
The 2002 franchises were for a 5 -year term, with 5 "rolling" one-year extensions, requiring each
company to request an additional year's extension, at the conclusion of each year. None of the
companies got this exactly right; and A TAXI got it the "least right." Thus staggered renewal
requests began in 2007, when A TAXI's 50 permits went up for bid under a new RFP.
The City Council chose to solve this inconsistency by consolidating the timing of all of the RFPs
so that they would all expire together in 2012. In so doing it changed the franchise periods to
10 -years for the reasons stated above. In 2008 ANAHEIM kept the same number of franchises
per franchisee, but threw in another 25 franchise stickers to YELLOW CAB for good measure,
increasing the total number of outstanding permits from 230 to 255.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 3 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
But CABCO filed a REQUEST FOR REHEARING pertaining in particular
to A TAXI's award. The Request was granted and a Rehearing took place in August
2012, whereafter the franchise distribution among the three companies remained the same
- 155 to YELLOW CAB, 50 to CABCO, and 50 to A TAXI.
The Fourth Cause of Action of AGT's First Amended Complaint in relevant
part challenged the propriety of the August 2012 Rehearing, and the Trial Court agreed
that it had been improperly done, by its MINUTE ORDER directing a "Rehearing" of
that Rehearing. But in the interim between the hearing on which the MINUTE ORDER
was made, and the time that it was issued, A TAXI went out of business.
ANAHEIM did another short-cut. Since A TAXI had surrendered its
franchise, under Anaheim Municipal Code ("AM(") section 4.73.045.03 0(111) ANAHEIM
was required to, but did not, conduct a full RFP for those same 50 permits. AGT cried
foul and moved the trial court for an order allowing it to supplement or augment the
record, and ultimately the trial court granted it leave to file a Supplemental Complaint.
AGT did so, adding this new challenge as its Seventh Cause of Action Writ. But the Trial
Court found against AGT on this Writ, and in the end, dismissed the action, entering
Judgment against AGT.
On Appeal, the COA expressly found that ANAHEIM's conduct of a
Rehearing was unauthorized and unlawful (OPINION pages 16-19,) and that AGT was
correct: ANAHEIM had to issue a new RFP "for those 50 taxicab permits" (OPINION at
p. 26 (emph. added).) This brings the case posture, roughly, to current.
THEY SAY THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.
At least in a litigation context, nowhere is it more apparent than in this case, where
CARCO continued to 'jump the gun " to use A TAXI's franchises both BEFORE that was
authorized in 2016, and AFTER it WAS NO LONGER authorized, to do so in 2020. Ditto
for YELLOW CAB. Even today history repeats itself with ANAHEIM allowing CABCO
to sneak in through the back door, what it could not sneak in, through the front door.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 4 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AGT is informed and believes that in April and May 2016, when A TAXI went out of
business, both YELLOW CAB and CABCO, with the knowledge and perhaps the
cooperation of ANAHEIM, just "divvied up" A TAXI's 50 permits, taking 25 each and
operating with them immediately.' Then when in October 2016 ANAHEIM was directed
by the Trial Court to "re -hear" the August 2012 Rehearing, even though AGT had
submitted a fully -compliant and competitive RFP Application and its scoring increased in
comparison with all the other contenders (all of whose scores, decreased.) ANAHEIM
didn't change a thing. Conveniently, it awarded CABCO and YELLOW CAB an
additional 25 permits each - splitting the number of A TAXI's permits right down the
middle. This was a good thing for CABCO and YELLOW CAB, since it saved them the
hassle of having to "process" the return of the A TAXI permits they had already been
using since the Spring of that year! It was just business as usual. Nothing changed in
YELLOW CAB's and CABCO's operations between the Spring of 2016 and October of
2016, when the actual extra 25 -permit "award" was made to each of them.
Fast -forward to October 31, 2019, the date of the COA's OPINION,
ordering ANAHEIM to conduct a new RFP for those 50 A TAXI permits. Again, nothing
happened. It was business as usual for CABCO and YELLOW CAB: they continued to
operate with their regular number of franchise awards, plus half of the A TAXI 50
permits. Neither company gave them back, nor did ANAHEIM invalidate them. Any
question about the need for ANAHEIM to comply with the OPINION in light of the
interim Appeal evaporated on February 14, 2020, the date that the REMITTITUR was
issued. At least a month passed between then and the Governor's issuance of the Stay -
At -Home Administrative Orders in mid-March: still, ANAHEIM took no action
whatsoever to begin the process to take away CABCO's and YELLOW CAB's 50 A
TAXI permits, which CABCO and YELLOW CAB continued to use.
4 AGT's attempts to be able to conduct "targeted, limited discovery," such as the taking
of the Deposition of ANAHEIM "Staff' Manager Sandra Sagert, were disallowed by the Trial
Court, so AGT has not yet been able to prove this.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 5 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In fact, the only reason that YELLOW CAB stopped using A TAXI's permits
in May 2020, was that it went out of business altogether.
To date, ANAHEIM has offered no evidence whatsoever that CABCO was
ever required to surrender its 25 A TAXI permits. As explained by KONSTANTINOS
RODITIS in his DECLARATION, he submitted a PRR to ANAHEIM on July 17'h
seeking such proof, for which (although a response was statutorily required within ten
days,) has not been forthcoming.
Possibly it is a situation in which CABCO did pay lip service to
"surrendering" its 25 A TAXI permits, but even if so, AGT has proof positive that
CABCO is now operating with many permits in excess of its 50 allotted ones:
photographs of many "CABCO" vehicles now picking up fares in ANAHEIM using
YELLOW CAB's ANAHEIMpermits (Please see the concurrently -submitted SAVVAS
RODITIS DECLARATION and its Exhibits.)
This is not a "no harm, no foul" situation. There is no way that this could
be lawful and appropriate. CABCO now has only an ANAHEIM franchise for 505
permits. It doesn't get to "inherit" YELLOW CAB's franchises when it went out of
business, since the franchises are non -transferable (AMC 4.73.120.) Besides, the
franchises have to go out for public bid among all of the interested and qualified taxicab
companies - each of which gets to compete for them (AMC 4.73.045.030(iii).) Besides
(again,) these YELLOW CAB franchises are purportedly already the subject of
ANAHEIM's latest RFP: the one for which it submitted its July 15, 2020 RFP.
The common factor here is that "[A]11 roads lead to Rome," where the
"roads" represent the procedural vehicles ANAHEIM uses, and "Rome" represents the
destination of having the incumbent franchisees always come out on top with as many
franchises as they want, to the utter exclusion of AGT (and its predecessor.)
s Per the RFP and franchise and their allowances for fluctuations in peak or low period
usage, this number can increase or decrease by 15% (RFP page 5 - GENERAL FRANCHISE
REQUIREMENTS.) Thus a 50 -cab franchise can actually allow for up to 58 stickers.
This regular "overage" is not what is being challenged here.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 6 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. ANAHEIM'S MOST RECENT SHENANIGANS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF
"ACTUAL BIAS" AS DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION, TO ALLOW THIS COURT
DISCRETION TO DIRECTLYA WARD AGT THE 50 PERMITS THAT ARE THE
SUBJECT OF THE ORDERED RFP.
This Court opined at the June 25, 2020 Hearing, words to the effect that it
was clear that the COA wanted AGT to be operating in ANAHEIM. The Court is also
appropriately wanting to comply with the letter and spirit of the Order of the OPINION.
With these most recent developments and evidence, the Court can do so by making an
immediate award of 50 taxicab franchises to AGT.
It is noteworthy that the COA in no way limited the sort of "bias" that AGT
could assert "in future proceedings" (OPINION at pg. 22) other than to say that it should
be "supported by concrete facts and not baseless allegations" Ibid.' Here then are those
concrete facts: (1) ANAHEIM refused to implement the Order of the OPINION until
forced to do so by this Court, allowing both CABCO and YELLOW CAB to continue to
use the aggregate 50 franchises rather than terminating them; (2) When ANAHEIM
finally "complied" by issuing its July 15, 2020 RFP, it included provisions that
realistically emasculated any advantage that AGT could possibly have gained from it,
including proposing a total of 180 (rather than the COA-Ordered 50) franchise stickers;
foreshortening the term of the franchise; and applying no -longer tenable vehicle age
limitations; (3) ANAHEIM still has failed to require CABCO to turn in its no -longer
authorized 25 franchises; (4) ANAHEIM now allows CABCO to use YELLOW CAB's
Importantly, the COA's rejection of AGT's "bias" claim was extremely narrow. The
COA found that in order for AGT to have preserved its bias claim, it literally had to itselfhave
presented and argued specific detailed facts before the Anaheim City Council, proving that
particular City Councilpersons and/or members of the Taxicab Advisory Committee ("TAC")
were biased against AGT (OPINION at pp. 19-22.)
Here, in contrast, AGT has established that even outside of a City Council hearing or TAC
proceeding, ANAHEIM' continued refusal to act in a way that would comply with and further
the letter and spirit of the Order in the OPINION, instead delaying taking any action to comply
whatsoever, and then finding a way to twist and manipulate the situation so as to favor the
continued operation of CABCO (and to possibly assist any other taxicab operator that might
wish to operate in the City,) constitutes sufficient evidence of bias.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 7 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1 (supposedly terminated and surrendered) franchises in addition to CABCO's own
2 franchise stickers; and (5) ANAHEIM allows CABCO to operate taxicabs (its own, and
3 former YELLOW CAB taxis) that do not even meet the model year limitations, and some
4 of which do not even bear current franchise stickers.
5 Case law supports findings of municipal impropriety. In a building permit
6 case, Ogo Assoc's v. City of v. City of Torrance (1974), 37 Ca1.App.3d at p. 834 the Court
7 found that it could override the City's actions where "[T]he evidence is overwhelming
8 that the city council rezoned the Victor Precinct area because appellants planned to build
9 their project there" (emph. added.) Likewise in G & D Holland Construction Co. v. City
10 of Marysville (1970), 12 Ca1.App.3d 989, an appellate court reversed a grant of summary
11 judgment where the city's actions represented a discriminatory exercise of legislative
12 power..." (at p. 996.) In Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994), 30 Ca1.App.,4th 547, (a
13 procedurally similar case in that the plaintiff had pursued a municipal permit for close to
14 15 years,) bias was found in the fact that the city had broken its own laws. Here evidence
15 has been presented that ANAHEIM has broken its own laws too: in (per the OPINION)
16 failing to conduct the required RFP in 2016; in allowing both CABCO and YELLOW
17 CAB to continue to use the 50 A TAXI franchise permits even after the OPINION
18 became final; and now, in allowing CABCO to operate under YELLOW CAB's
19 (supposedly terminated and surrendered) franchises, often using taxicabs that exceed the
20 maximum model year limitation of the franchise.
21 Several subparts of C. C.P. section 128(a) give this Court plenary power to
22 grant the Orders requested in this Motion. In this Court's TENTATIVE RULING for the
23 June 25, 2020 hearing that was the genesis of the within Motion, the Court noted that
24 ANAHEIM should submit a copy of its RFP and/or be ready to answer for why this had
25 not yet been accomplished. Further proceedings followed suit.
26 Subparts -(1), -(2), and -(3) of C. C.P. section 128(a) all grant this Court the
27 authority to "preserve and enforce order" both "in its immediate presence" and "in the
28 proceedings before it" (and others,) and to "provide for the orderly conduct of
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 8 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1 proceedings before it...". Perhaps most relevant now is subpart -(4), which grants this
2 Court power "[T]o compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the
3 orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein" (emph.
4 added.) The final phrase of this statute can relate to the Justices at the COA in their
5 OPINION Order, to which ANAHEIM has not been obedient. In fact, its delays and
6 omissions have effectively thwarted the intention of the COA in its OPINION.
8 IV. THE COURT ALSO HAS THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY UNTENABLE
9 PROVISIONS OF THE NEWLY -ISSUED RFP TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH IT
10 FEASIBLE, IN ORDER TO COMPORT WITH THE INTENT OF THE COA OPINION.
11 The July 15, 2020 RFP no longer "works" for the reasons stated throughout
12 this Motion. First and foremost, it is unnecessary: due to ANAHEIM's blatant display of
13 bias in these proceedings, the 50 franchise award should go directly to AGT without a
14 competitive bidding process. And even if this Court finds that an RFP is still necessary,
15 in order to comply with the Order in the OPINION it must be ONLY for 50 A TAXI
16 permits traceable back to the 2012 franchise awards.
17 Next, the proposed two-year franchise period should be extended to the
18 usual and customary ten-year period. Nothing that ANAHEIM can say can justify such a
19 short franchise period. AGT predicts that ANAHEIM will argue that the term should be
20 limited to the remainder of the original franchise granted in 2012, but the OPINION said
21 no such thing. Such a limitation would also force an untenable result and be
22 fundamentally unfair to AGT. There have been relevant important things that have
23 changed since ANAHEIM's last taxicab RFP (back in 2012) on both a State and local
24 level. TNCs began operating in Anaheim in direct competition to taxicabs. Next, Cal.
25 Govt. Code sections 53075.51 et sem. were enacted as a codification of AB 1069,
26 throwing ANAHEIM's very ability to continue operations under its taxi franchise system
27 into question. Just a few months back, the COVID-19 pandemic hit, throwing almost all
28 regular business endeavors (including local taxicab business) into disarray and
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 9 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1 uncertainty. And most recently of all, YELLOW CAB went out of business, "throwing"
2 its (legitimate) 155 franchise stickers back into the marketplace.
3 In addition to C. C.P. section 128, this Court is also graced with discretion
4 to "amend the proceedings" under C.C.P. section 473(a)(1). That statute provides in
5 salient part that "The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse
6 party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any... proceeding...". The
7 amendment proposed in this Motion - to wit, to amend the 5-year vehicle model-year
8 limitation to 10-years in order to comply with AB 1069 and the universal Orange County
9 OCTAP requirements, is necessary and appropriate in order for the franchise to even be
10 tenable under the present conditions.
11
12 V. CONCL USION.
13 Based upon all of the foregoing, on the concurrently-submitted
14 DECLARATIONS, and such other documents as may be presented upon RJN, in addition
15 to the oral arguments of counsel, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this
16 Motion in its entirety, Ordering ANAHEIM to award AGT the subject 50 taxicab
17 franchises forthwith for a ten-year period, and that this Court modify the proposed
18 Vehicle Requirements (as stated in Section 2 (at page 7) of ANAHEIM's related RFP) so
19 as to allow AGT to comply with AB 1069 and OCTAP Vehicle Requirements standards;)
20 or that this Court otherwise modify the RFP award for AGT to make compliance with it
21 feasible; or that this Court grant such other or further relief as it deems just and proper.
22
23 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
24 CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
25 /S/ Maryann Cazzell
26 DATED: July 28, 2020 By:
M RY NN CAZZELL, E
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff AMERICAN
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
28
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 10 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 505 N. Tustin Ave.,
Ste. 276, Santa Ana, California 92705.
On July 29, 2020 I caused the foregoing document(s) described as:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB
FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE PART OF ANAHEIM,
PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
9G055501; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND
DECLARATION OF SAVVAS RODITIS (submitted and served separately and
concurrently); and DECLARATION OF KONSTANTINOS RODITIS (submitted and
served separately and concurrently) to be served on the interested party in this action as
follows:
XX by causing a true and correct copy of the same to be personally delivered to the
office of the following recipient:
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, ESQ.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 W. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 356
Anaheim, CA 92805
miohnsonkanaheim.net
AND -
(Attorney for Defendant and Responding Party
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM)
_XX_ By serving the counsel identified hereinbelow electronically through service
effected by ONE LEGAL at the electronic mail address on file with this Court,
concurrently with the filing of the above document, with confirmation of electronic
service; AND ALSO directly sending a copy thereof via email to the email address
below, this date:
Executed on July 29, 2020 at Santa Ana, California.
xx (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the above is true and correct.
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
MARYANN CAZZELL
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 11 MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE AWARD
� -r
� r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/13/2020 06:27:00 PM.
13-00688977-CU-MC-CJC - ROA # 445 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By e Clerk, Deputy C
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ. (Bar #128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzellkmsn.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,
INC., A California Corporation, doing business
as 24/7 Taxi Cab,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM
CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
MC-CJC
[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
PURPOSES TO THE HON.
GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22]
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC. IN
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB
FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING
OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE
PART OF ANAHEIM,
PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31,
2019 COURT OF APPEAL
OPINION IN CASE #G055501
[DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS
RODITIS, KONSTANTINOS
RODITIS, AND MARYANN
CAZZELL; REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE; AND
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
AND CONCURRENTLY]
HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
DEPT.: C-22
REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
2/14/2020
COMPLT. FIL'G DATE: 11/21/13
TRIAL DATE: NONE
REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, TO DEFENDANT/RESPONDING PARTY
2 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ("ANAHEIM") AND TO MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV.,
3 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN, AND TO
4 ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
5
6 COMES NOT PLAINTIFF/MOVING PARTY AMERICAN GROUND
7 TRANSPORTATION, INC. (hereinafter "AGT") and does herewith submit the following
8 REPLY to ANAHEIM's OPPOSITION to AGT's MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE
9 AWARD OF FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS
lo ON THE PART OF ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
11 APPEAL OPINION IN CASE #G055501 and/or related relief, currently set to be heard
12 on August 20, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. (By Court Call Appearance) in Dept. C-22 of the above -
13 captioned Court.
14
15 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
16
17
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
18 DATED: August 14, 2020
By:
19 MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving Party
20 AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM ii REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM
1. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
ANAHEIM's OPPOSITION says many things, but it does not say:
1) THAT it cannot perform the relief sought in the Motion; and
2) WHY it should not perform the relief sought in the Motion.
Instead, in flagrant disregard for both this Court and the Court of Appeal
("COA") and their processes, ANAHEIM "doubles -down" on its insistence that it has its
franchise ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code ("AM(") Chapter 4.73) and that its timing
and procedures take precedence; that it has discretion with which no one, including any
Court, should interfere; and that as to compliance with the COA's October 31, 2019
ORDER, well, it will "get around to it when it gets around to it," and oh, by the way, it
can interpret its duty of compliance however it deems appropriate and convenient for it.
When confronted by the MOTION'S solid evidence that just last month, in
July 2020, CABCO (the last Anaheim taxicab franchisee now standing,) has been using
the Anaheim Franchise stickers still affixed to defunct franchisee YELLOW CAB's
taxicabs, to pick up Anaheim taxi fares, ANAHEIM feigns ignorance rather than taking
action to terminate CABCO's franchise (although it has in the past taken immediate
action to terminate another company's franchise for far lesser offenses.) Rather than
prosecuting CABCO for a misdemeanor under AMC 4.73.170 for operating cabs in its
City without a franchise, ANAHEIM has embraced this illegal activity. Rather than
requiring YELLOW CAB / CABCO to surrender the cabs bearing forfeited Anaheim
franchise stickers to be literally scraped off (as ANAHEIM did for SCC's Court -Ordered
permits (SAVVAS RODITIS ("SAVVAS") DECLARATION, paras. 3&4,) it capitulated
in a clandestine transfer of those cabs complete with franchise stickers to CABCO.
Throughout these proceedings on remand (and likely beforehand,) the
favoritism that ANAHEIM has shown to CABCO defies belief. When confronted with
1 See CAZZELL DECLARATION, paras. 4-6 and Exhibits "A" & "B" thereof, and
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ("RJN") Exhibit "A" (referring to "A TAXI.")
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 1 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
clear written evidence that CABCO is operating franchised cabs in the City that grossly
exceed the allowable vehicle model year limitation, ANAHEIM argues a tortured
interpretation of that limitation to try to shoehorn CABCO's acts into the "OK zone," a
construct that is any case overcome by the written requirements of ANAHEIM's own
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ("RFP") ADDENDUM (from 2012) which detailed the
calculation of the latest model year acceptable (see the KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
("KONSTANTINOS") DECLARATION, paras.4-6 and its EXHIBIT "A", at p.2, Sec. 8.)
Although ANAHEIM admits that the COA ORDERED it to issue an RFP
for "those fifty permits,") (OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM ("OPPO,") page 1 lines 2-4
(p.1:2-4),) it persists to insist that this Court "bless" its substitute initiation of an RFP for
205 permits, also claiming that there is no need for its traditional expert taxicab study on
how many cabs are needed now (see paras. 8&9 of the SAGERT DECLARATION,)
using only objectionable "evidence" to do so (addressed, a time permits, in the
concurrently -submitted OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.) Indeed, there is something
inherently wrong in the fact that almost all of the factual evidence submitted in the
opposition paperwork came from SAGERT, the witness whom AGT's repeated attempts
to depose were rejected by both the Trial Court and the COA in response to ANAHEIM's
strenuous objections.) There is even more than inherently wrong in SAGERT's statement
at page 2 lines 27-28 of her DECLARATION made under penalty of perjury, that: "...-on
July 15, 2020, the City issued an RFP for the 50 permits to abide by the Court's order
and while preparing the RFP another company went out of business..." (emph. added.)
WHAT? YELLOW CAB went out of business on May 31, 2020, as ANAHEIM is well
aware. The parties and this Court are also well -aware that ANAHEIM, by its counsels;s
own admission in "Open Court," did not even start working on the RFP until JULY 2020!
SAGERT's statement is a blatant falsehood, which casts complete doubt on her veracity.
What is clear is that ANAHEIM will fight AGT's MOTION at all costs,
because once AGT, after twelve years of attempts, is able to operate in the City, it will do
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 2 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an excellent job, and ANAHEIM fears that AGT will then (legitimately) seek an award of
damages and fees for prevailing on its Writ claims, twice. But there is no need for the
litigants to get ahead of themselves: the case will progress; and the chips "will fall.."
It is far more important not cater to ANAHEIM's desperate attempt to avoid
justified relief now sought, just because it has painted itself into the proverbial corner.
�AHEIM's track record has proven that it will never willingly grant AGT a franchise;
d it has gone through great efforts to perpetuate that goal. First, it put off doing
ything to comply with the COA ORDER, all the while allowing CABCO to take over
YELLOW CAB taxicabs AND their franchises in violation of AMC 4.73.120
iting franchise alienation (in particular franchise transfers.) Next ANAHEIM
the issuance of the RFP until this Court mandated it. Then ANAHEIM "mixed"
50 -franchise RFP required by the COA with, and rolled it into, a re -issuance of a total
205 franchises. These tactics are perhaps not surprising given that ANAHEIM is
y disincentivized to conduct a "fair" RFP for "those 50 permits" as ORDERED
the COA; because, what if AGT should win? Then ANAHEIM will then have to
in damages and fees. Better to have a larger RFP, where ANAHEIM can more
ily manipulate things and possibly even dodge the radar in so doing. If ANAHEIM has
anything, it is its desire to litigate against AGT (paying for it with taxpayer
,) "until the cows come home." This Court has discretion to short-circuit that ill -
path by granting the relief sought in AGT's MOTION.
2. ANAHEIMHAS OFFERED NO EVIDENCE, NOR REASONABLE ARGUMENT, FOR
WHY THE RELIEF SO UGHT IN THE MOTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (OTHER
THAN THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WHAT THE COURT SAYS IT MUST DO.)
AGT expected argument in the OPPO for why this Court did not have the
thority or discretion to grant AGT's Motion, but found none.
Instead, ANAHEIM actually floated this argument at OPPO, p.5:24-25:
"It should be noted that the Appellate Court did not order
when the City was required to issue the RFP" (emph. added.)
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 3 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1 The argument which followed pointed out that "[T]he first Status
2 Conference was held on June 25, 2020" (OPPO p.6:2.) In other words, ANAHEIM didn't
3 have to actually do anything until AFTER this Court told it to.
4 ANAHEIM then segued into its Section III, pertaining to its REQUEST
5 FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE of AMC Chapter 4.73 (the taxicab franchise Chapter) (OPPO
6 pp.6:3-7:4.) In other words, this is the "law" that ANAHEIM made, and this is what it
7 will follow regardless of what any Court should order. Not to put too fine a point on it,
8 ANAHEIM sealed this argument by explaining that this Court had no business meddling
9 in its administration, citing to the cases of Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of
10 Conservation (2018), 26 Cal.App.5th 161 and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp.
11 Appeals Bd. (2016), 248 Cal.AppAth 349 for why ANAHEIM could not be compelled to
12 exercise its discretion in any "particular manner;" and that the Court could not "mandate"
13 the "award of a contract," since a public entity's award of it is "legislative in nature"
14 (citing to Mike Moore's 24 -Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996), 45 Cal.App.4 h
15 1294,) such that "...[T]he Plaintiff is not entitled to a court order mandating that the City
16 immediately grant them a taxicab franchise" (OPPO. p.7:27-8:11.) That's it. AGT's tenet
17 that C. C.P. section 128(a)(1), -(2), -(3), and -(4) all grant this Court the authority and
18 discretion to grant the relief sought by the MOTION, stands unchallenged.
19 3. ANAHEIM'S ONGOING DELA YS IN IMPLEMENTING THE COA 'S ORDER
20 CONTINUE TO WORK TO AGT'S SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE IN THE FORM OF
21 LOST INCOME AND B USINESS OPPORTUNITY.
22 Were this a taxicab franchise of ANAHEIM's standard ten-year term, the
23 resulting damage from the delay in implementation would be relatively small (as a
24 percentage of time compared to the total franchise period.) But ANAHEIM has refused to
25 issue the COA-Ordered 50 sticker franchise for ten years: thus, the inclusion of the request
26 to increase the franchise period to ten years among the relief requested in the MOTION.
27
28 2 Regardless, the "franchise" is not a "contract."
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 4 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
AGT has "done the math" to see how ANAHEIM's ongoing delays have
orked to its substantial prejudice, and the results are significant. ANAHEIM's planned
will only be effective through 5/15/2022. Assuming that there are no delays in
AHEIM's planned award process outlined in its RFP, it will commence on 9/29/2020,
a total of only 593 operating days. The following time/percentage calculations
made by using the 76 -day spread that ANAHEIM used in its own RFP, between the
e when the RFP was first issued, and the franchises are actually awarded: If
AHEIM had issued the RFP on 2/15/2020, the day following the 2/14/2020
AGT could have operated for 745 days. Thus ANAHEIM's delays
ved AGT of about twenty percent (2001o) of its profits and economic advantage.'
ANAHEIM's argument that the franchise should only be issued for the
12 11remaining period from now until the completion of the originally -issued 2012 franchise,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
doesn't work" for the COA's ORDER. At no point in its OPINION did the COA limit its
-RFP issuance to less than two years. Nor would it make sense for the COA to
ve done this, since it obviously did not intend to make a ruling that would eviscerate
GT's success. It might be appropriate to limit any upcoming separate RFP for
W CAB's own surrendered permits, to that less than two-year period, however, for
, which has enjoyed the benefits of the franchise continuously since 2012 .
THE OPPOSITION ONLY SHOWCASES MORE BIAS IN ANAHEIM'S FLIPPANT
PROACH TO REGULATING CABCO'S FRANCHISE OPERATIONS (OR NOT,)
PECIALLYAS COMPARED TO ITS TREATMENT OF OTHER OPERATORS.
(A) Improper "counting" of acceptable model year taxicabs:
In response to the moving DECLARATIONS OF SAWAS and
NSTANTINOS, ANAHEIM, through Declarant SAGERT, argues that CABCO cabs
' An argument can be made that ANAHEIM should have issued the RFP on 11/1/2019,
the day after the COA OPINION was filed, since ANAHEIM never appealed the decision. If the
RFP had been issued then, the franchise would have taken effect on 1/15/2020 and would have
allowed 866 operation days. Under this calculation ANAHEIM's delay deprived AGT of up to
thirty-two percent (32%) of its time, profit, and economic advantage.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 5 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1 11as old as 2014 meet the franchise's five-year age limitation! (SAGERT DECLARATION
2 paras. 12, 20, 21.) To reach this erroneous conclusion, SAGERT applies the old mistake
3 in arithmetic that to figure out how many copies are made, one can subtract the number of
4 pages printed from the total: as in, if you have a 2020 -page -long document and you print
5 pages 2015 through 2020, you've printed 5 pages (2020 - 2015.) WRONG: you've
6 printed 6 pages (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, & 2020.) So, even excluding the 2020
7 model year (a typical and in fact legal method of calculation for the "last day to perform an
8 11act" per C. C.P. section 12c(a), - one excludes the last date (2020) and counts back the
9 11specified number -) the oldest year standard cab now allowed, is 2015 (subject to the very
10 limited exception in the following paragraph.)
11 An ADDENDUM to the existing franchise does add an allowance, but it is
12 of only three months (from January 1 - April 1" of each year.) This is described in detail
13 in the KONSTANTINOS DECLARATION at paras. 5&6 and in EXHIBIT "A" thereto -
14 the RFP ADDENDUM. Perhaps SAGERT had this in mind when she boldly claimed that
15 112014 cabs were franchise -legal; but she didn't review her own paperwork. Such 2014
16 11 franchise cabs ceased to be legal on April 2, 2020 -four and a half months ago. To make
17 11matters worse, SAGERT claimed that all 2014 franchise cabs were valid all the way
18 through the end of 2013! (SAGERT DECLARATION paras. 12, 20, & 21.) But 2015 is
19 absolutely cut-off now, and the analysis set forth in para. 7 of the KONSTANTINOS
20 DECLARATION concluded that the 2020 Roster of CABCO vehicles ANAHEIM
21 supplied, showed that CARCO had 53 2014 and older cabs. Also reprehensible is
22 ANAHEIM's lack of enforcement of CABCO's repeated violations of the franchise laws
23 11(even after called them to its attention!) SAGERT admits to CABCO's violations, but
24 11instead of doing anything about it says things in her DECLARATION such as, CABCO's
2 5 11taxi was "[E]xpired and working with Cabco on replacing taxi," (para. 12;) "Staff is
2 6 following up with Cabco ... regarding the removal of those taxi franchise stickers" (para.
2 7 13;) "...staff is following up..." (paras. 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18.) In other words, "CABCO,
2 8 you shouldn't be doing that." (Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink.)
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 6 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
(B) Improper failure to take action to terminate CABCO's franchise due to its flagrant
disregard for the requirements.
ANAHEIM also argues that it was "...unaware that those taxis
being operated by CABCO" (SAGERT DECLARATION para. 12;) and that from
of the photos presented with the moving paperwork there was no evidence that a fare
being picked up and one cannot tell "who was driving the vehicle;..." Loc. Cit., paras.
7 1114-18. As to "who was driving the vehicle," the photos are self -authenticating in that they
E3 j1depict CABCO's trade dress on the doors, as in "Operated by California Yellow Cab" (see
9 11the SAVVAS DECLARATION supporting the Motion.) As to the argument about the
10 vehicle perhaps not "picking up" a fare in Anaheim (even if true,) that misses the point:
11 YELLOW CAB was out of business. Its ANAHEIM franchise was gone. There vehicles
12 still bore the franchise stickers. ANAHEIM should have, but did not, require YELLOW
13 CAB and CABCO to have them scraped off, the way it required SCC to immediately have
14 its permits scraped off when its operating rights were terminated. End of story.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANAHEIM doesn't practice what it preaches. At p.9 of its OPPO it touts
is "police powers" to regulate its taxi business under O'Connor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 90
.App.3d 107, but then does no regulation of CABCO. It could (and should) have
enforcement and termination actions against CABCO as authorized under AMC
73.030.010, -.100,.170, -.200, as it did against A TAXI (see argument inra.) Instead,
of ANAHEIM's pro-CABCO bias is evident in the sympathetic tone that SAGERT
in the letter she sent about terminating its (A TAXI'S) 25 franchises, starting with "It
is with regret, that we inform you..." (p.2 of SAGERT Exhibit "C.") Why should
ANAHEIM "regret" anything in informing CABCO that the jig was up; that the COA had
seen through the improprieties of CABCO getting those 25 permits in the first place?
(C) ANAHEIM's grossly disparate treatment of its taxicab franchisees:
THE A TAXI STUDY.
If the above sub -sections seem to treat CABCO's failure to comply with the
harshly (after all, maybe it was all just a mistake,) the Court need look no further
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 7 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
what happened with the "third" franchisee, A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC,
ba "A TAXI" to find evidence of the intentionality of ANAHEIM's acts and omissions
�sulting in disparate treatment. After all, A TAXI's 50 franchise permits, (re-) awarded in
lay 2012, and eventually (re -)issued after the REQUEST FOR REHEARING submitted
t CABCO in June 2012, lead to the August 2012 ANAHEIM "Rehearing" at issue in
GT's Fourth and Seventh Cause of Action in the Trial Court in this case. These are the
ill-fated So permits that are still being fought over today.
The "Powers -That -Be" at ANAHEIM didn't want A TAXI to get that 50
award; or at least, once they were awarded, ANAHEIM did everything it could to
them back from A TAXI. As all of the parties and counsel to this action are aware,
GT's counsel knows these facts intimately because she and her firm represented A TAXI
2012 through 2016 throughout these proceedings.' These facts are attested to in
it in the accompanying CAZZELL DECLARATION, supported by evidence attached
thereto, and/or in the concurrent RJN.
(i) ANAHEIM'S attempts to kick A TAXI out through the ploy of
CABCO's Request for a Rehearing
As also explained by CAZZELL, the same SAGERT who informed
"with regret" that the 25 permits it had stolen from AGT in the first place had to
returned, had no qualms whatsoever in taking A TAXI's 50 permits away from it
imply because CABCO had filed a (deficient and untimely) REQUEST FOR
; and under SAGERT's rigid interpretation of AMC 1.12.100.090, A TAXI's
award was "completely voided" and A TAXI was out on its ear. And, less than a
later, this same SAGERT refused to agree to a voluntary stay of the enforcement of
edict so that A TAXI could have a fair shake to challenge it in Court. This caused in A
4 Due to the specialization needed to practice in this area of law, and the somewhat
incestuous nature of the taxi industry, there is some overlap of representation. All of this was
done with full knowledge on the parts of all clients, and with written disclosures and waivers.
Counsel has at other times represented A TAXI on other matters. During the pendency of this
case from 2012 to 2016, AGT was represented by Attorney WILLIAM KENNON.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 8 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1 TAXI to have to rush to file an action and run into Court for a Temporary Restraining
2 Order to restrain such activity; which, fortuitously, was granted.
3 (ii) ANAHEIM'S Administrative Trial Against A TAXI:
4 The CAZZELL DECLARATION also explains that beginning in or about
5 early 2013 ANAHEIM took administrative action against A TAXI to terminate its
6 (August) 2012 franchise on the grounds that it had not submitted the three years' worth of
7 audited financial statements required by the RFP. A TAXI was forced to defend itself
8 through a protracted public administrative trial which took place in ANAHEIM's Council
9 Chambers before the Hon. ALAN BURNS, HEARING OFFICER (appointed pursuant to
10 MC 4.73.100.040 and by Stipulation of the Parties.)
11 The September 18, 2013 DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER (later
12 adopted by the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL pursuant to AMC 4.73.100.050,) is attached
13 as EXHIBIT "B" to CAZZELL's DECLARATION and also referenced in the RJN. A
14 TAXI was charged with not having properly submitting its audited financial statements (as
15 they had previously been submitted "combined" as a group and were not actually audited,
16 but they later had been broken down and prepared separately, and audited per
17 ANAHEIM'S demand.) After all was said and done, the Hearing Officer concluded that
18 ANAHEIM had failed to carry its burden to proof on every single one of the issues (at p.
19 14.) In so doing, the Hearing Officer also found that competitor YELLOW CAB had not
20 even submitted GAAP -compliant audits, and had submitted less than the three requisite
21 years' worth of financials (Findings 66 & 67 at p. 8.)
22 (D) ANAHEIM's grossly -disparate treatment of its taxicab franchisees:
23 THE SCC STUDY.•
24 As explained in paras. 4&5 of the SAVVAS DECLARATION, and briefly
25 hereinabove, when ANAHEIM "sunsetted" the 117 Court-ordered permits awarded to
2 6 AGT's predecessor, ANAHEIM required SCC to bring each of its Anaheim -stickered cabs
2 7 to its City Officers where, one by one, Code Enforcement literally scraped those stickers
2 8 off. In stark contrast, ANAHEIM never required either YELLOW CAB or CABCO to
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 9 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1 have their invalidated stickers removed in any way, so that it is not apparent which cars
2 are licensed to operate in ANAHEIM, and which are not (with the result that the
3 disenfranchised cabs can and have continued to be operated in ANAHEIM with impunity.)
4115. CONCLUSION: THE MULTIPLE, UNDISPUTED EXAMPLES OFANAHEIM'S
5 SYSTEMIC BIAS IN ITS A CTIONS A GAINST A GT (AND ITS PREDECESSOR SCC, AND
6 OTHER TAXI COMPANIES THAT ANAHEIMDIDN'T LIKE,) SUBSTANTIALLY
7 CERTAIN TO CONTINUE IF LEFT UNCHECKED, JUSTIFY THIS CO URT IN ITS
8 EXER CISE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT THE IMMEDIA TE RELIEF REQUESTED.
9 In its OPINION the COA specifically left open to AGT, the ability to assert
10 "bias in future proceedings, supported by concrete facts..." (2019 WL 5617590, at * 12.)
11 This is the sort of future proceeding included in the COA's contemplation.
12 1 In both its hearings on June 25h and July 16th this Court specifically asked
13 11AGT's counsel what relief it was requesting vis-a-vis the COA's Order. AGT responded
14 11that it would like to begin operating its taxicabs in the City immediately. This Court
15 11responded that while it was not comfortable allowing that without ANAHEIM's approval
16 (which was not given,) the Court would consider granting relief based upon a Motion for
17 which ANAHEIM had the opportunity to respond in writing. This is that. AGT has based
18 its Motion on concrete facts and evidence of bias and wrongdoing on ANAHEIM's part.
19 ANAHEIM hasn't been able to refute this through credible, non -objectionable evidence.
20 11 Based upon all of the foregoing and on all of the other evidence submitted
21 in support of the Motion, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this Motion in its
22 entirety, or that this Court otherwise modify the RFP award for AGT to make compliance
23 with it feasible; or that this Court grant such other or further relief as it deems appropriate
24 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
25
26 /S/ Maryann Cazzell
DATED: August 14, 2020
27 By:
M RY NN CAZZELL, E
28 Attorneys for Plaintiff AMERICAN
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 10 REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
1
2
3
4
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 505 N. Tustin Ave.,
Ste. 276, Santa Ana, California 92705.
5
On August 14, 2020 I caused the foregoing document(s) described as:
6 MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC.
IN REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
7 FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL BIAS ON THE
PART OF ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF APPEAL
8 OPINION IN CASE #G055501 AND DECLARATIONS OF SAVVAS RODITIS,
KONSTANTINOS RODITIS, AND MARYANN CAZZELL, REQUEST FOR
9 JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, SUBMITTED
10 SEPARATELY AND CONCURRENTLY to be served on the interested party in this
action as follows:
11 XX by causing a true and correct copy of the same to be sent via UNITED PARCEL
12 SERVICE ("UPS,") NEXT BUSINESS DAY DELIVERY, by enclosing said documents
in a specialized UPS OVERNIGHT LETTER PAK, with delivery charges billed to the
13 "SENDER,"and depositing the same in an UPS Mailing Receptacle, this date, prior to the
time marked on the receptacle as the "LAST PICK-UP" of the day, addressed as follows:
14
MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, ESQ. (Attorney for Defendant and Responding Party
15 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM)
CITY OF ANAHEIM
16 200 W. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. 356
17 iAnaheim, CA 92805
rninhn,,nnnannnheirn net
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_XX_ By serving the counsel identified hereinbelow electronically through service
effected by ONE LEGAL at the electronic mail address on file with this Court,
concurrently with the filing of the above document, with confirmation of electronic
service, this date:
Executed on August 14, 2020 at Santa Ana, California.
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the above is true and correct.
/S/ Maryann Cazzell
MARYANN CAZZELL
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM REPLY - MOT. FOR IMMEDIATE FRANCHISE
All
30-2013-
1
0®20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 07/29/2020 04:01:00 PM.
88977®CU®MC®CJC ® ROP, # 437 ® DAVID H. YAMASA I, Clerk of the Court By Jonathan Aguilar, Deputy
CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS
MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ. (Bar 9128780)
505 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 276
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: 714/558-1772
Telefax: 714/558-1883
cazzellkmsn.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Moving party AMERICAN
GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation,
doing business as 24/7 Taxi Cab
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT CENTER, UNLIMITED
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION,
INC., A California Corporation, doing business
as 24/7 Taxi Cab,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DOES 1
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM
CASE NO.: 30-2013-00688977-CU-
MC-CJC
[REASSIGNED FOR ALL
PURPOSES TO THE HON.
GLENN R. SALTER, DEPT. C-22]
DECLARATION OF SAVVAS
RODITIS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION OF PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN GROUND
TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR
AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
FIFTY TAXICAB FRANCHISES
UPON SHOWING OF ACTUAL
BIAS ON THE PART OF
ANAHEIM, PURSUANT TO
OCTOBER 31, 2019 COURT OF
APPEAL OPINION IN CASE
9G055501
[NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION
AND DECLARATION OF
KONSTANTINOS RODITIS
SUBMITTED SEPARATELY
AND CONCURRENTLY]
HEARING DATE: 8/20/2020
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
DEPT.: C-22
[RESERVATION # 733454 79]
REMITTITUR ISSUANCE DATE:
2/14/2020
COMPLT. FIL'G DATE: 11/21/13
TRIAL DATE: NONE
DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
:lerk.
1 DECLARATION OF SAVVAS RODITIS
2 I, SAVVAS RODITIS, declare:
3 1. I am an individual, and the father of KONSTANTINOS RODITIS,
4 principal of Plaintiff AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORTATION, INC. ("AGT") in
5 this action. From approximately 1991 to 2005 I was a principal of SCC (and in the earlier
6 years, its predecessor,) which during those times was authorized to operate taxicabs
7 generally in most (later in all) of the cities and unincorporated areas of Orange County;
8 and between the years 2001 to 2005, in the City of Anaheim ("Anaheim") as well.
9 Thereafter I sometimes operated a taxicab in Orange County. Because of this experience
10 I am familiar with the Orange County taxicab industry and the licensing and operational
11 requirements. I make this Declaration in support of AGT's Motion to allow it to
12 immediately be allowed to operate with fifty (50) Anaheim taxicab franchises and for
13 alternative and related relief. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below and
14 could testify to them in Court.
15 2. On July 17, 2020 I used my cell phone to take a total of five photographs
16 that, among them, depicted two separate taxicabs that were then operating in Anaheim.
17 These taxicabs appear at first to belong to YELLOW CAB, the company that has held the
18 vast majority of the Anaheim taxicab franchises all along. The cabs bear the words
19 "YELLOW CAB" in many places, and also display YELLOW CAB's phone number of
20 (714) 999-9999, but the Court is already aware that YELLOW CAB is no longer
21 operating at all since May 31, 2020, and that ANAHEIM revoked YELLOW CAB's
22 operating authority altogether on July 14, 2020. Upon closer examination the cabs are
23 being operated by CABCO, which are using YELLOW CAB's Anaheim franchises: this
24 is apparent because on the side of each vehicle, underneath the inverted triangle that
25 contains the words "YELLOW CAB CO.," are the words "Operated by: California
26 Yellow Cab" (CABCO.) Each vehicle that has an Anaheim franchise has the franchise
27 logo on it in the form of an "A" sticker affixed to both the right and left front quarter -
28
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 2 DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
1 panels, and the current sticker consists of a large capital A in blue against a white
2 background, inside a lighter blue circle. When a franchisee loses its Anaheim franchise,
3 each cab that had held an Anaheim franchise had to quickly be taken into the Anaheim
4 Offices, where literally the City Staff would scrape those franchise stickers off each
5 stickered vehicle. The stickers were not allowed to remain. This is what Anaheim did to
6 SCC when it forced it to surrender its Anaheim stickers in about 2005.
7 3. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
8 this reference are the two photos that I took of YELLOW CAB car 9158 (license plate
9 number 36965F2,) which was stopped in traffic on Harbor Blvd. The first page of
10 Exhibit "A" shows the rear of cab #158 with the YELLOW CAB CO. wording. The
11 second page shows the side, with the YELLOW CAB triangle logo, and the "Operated
12 by..." verbiage. The Anaheim franchise sticker is also displayed, to the right and slightly
13 above those words.
14 4. Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by
15 this reference are the three photos I took of YELLOW CAB car 9683. This was parked in
16 front of a small fast food -type strip mall in Anaheim with a WABA Grill and a Subway
17 shop. The first of these photos shows, to the right -side of the cab, a sales transaction with
18 the driver having purchased fast food and the sales assistant helping him with the credit
19
card charge after having brought the food out (thus seeming that this cab was being
20
operated and the driver had just stopped to pick up something to eat.) The photo also
21
shows the triangular YELLOW CAB Operated by: California Yellow Cab logo and
22
wording. This cab is easily identifiable in the following two photos since there is damage
23
to the body of the vehicle at the lower and right-hand portion of the passenger door. In
24
the second of these photos, the cab number (683) is shown, as well as a clear view of the
25
Anaheim ("A") franchise sticker. The third of these photos shows the driver seated in the
26
car, evidencing that the cab was not just some random vehicle parked in front of the
27
WABA Grill, but rather was one in current service.
28
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 3 DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
5. On July 17, 2020 I also observed YELLOW CAB 9697 operated by
, and bearing an ANAHEIM franchise sticker, in service and operating on Katella
venue near the 55 freeway in Villa Park, but I was unable to get a photograph of it.
6. On July 19, 2020 I took two cell photos of (former YELLOW CAB)
taxi 9120 at the Fullerton Amtrak station. This cab also bears an ANAHEIM
sticker, and bears the same CABCO identifying information as above. I have
d them here collectively designated as Exhibit "C" and incorporate them herein.
7. On July 22, 2020 I took a cell photograph of YELLOW CAB (operated
CABCO) taxi number 986, near Moulton Parkway and El Toro Road. Again, this
ab bears an ANAHEIM franchise logo. A true and correct copy of this photograph is
d hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein.
8. On July 22, 2020 while in San Juan Capistrano I noticed CABCO car
633 operating there because it bore an older -looking (and possibly not current)
AHEIM franchise logo. I took a cell photograph of it, and a true and correct copy of
photograph is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein.
9. Around this time I began noticing that many of the CABCO cars
in the County bore what appeared to possibly be older ANAHEIM franchise
18 11stickers, and the vehicles looked to be older than the maximum model year age of 2015.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
July 22, 2020 I took two photographs of CABCO vehicle 9773 that was being operated
Highland and Irvine Blvd., and had a franchise sticker, and I have attached them here
ctively as Exhibit "I"' and incorporate them herein.
10. On July 23, 2020 I took cell photographs of four more "CABCO"
abs staged for operation at the John Wayne Airport. These included two photographs
of CABCO vehicles numbers 614 and 654, which bore the possibly older ANAHEIM
stickers, and which photographs I've attached hereto collectively designated as
it "G" and incorporated herein. They also include CABCO's taken -over YELLOW
vehicles numbers 104 and 376, each of which bears an ANAHEIM franchise sticker,
AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 4 DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
one affixed to cab number 376 of the older variety. I have attached copies of
)tographs of cab numbers 104 and 376 hereto collectively designated as Exhibit "H"
I incorporate them herein by this reference.
11. Finally, on July 24, 2020 at the Anaheim Convention Center I took two
)tographs of YELLOW CAB car 9905 (operated by CABCO) bearing what appears to
an older -style ANAHEIM franchise sticker. I've attached copies of those photographs
lectively designated as Exhibit 1," and incorporate them herein by this reference.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
the foregoing is true and correct
Executed on July 28, 2020 at Anaheim, California.
/S/ Savvas Roditis
SAWAS RODITIS
I AM. GROUND TRANSPORTATION v. ANAHEIM 5 DECL RE: MOTION FOR FRANCHISE AWARD
illomilliuld
< > 7
� � :...- _ =
: .��� .� v.a
:� .� . .
\ƒr����\:�:�
4
Flo-
—meg � � � _ --���.
J I llftl __
m
J
.-. . .. .� «
r yv
.m>e
�
._ . . ... . --
l...
-
�.�
>�y. . . .. : . ..
�
� -
-
\�
ems:
? .
A- _
\ \4g�alw A� 4
1*41-1511'..
�'
N
l�<. �� /`«
» _«< � d�� .
— v.
� � �« « ¥\«
. :�«. ««y<.
«� � �« ��y *» <
« � <�° «<4
��
n
k
10h IBM
'Im
I
X14 L 14 Ta
M
- WTI
-40% 41 � �' i7l
Public Comment
From:
Konstantinos Roditis
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12:15 PM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Agenda Item # 28 - Taxi Cab Franchise
Attachments:
Konstantinos Roditis Public Comments - 09-15-2020 Agenda Item # 28.pdf
Here are the public comments from Konstantinos Roditis representing 24/7 Taxi Cab in regards to
tonight's taxicab franchise public hearing.
September 15, 2020 -- Agenda 0tem 28
Mayor and City Councilmembers, my name is Konstantinos Roditis, and I represent 24/7 Taxi Cab. I wish
I could be there today to speak with you regarding this matter, as well as having California Yellow Cab
present to discuss and have a genuine public hearing on this taxicab franchise.
Since we are unable to do that, I would like to make the following reasoned and appropriate
recommendations, which I believe are the most advantageous for all parties involved.
1. Issue 24/7 Taxi Cab and 24/7 Taxi Cab alone 50 franchise permits at this time.
2. Allow CABCO and 24/7 Taxi Cab to increase their fleet from +/- 15% to +50%.
3. Allow CABCO to be exempt from their vehicle standard of five-year-old vehicles to OCTAP from
their original franchise.
Recommendation I
As you may be aware, a court case has once again required the City of Anaheim to conduct an RFP for 50
franchise permits. Therefore, the City is required to act on 50 franchise permits. However, the City is not
compelled to act regarding Yellow Cab's 155 permits. So being wise on how many franchise permits
Anaheim should distribute is within the council's discretion. I ask you to use that discretion now and,
therefore, consider our three recommendations.
If you remember, Yellow Cab did not close down just because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As stated on
July 14, 2020, in Item # 26 City Council Agenda, "due to shifting market trends in the taxi industry and
the recent effect of COVID-19, Yellow Cab has decided to cease operations... effective May 31, 2020...".
This is just one reason we advocated with the City on limiting the RFP to 50 franchise permits. This
would be in line with the court's ruling, as well as allow the City to conduct a demand study in the future
to help determine the appropriate number of taxicabs. In every prior RFP, a demand study was
conducted, except for this RFP.
It makes no sense to me to issue so many franchise permits when doing so would oversaturate the
market and create an environment that increases the likelihood of having another taxicab firm cease
operation.
Since the closure of Yellow Cab, Anaheim has had only had 50 lawful franchise permits in place.
California Yellow Cab is currently the only taxicab company in Anaheim. That means you have had only
50 legal franchise permits operating in Anaheim for the last four months. This point helps illustrate that
a total of 255 franchise permits in Anaheim would be excessive.
Case in point, there are not currently 255 taxicabs in all of Orange County. There are only 190 taxicabs in
Orange County. Therefore, increasing the amount more than the market can now handle is not wise.
Now, the number of taxicabs will increase because of 24/7 Taxi Cab. The vast majority of our fleet
operates under our California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) license. We perform thousands of non-
emergency medical transportation trips throughout Orange County, including a large volume in
Anaheim. We even are contracted and submitted a letter of recommendation in our RFP package from
College Hospital of Anaheim.
We operated our fleet under our CPUC license because doing so allows us to fulfill our contracts in
Anaheim legally. Operating a taxicab in Anaheim without a franchisee violates Anaheim Municipal Code.
By granting us 50 franchise taxicab permits, we can begin to shift our fleet and add more taxicabs to our
fleet, while not sacrificing our contracts.
It is more advantageous to operate our fleet as a taxicab because it gives us access to new clientele,
which we previously did not have. For instance, under CPUC regulations, we cannot sit at a taxicab stand
and receive customers at the convention center.
Therefore, with our current contracts and fleet, adding 50 franchise taxicab permits to 24/7 Taxi Cab will
not disturb the market place. In fact, it will give more stability to Anaheim and OCTAP.
Also, we cannot ignore the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will take time for conventions to be
scheduled, businesses to open up, and tourism to come roaring back. There is no doubt that it will take
time to get back to a pre-COVID-19 business environment.
So the question is, would it be wise to limit the number of taxicabs for the duration of this franchise? I
believe the answer is yes.
With the requirement of two readings plus thirty days for this franchise to go into effect, we are looking
at 19 months, as this franchise expires on June 28, 2022. This period is not very long, considering when
this franchise goes into effect, Anaheim would have only had 50 lawful franchise permits in place for
nearly five months (Yellow Cab ceasing operation of May 31, 2020, to approximately October 29, 2020).
Therefore, we request the City Council use their discretion and vote to issue 50 franchise permits to
24/7 Taxi Cab and no new franchise permits to CABCO at this time.
Recommendation 2
The RFP and AMC as stated on page six of the RFP:
Franchisee must agree to abide by all applicable laws, rules, regulations, orders, and restrictions
which are now in force or which may be hereafter adopted by the City, OCTAP, or any federal,
state, or municipal government authority lawfully exercising jurisdiction over taxicab service in
the City (emphasis added.)
As the City is well aware, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) has affected many businesses throughout the State of
California. Therefore, as per the RFP, we were required to demonstrate how we comply with all
applicable laws.
As demonstrated in our RFP, 24/7 Taxi Cab is made of our two companies. One is a management
company (Inc.), and the other is a driver -owned company (LLC). This structure and joint -venture, we
believe, adhere to all applicable laws, including AB5.
Pursuant to California Labor Code §§3351 and 3352, as amended by Assembly Bill 2883, effective
January 1, 2017, the following may elect to be excluded from workers' compensation insurance
coverage:
• Officers or members of the board of directors must own at least 15% of the issued and
outstanding stock of the corporation. Any officer or director owning less than 15% of the stock
of the corporation must be covered by workers' compensation insurance.
• The ownership listed must be identical to the information filed with the Secretary of State in the
Statement of Information.
The above portion applies to corporation. CABCO is a corporation. Therefore, drivers that are owner -
operators would not be considered exempt from employee requirements like worker's compensation.
They must own at minimum 15% of the corporations stock, as listed in the statement of information.
CABCO Inc. therefore could only have six (6 *15% = 90%) corporate owning drivers, if not under the new
application of AB5 they could be required to provide employee benefits, healthcare for full-time drivers,
and worker's compensation coverage.
I have not examined CABCO's RFP package (Sealed), but looking at their corporate structure, I doubt
they comply with ABS.
This brings up two possible issues that the City may face. If the City grants additional franchises to
CABCO and they are in violation of AB5 and have not adequately demonstrated that they comply with
AB5 in their RFP, this would be a violation of the RFP.
Therefore, granting additional franchisees, we believe, could have legal implications for the City as they
are showing bias and favoritism towards CABCO.
The other issue is if the State of California or a private individual claimed to have been an employee
under AB5 and brings a suit against CABCO, it could result in CABCO shutting down, and the City faced
with a situation of losing another taxicab company.
Since this is a real possibility, I believe it is wise to allow CABCO to address this over the next 19 months.
Then come back in 2022 for additional franchise permits once they have demonstrated they comply
with AB5.
So, therefore, why +50%. The RFP allows us to put 50% of our fleet within six months of being awarded
the RFP, and then work with the City with the rest after that. So in a sense, we are being granted -50%,
but only +15% on the positive side.
By increasing it to +50% and adjusting CABCO's 2012 franchise from 50 franchise permits at 85%
minimum to 115% maximum, to a maximum of 150%, this would increase CABCO's useable licenses to
75, without issuing another franchise to CABCO.
Before a court order removed 25 permits from CABCO when they were operating 75 licenses, according
to an Anaheim public record request, CABCO had 68 Anaheim franchise taxicabs on March 6, 2020. This
is thirteen days before Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-33-20, which began shutting down the
state because of COVID-19. So at the time, CABCO's 75 permits were adequate to service its clientele.
CABCO was not fully utilizing its 75 permits +15% but did lose some permits when they dropped from 75
to 50. Therefore, this recommendation would, in effect, give CABCO 25 more permits.
By granting 24/7 Taxi Cab and CABCO -50% on this franchise over the first six months and possibly
beyond that, I believe it is reasonable to make it +50% for each company as well for the duration of this
franchise.
Therefore, this recommendation would authorize up to 150 franchise taxicabs in Anaheim over the next
19 months. These 150 permits do not include special use permits as permitted by the franchise. Thus, I
believe this would be an adequate amount of taxicabs and more than fair to CABCO and 24/7 Taxi Cab.
The other issue I find with the TAC recommendation is that it creates a monopoly. The City Council
Agenda Report states:
The TAC recommendation to provide licenses to both service providers is based, in part, on the
desire to maintain an element of competition and avoid a monopoly in the taxi marketplace to
encourage a high quality of service to taxicab customers.
I agree there shouldn't be a monopoly, but TAC's recommendation would result in a monopoly. TAC's
recommendation would create the following scenario, 205 taxicab franchises for CABCO and 50 taxicab
franchises for 24/7 Taxi Cab.
That means CABCO would control 80.4% of the taxicab franchise permits, and 24/7 Taxi Cab would
control 19.6%. This percentage of allocation, I believe, would still be considered a monopoly.
According to the US Department of Justice: Competition and Monopoly: Single -Firm Conduct Under
Section 2 of The Sherman Act: Chapter 21 states:
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share
before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that
"monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below
70%."Z Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts
generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."3 Likewise, the Third
Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima
facie market power 114
and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty
percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."'
24/7 Taxi Cab requested 100 taxicab permits in our RFP. Therefore, having a more equitable split and
not creating a monopoly would be the fairest and legal thing to do. By following TAC's recommendation,
I believe the City would be showing bias and favoritism towards the incumbent firm by allowing them to
create a monopoly.
1 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-
act-chapter-2
Z Exxon Corp. v. Berwick Bay Real Estates Partners, 748 F.2d 937, 940 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)
3 Colo. Interstate Gas Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 885 F.2d 683, 694 n.18 (loth Cir.
1989) (citation omitted)
4 United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181,187 (3d Cir. 2005).
5 Id. at 188.
Therefore, by granting 24/7 Taxi Cab, 50 franchise permits, and adjusting franchise permit allocation
from 85-115% to up to 150%, you will not be creating a monopoly, as well as not issuing a franchise to a
taxicab firm that may be in violation of ABS.
Finally, giving a monopoly to CABCO would be devastating to 24/7 Taxi Cab. TAC is supposed to be an
independent body, and even include input from residents. Unfortunately, TAC is not, which concerns us.
When the 2012 RFP came out, you had Larry Slagle of Yellow Cab on the Convention Center Board, later
becoming Visit Anaheim, which was grading our RFP. Larry Slagle was, at one point, the president of the
Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau.
At the same time, you had Paul Sanford, who was with the Anabella Hotel, who also sat on the Visit
Anaheim Board. Anabella Hotel, via the Wincome Group, received $225 million in TOT subsidies from
the City.
Larry Slagle was also the co-chair of Save Our Anaheim Resort (SOAR) PAC along with Todd Ament from
the Anaheim Chamber. These groups advocate political policies, which they are more than entitled to
do. Yet, if you do not know, at one point in the past, Yellow Cab had received exclusive operating rights
from Disneyland and the hotels at the Convention Center. Therefore, Yellow Cab essentially created a
monopoly from his political friends and allies. Unfortunately, these same people/groups are connected
to or sat on TAC.
We believe this will happen once again. Larry Slagle is now with CABCO. He was on the mandatory
conference call on behalf of CABCO. With 205 permits to CABCO and the history of the taxicab industry
in Anaheim, I implore the council to use discretion and wisdom.
Later in this document, I will point out areas we believe TAC got utterly wrong, and rightfully so, we are
concerned with bias since TAC has shown bias in the past.
For instance, back in 2009, an RFP for A Taxi Cab's 50 franchise permits came out for bid. TAC
recommended those 50 to go to Yellow Cab. 24/7 Taxi Cab and A Taxi Cab demonstrated the false
statements and conclusions of the TAC report.
It was so evident that the City Council voted to extend the franchises of all the incumbents and reject
TAC's recommendation.
In the 2012 and 2016 hearings again, TAC was filled with misstatements, falsities, and their
recommendation violated the RFP requirements. Not to belabor the point, but one such instance was
the ADA vehicle requirement. The RFP required a minimum of 5% ADA vehicles. Yellow Cab in their
package stated they had five and would add up to eight if they were awarded the maximum of 255
permits.
Yellow Cab was proposing up to 3.1% ADA compliance at best. TAC recommended 180 permits in 2016
based on Yellow Cab's 2012 RFP package. With five ADA vehicles, this means a maximum of 100
franchise permits. TAC recommendation meant 2.77% ADA compliance.
TAC's statements about 24/7 Taxi Cab ADA was filled with misstatements that were easily debunked
when I read excerpts of our package to the City Council. Unfortunately, in 2012 and 2016, TAC and the
City Council showed a preferential bias to the incumbent firms and prejudicial bias towards 24/7 Taxi
Cab.
Even though the overall outcome of the 2009 RFP wasn't to our liking. The City Council did use their
discretion by rejecting the TAC recommendation. We ask you to use this same discretion now. From
what has transpired in Anaheim, I think it is reasonable for us to be concerned about being granted a
franchise but then ultimately being squeezed out of the market.
We even had a City Official once say to my father, "Go back to Greece, you'll never get a license." I say
this to help show you some of the decades -long history that has brought us here today. Our concerns
are real, and that is why I have brought this to your attention.
With the City being required by court order to issue 50 and 50 RFP permits only, this recommendation
would be in line with the court's ruling and help address some of our concerns of bias and prejudice
against us.
I believe this is a win-win situation for the City. It doesn't expose the City to any unnecessary litigation
and authorizes 150 franchise permits (via this recommendation) over the next 19 months. I believe this
is a wise and measured approach and would advise the City Council to use their discretion and allow the
allocation of +50% of taxicab franchise permits.
Then in 19 months, the City can adequately evaluate both incumbent firms' performance, and a more
accurate comparison for allocation of franchise permits would be more appropriate.
Recommendation 3
When Yellow Cab ceased to operate on May 31, 2020, and after the City of Anaheim revoked Yellow
Cab's franchise stickers on July 14, 2020, we observed Yellow Cab vehicles with Anaheim franchise
permits operating in Anaheim.
For most of these vehicles, we observed a sticker saying, "Operated by California Yellow Cab" on the
door. Making a public records request (PRR) of CABCO vehicles, we discovered a few things. First, these
vehicles were not authorized to operate in Anaheim, and most of the vehicles listed as Anaheim
franchise vehicles were older than five model years old.
Two vehicle rosters were given to us from our PRR. The lists were identical, but 11 taxicabs were
highlighted blue. Not knowing what the blue highlighted cabs indicate, we conclude that if we excluding
those 11 vehicles, the Anaheim fleet for CABCO was as follows:
Two (2) cabs that are model year 2012. Ten (10) cabs that are model year 2013. Thirty-one (31) cabs that
are model year 2014. This means that 43 out of 57 vehicles, or 75.4%, of their fleet is unlawful and
should not be operating under their current franchise.
Taking into account, CABCO was operating taxicabs with revoked Yellow Cab franchise permits, is not
only grounds to be fined but grounds to have their franchise permanently revoked. The City of
Anaheim's actions toward revoking A Taxi Cab's franchise on lesser grounds has been established, and
what I am suggesting is not unreasonable.
Therefore, our third recommendation is to the benefit of CABCO. 24/7 Taxi Cab truly wants to be fair
and a reasonable business partner in Anaheim.
Because of CABCO's recent actions, I also can't entirely agree with giving them more franchise permits,
especially a monopoly, after they blatantly violated the AMC and their franchise.
Therefore, for the stability of the taxicab market and to be more equitable, it would be too much of a
financial burden on CABCO to remove 75.4% of their fleet and replace it with five year or newer model
year vehicles. This could bring them to financial collapse.
Therefore, we recommend the City of Anaheim adjust CABCO's 2012 franchise to OCTAP vehicle year
age standards. Since 24/7 Taxi Cab's franchise will be at OCTAP standards, I think the same rules that
apply to 24/7 Taxi Cab should apply to CABCO.
We believe this recommendation is fair and equitable for everyone and doesn't burden CABCO with
replacing their fleet in these unprecedented times.
Again, I hope you will consider our three recommendations. We are not looking to have an unfair
advantage over CABCO. What I have proposed is equitable for all involved and quite reasonable.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Konstantinos Roditis
Besides my three recommendations, I want to address some of the findings from TAC. I believe that
some of these finds are incorrect, and even though TAC has recommended 50 franchise permits, I
thought it would be helpful to clear the record.
Company Experience:
As stated in our RFP, our company has many contracts, including with the government. Our company
has transitioned primarily from a taxicab company to a non -emergency transportation company. With
clients living or going to medical facilities in Anaheim, we could not have serviced our contracts with our
24/7 Taxi Cab fleet. It is prohibited under the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Now with the ability to operate in Anaheim, we will transition back to a taxi cab company. If we had
received this franchise back in 2012, we would have never made the transition because we would have
fulfilled those newer contracts as well as having access to the rest of Anaheim and the Resort Area.
We did mention this transition and the time necessary to complete the transition. This transition is well
within the Anaheim RFP requirements. Additionally, once the council makes its decision, 24/7 Taxi Cab
will be purchasing our ADA fleet. The purchase of ADA is scheduled for Thursday morning, September
17, 2020.
TAC mentioned our Oceanside franchise. I agree Oceanside is a different environment. We used it as an
example that when we applied for an Oceanside franchise, the first time, we immediately were granted
a franchise, and we fulfilled all the requirements of the franchise.
We also wanted to highlight that we left the Oceanside market and have been strictly focusing our
energies on Anaheim and Orange County. The previous TAC recommendation looked negatively upon
our Oceanside and Camp Pendleton contracts because they believed we couldn't do both, which we
very much disagreed with them. Still, we wanted to assure this TAC organization that this shouldn't be a
concern for them any longer.
When TAC speaks of Anaheim Standards, actually, our Veyo contract has higher service standards than
Anaheim. This was mentioned in our RFP package. We provided a letter of recommendation from Veyo,
and they are very satisfied with our service.
Also, if you are not aware, 24/7 Taxi Cab is the predecessor of sorts to South Coast Cab. South Coast Cab
operated under the permit system, and we had 117 licenses then. So compared to CABCO, 24/7 Taxi
Cab's company experience in Anaheim is more significant than that of CABCO. They have only had up to
75 licenses.
These mischaracterizations do affect our score and thus affects how many franchise permits we are
being recommended for. So we want to bring these to your attention.
Management Experience:
TAC is concerned about who successful we will be in a big city like Anaheim.
I specifically mentioned South Coast Cab and our experience in our RFP to show we have operated a
large taxicab company in Anaheim. A company with even a more extensive presence than CABCO. Again
they have had a maximum of 75 permits (now 50), but we had 117.
Before we transitioned to our state license. 24/7 Taxi Cab was one of the largest taxi companies in
Orange County.
TAC also is concerned about our management. They state all our management is from the same family.
Not all of our management is from the same family—about half of the upper management. With the
new Anaheim managers, current accounts manager, and current fleet manager are not part of the
family. This was clearly indicated in our organizational chart and job descriptions.
I once again do not see how TAC could make this mistake. We have had issues of bias with TAC
reporting, which the City is well aware of, and thus we are concerned that untrue and incorrect
statements from TAC are once again hurting our overall score.
TAC is concerned about our fleet size. Yes the initial part of our fleet is less than 50 vehicles. But we did
give a fleet implementation plan. Additionally, I would like to highlight that CABCO doesn't have 205
vehicles either, and that is the recommended amount TAC has proposed for them. Yet, TAC does not
mention this in their recommendation.
Financial Capacity and Stability:
TAC had two concerns about out financial capacity and stability. In our business plan, I listed part of our
current fleet that we would begin to transition into taxicabs. I showed our cash -on -hand and the
vehicles we would be purchased by heavily reinvesting profits to vehicle purchases.
I also stated I have a dealership license, and that gives me access not only to vehicles below market
value, but lines of credit which can be used.
Additionally, we had very little time to put this RFP together. In the past we had months, this time we
had about two weeks. With such limited time I could not get the proper paperwork together as I did in
2012 when I secured funding for 100 brand new CNG vehicles with over 4 million in a line of credit.
As you can imagine, securing that type of line of credit takes time. Therefore, I used my home as
evidence of funds that are available if it was needed to give TAC confidence that I have the financial
wealth to fund this if needed.
My home being in Anaheim Hills and completely paid off, and an ability to draw on it if need be was to
give comfort to TAC that I have financial resources. If we had more time to put this package together, I
would have been able to provide lines of credit for purchasing of vehicles.
The second concern was about a recent settlement. This is what I wrote in the RFP concerning this case:
"We have no open cases against 24/7 Taxi Cab. The last and only case was closed and settled on August
13, 2020. We were part of an action that did not directly involve us, but our insurance company decided
to settle the matter because it was cheaper to settle than the legal fees to fight the case."
The settlement papers from the court were provided. There is no possibility of additional fees. Like zero!
So once again, I don't understand how TAC and the auditor could have arrived at this conclusion and
concern.
Management and Quality Assurance:
TAC was concerned with the age of our vehicles, but the age of the vehicles will not be too old for the
complete duration of the franchise. These vehicles have similar ages to CABCO's current fleet.
TAC also stated no mention of quality assurance. The section was titled Quality Control in our package,
and it was eleven pages of content. We also highlighted quality assurance throughout the package. I
don't understand how TAC could completely miss this.
Again, I am concerned with how they missed this and ultimately hurt our overall score.
Facilities and Equipment:
We have one full-time mechanic, but we do bring a part-time mechanic in when needed. Similarly, I
didn't mention all our staff members like call -takers and dispatchers. The RFP was to highlight the upper
management, not go into detail of all our employees.
Also, TAC stated that our warehouse is old. I don't know where they got that idea. The building was built
in 1987. CABCO's location was built in 1977. Our building is a private building with a contractors' yard;
CABCO's is not.
There is no basis for this claim by TAC. Zero! The opposite is true. CABCO has an older warehouse.
Again, I am concerned with the language in this section and throughout this TAC report because it
concerns me that TAC is biased toward us and lowering our score to keep us at 50 franchise permits
while recommending an unlawful monopoly to CABCO.
Fleet Sustainability:
TAC brings up the notion of borrowing vehicles once again. We state nowhere in our package we are
borrowing anything. I might borrow a friend's car to go to the store, but I don't borrow cars and make
them into a taxicab.
We clearly demonstrated how we are moving our fleet from our state license back to a taxicab and that
we are going to be purchasing more vehicles and approximately when and how. As stated, we will be
buying some of Yellow Cab's old Anaheim fleet from the dealer that took those vehicles in possession.
Including Toyota Prius vehicles.
Fleet Accessibility:
I mentioned the five vehicles we would buy for our ADA vehicles and prices. As stated earlier, I am going
Thursday morning to purchase these vehicles once the Council votes.
TAC had an issue with us fully complying with the ADA requirement. We agree 5% is the minimum,
which was not a standard held in the past with Yellow Cab. But since we are immediately purchasing
these vehicles, it was essential to highlight that for TAC.
Final Thoughts:
Again we are excited to begin operating in Anaheim as your newest taxicab franchise. I wanted to
highlight some of the inconsistencies in the TAC report and issues we found. As the City is aware of our
concerns of bias against 24/7 Taxi Cab, we wanted to highlight these issues respectfully to make you
aware of these errors.
Debunking some of the statements made by TAC and showing their inaccuracy and, in some cases, bias
or slanted language, which has hurt our overall score, is important; those inaccuracies would make you
think we are not prepared to begin operations in Anaheim; but that is untrue.
So with this brief explanation of TAC's report and our recommendations, we do hope you seriously
consider our recommendation and vote on them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Public Comment
From: Dan Burley
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 2:57 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Patrice Denbeau
Subject: Anaheim City Council Comments
The purpose of the following comments is to make the Anaheim City Council aware of free recovery communities
dedicated to helping adults of all ages, but particularly young adults succeed in their long-term drug and alcohol
recovery.
Drug and alcohol addiction have become epidemic in America and particularly in Orange County with the explosion of
the Opioid crisis. There are multiple paths to drug and alcohol recovery available in Orange County and many resources
are free. 12 Step Programs, Faith Based, Smart Recovery and Medical Assist are some of the pathways.
Young People in Recovery or YPR is a nonprofit organization in Orange County dedicated to administering free resources
for long term recovery to anyone in Orange County. Recovery support communities such as YPR and The Phoenix
Organization based in Newport are dedicated to helping young and older adults thrive and live a drug and alcohol -free
lifestyle. L
Dan Burley
Program Coordinator, Orange County
YPR - Young People in Recovery
Public Comment
From: buddyfitz
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:42 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for September 15, 2020 Council Meeting
Attachments: September 15 council comments.pdf
Attached comment.
The Anaheim PD is still investigating the connecting of an Anaheim city council family member to a
cannabis related beating of an elderly Anaheim lady, or, the Anaheim PD is not investigating, but is
covering up a crime for the benefit of an Anaheim council member?
ANAHEIM COUNCILPUBLW COMMENTS
H 11
At the last icouncil meeting, the question was asked- "Anaheim police concealed criminal
beating,of an elderly lai y b -
,d y a ffimfl* mejAber ofanAnaheim; council member? The "Anaheini
Investigator" bl6g.site has iloverwhelining�te; ,iconcerninghe present mayqr9 his son,
Council Member Faessel� and the Chamber, of Commeree,ithatare using, multiple taxable
Cannabis Distribution Businesses ;in lAnnheimito avoid &�Gate 'Tax on Disneyland.
it GOU C
'Anahei mniiG'
:t 1
One though on, yv'14" n H Pushlolelize
gall
I
s,Bus,inesses��'-U",,"QU�lid�,;[M"a,ke
\N,ealthyl Man;
Lill] ,'Eaorn,ina on M1 L =Q2 --i - 3� 8 pin– wadi
_iy_ _� JQ J-- 1, �_.2
Dear. Anaheim Investigator,
�'"*X , � ' Myself and :any fam,,iiiy have lived, workedr and lbeen a bi.i.siness stakeholders in. Ariaheim
�SlSince 1949, T,casnot` imagine a WORSE de sio -nade b �.Jefed , officials
,j , Qi'lci ni that cotild,beii yi ot.n
A',* than making Ariataeim. a:legal venue, fori'DRUGST
1. do not care wli at: argi,-=ent you can,makeifor "t1le -le-venue we wih..gairi�' from selling; DRU(""'S in
our city...notjuiig°will convince ine t.hatitisagDead idea,-tom� a!kel-)R.UGSirnore-availiibleit.(),C)Ul'I
youth arid. other inembers of our citizenry.
I graduat,.ed from high khool tnt 1969ard I have seeix the hilpactsa-tatsmokhigDOPI-,, (Cannabis) has
had, onthe lives of nay classmates of fifty—years1pasti lbe drug users' lives neverlh ad tractionbecause
they were storie& all the ti-ine. Vic. d-ung"has 6han3ed,
`171 -ie; people J. lmow that use IDRUGS40r 6ntertaimnent-th, ese days arel LOSERO).,WI-iy,w,oilid,we,,want
to breed more Josersat'id create.m.ore crime in Anelheim? Why would we want to, waste.W.-aff filne
I am praying that our staff!and elected lofficials, will ,dee ply study thi& rnafter and. &eck-in wit -11, other
cities, that have made DRUGS legal.; 'hey will discover that; there areino positive! benefits. to this.
If., it is money we are looking for -in thiscity then lot's,getdt fTorn. the -.Lrdllions of tourists that come
here and, deplete our, city's resources. We can raise $25,000-,'000 per yezu-bya sign le $1,00 beer head:
I,ZFS0R.T,'LJSER FEE imposed on tourists asAhey, check out ofhotolsl in Ariaheirn. 11,ey, do it in Las
Vegas. We. shoul&do that here.
NO DOPF�, IN ANAFTFIM!
Bill 'Faormina,
Cell/Text
R.+1P
"&E
VIA EMAIL, TO: 1!_�Ll ecommen CqOanaheim.net
FROM: 11oine'Owners Maintaining our iiEnvironment
ANAIIEEW POLICECONCEALS CRIMINAL BEATING
OF ELDERLY LADY:BY FAMILY MEMBER OF
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCILMAN'
Beca use the.Anaheim police refuse itoxelease the investigative police
report, details of the criminal assault are snot,clear concerning the illegal
Cannabis distribution business located on the800 block, of, South, East � Street
in Anaheinx. The inarijuana sales atthatIocation are during a two evening
hour period, a few days each week. iDu ring those itwo evening hours,,the
adjoining residential streets to East Street, (Topaz and, Opaj),are, completely
packed with the parked cars of those buying, drugs,; many doubled; parked.
Ldast month (,July 2020), an eighty-year-old resident, a member of the
'ropaz-Opal Neighborhood Watch, was taking,videos of the illegally parked
cars blocking the streets, and theirildrug buyingoccupants,. Ift'is understood
that several of the drug buying costo mersi reported thisielderly1ady taking
videos to those connected to the� cannabis l business. Thelbusiness owners
dispatched their security personnel (larges men) to �stop theielderly woman
frwn taking pictures of their customers.
She was beaten, thrown down,,and leftNeeding on the street. fResidents
called 911, a fire engine and ambulance carne about ten minutes later, two
police cars came About 15 minutes later and stayed for� Almost, aW hour
investigating the criminal assault. The lady returned1rom the hospital
,looking horrible. Her face was all black and blue, right eye puffeA n
on tier head. The elderly victim who, courageously opposed the, cannabis
parking problem was a retiree fromit e Anaheim Elementa;S ool District
and active in the Anaheim Downtown,Senior Center.
The Anaheim Police epart ment,in concealing any criminal activities
by family members of a councilman, are obviously doin,g so to repaythe city
council for their ge-nerous compensation increases4o Anaheim i police i officers.
Public Comment
From: Mario Sandez
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 9:28 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Attention DISTRICT 2
Hello,
I am resident of District 2 and have been for over 20 years and my concerns are on the subject of transients in my
neighborhood.
I live near Brookhurst and Orange and me and my family walk to Cortina's, In N Out, and Stater Bro'a quite often. Over
the past several weeks I have noticed an abundance of transients in that area. My concerns are for the safety of my
children and all children in our city. I feel like city officials have turned a blind eye to the obvious and now I feel like this
"look" is the new normal and that is unacceptable!
I have been in contact with SGT Enriquez of homeless outreach and from what I gathered is that their hands are tied
from a legal standpoint on what can be done, again unacceptable!
Our city needs to be cleaned up! What is the solution? To be frank, I am sick of tired people of seeing these individuals in
my neighborhood!!
Please restore safety in our city!
Mario Sandez
Public Comment
From: Justin Chou
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 3:05 PM
Subject: Reallocate Police Spending. End the nonsense.
To the Anaheim City Council:
My name is Justin Chou and I am a resident of Anaheim Hills. I am writing in deep concern for the health of the greater
Anaheim community. It has become more than clear that a radical shift in our concept of policing and community health
must take place at the local level. Police violence in Anaheim has disproportionately affected Black and Brown residents
and that must come to an end.
The United States does not have a national healthcare system. Instead, we have the largest military budget, and some of
the most well -funded and militarized police departments in the world. Anaheim is no different: the 2019-2020 budget
allocated $153.8 million to law enforcement and only $1 million to community development.
Anaheim is the 9th most violent police department in the U.S. From 2003-2016, Anaheim Police Department killed 33
people during the process of arrest, and nearly 40% of them were unarmed. Since 2014, the rate of arrest -related
deaths caused by Anaheim PD exceeds that of LAPD, NYPD, and San Fran PD and is 74% higher than the average for
police in California.
I demand that the city council not approve "Resolution 19" that would spend $700,000 dollars of taxpayer money on
surveillance technology of anti -police brutality protests and that any future projects related to surveillance be halted. I
also demand that the council not approve "Resolution 5" that will use $100,000 to improve 10 police vehicles. Instead,
invest that money in creating programs that benefit and enrich the community especially during a global pandemic.
I am calling on our elected officials to stop criminalizing our community members. We as a concerned community refuse
to remain silent on the use of technology to further terrorize our community.
Thank you,
Justin Chou
Anaheim, CA 92808
Justin Chou
Public Comment
From: KATHY CHANCE
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please add my attachment to the 9/15/2020 Public Comments
Attachments: D-2 Mario Sandez Piggyback.docx
Please add my attached document, complete with photos, to the Public Comments for the Anaheim City Council
Meeting 9/15/2020. Should you experience any issues with this attached document, please contact me
immediately so that I can submit it to you an alternative way.
Please send me an email receipt when you have received, and approve this attached document for uploading as
a pubic comment for tomorrow night's city council meeting.
Thank you,
Kathy Chance
MON 9.14.2020
0945 hrs
ANAHEIM City Council;
This is to piggyback on Mr. Mario Sandez' (District 2) email concerns to you on 9111/2020 at 0928 hrs. His
email can be found under "General (3)" for tomorrow night's city council meeting, Tuesday 911512020.
As I frequent this area because both my councilperson (Barnes) and the District 2 councilperson (Brandman)
refuse to do their elected jobs, I have mourned for these communities and get out there and do it myself!
I concur whole-heartedly that Sgt Enriquez, who calls himself the Supv of the Homeless Outreach Team, does
nothing but states HE CAN'T! I have requested an overhaul of APD -HOT, as well as the West Side APD
CPT for over a year now, but it falls on deaf ears.
APD -HOT continues to BS the Public by saying their hands are tied, when, in fact, they have every resource to
correct these homeless issues as stated in the Orange County Catholic Workers Settlement Agreement.
There are TONS of vacancies in ALL OF THE HOMELESS SHELTERS WE BUILT, yet APD in conjunction
with CityNet and Illuminations foundation sit back, collect their paychecks, while the community suffers!
Has ANY OF YOU READ THE OCCWSA? All 51 pages?
In response to Mr Sandez' heart -felt and agonizing plea to this City to DO SOMETHING, I went out there this
morning and this is just a FRACTION of what I found! (See my photos, followed by a copy of Mr Sande.'
email to Council). I took the time to write Anaheim Anytime Requests for these areas on behalf of Mr Sandez,
but APD HOT will get out there, say they SEE NOTHING, and will close out the AAR (Anaheim Anytime
Request).
This city continues to send the community into a vicious circle of dog chasing tail, while APD spends our tax
dollars racing to .Tim's Super Burgers every morning, RIGHT AFTER BRIEFING, and then have breakfast for
30-45 minutes.
On behalf of assisting Mr Sandez, something that councilperson BRANDMAN should be doing, see the
fallowing.
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED AFTER FOUR YEARS OF TRYING TO FIX THIS CRAP,
Kathy Chance
30+ year homeowner
West Anahiem, District 1
RYAN BALIUS FOR DISTRICT 1 2020!!!!}
MON 9.14.2[}20
0559 hrs
7-11
Brookhurst/Orange
Extreme trash over -flaw!!
Black male transient laying in
front of store front..
MON 9.14.2020
0559 hrs
f
Nail Ave 14
598 S Brvvkhurst St
r /1
i ♦ ! *L_
Homeless
Public Comment
From:
Mario Sandez
Sent
Friday, September 11, 2020 9:28 AM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Attention DISTRICT 2
Hello,
lam resident of District 2 and have been for over 20 years and my concerns are on the subject of transients in my
neighborhood.
I live near Brookhurst and Orange and me and my family walk to Cortina's, In N Out, and Stater Bro'a quite often. Over
the past several weeks I have noticed an abundance of transients in that area. My concerns are for the safety of my
children and all children in our city, I feel like city officials have turned a blind eye to the obvious and now I feel like this
"look" is the new normal and that is unacceptable!
i have been in contact with SGT Enriquez of homeless outreach and from what I gathered is that their hands are tied
from a legal standpoint on what can be done, again unacceptable!
Our city needs to be cleaned up! What is tie solution? To be frank, I am sick of tired people of seeing these individuals in
my neighborhood l!
Please restore safety in our city!
Mario Sandez
Public Comment
From: KATHY CHANCE
Sent: Monday, September 14`2O2OS:20PM
To: Theresa Bass; Public Comment
Subject: In FAVOR of selling Angel Stadium of Anaheim to SRB
In,
a//Z'111/1�,M
Kathy Chance
30+ year Homeowner
West Anaheim - District I
1
Public Comment
From:
CarlottaRhea Clark
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 9:40 AM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Public Comment for Tonight's Meeting
To the Anaheim City Council:
As a concerned resident of the Packing District/Historic area I have watched the growth over the last 6 years with
multiple condos and townhomes. I have tried contacting Republic Services but they have referred me to you. I would like
to get smaller trash bins available to Anaheim residents. With the thousands of condos/townhomes built over the last
few years with every single one having their own bins taking up quite a bit of space in the small areas we have. Not only
that but many residents are becoming more aware of their trash and creating less trash and many have not as many
people in one home. I take out on average 1 trash bag per week in my household. That's it, just 1! Many of my neighbors
are the same way. Why can't we have smaller bin options like other cities? Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission
Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Ana and others have a 35 gallon cart option that would be perfect for so many homes in
Anaheim. Please make this an option for us here in Anaheim.
Carlotta Clark
Public Comment
From:
Mark Daniels
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:09 AM
To:
Public Comment
Subject:
Angel Stadium
Voice of the OC.
"OC Judge Allows Resident Lawsuit Against Angel
Stadium Sale to Proceed, Mayor Sidhu Might
Testify."
I do believe that, giving the fact the Judge, has consented to hear this case, and putting the city of Anaheim
'again' on the defense and the costly amount of a trial, I do believe that The Mayor & City Council (majority)
should resend this deal, call off of sale and transfer of the stadium and surrounding properties, because you do
not want to go to a trial under these circumstances, there is still a question of the Brown ACT violations, had so
many turns the council under the "Covic 19, World" we find ourselves living in and your Teleconference
Council Meetings, were in all likelihood there is collusion and violation of the Brown ACT... Since the public
has no direct input other than 'This' email, and many others you will received due to the events of the last few
days and the utter disregard for the Public's interest.
Should the court find in favor of the plaintiffs, the Mayor and Council Majority should submit their resignations
Immediately.
Please keep in mind, That there is a movement to Recall the Mayor of Anaheim.... And by your actions, and the
Court's willingness to hear this case you have indeed giving this recall effort life that it might not have had
before.
Mark Richard Daniels
Born in Anaheim and a lifelong resident.
Public Comment
From: DAVID DURAN
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:54 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Denise Barnes; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Lucille Kring;
Stephen Faessel; Trevor O'Neil
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT
Q. Why are "we the people" not being allowed to participate live during public comments when technology is
available to do so?
The city of Anaheim continues to jeopardize the economic stability of the city by continuing to support Mayor Harry
Sidhu by not speaking out against the alleged unlawful actions of the mayor and the majority (Steven Faessel, Lucille
Kring, Trevor O'Neil, and Jordan Brandman) of the city council.
A long list of mayors throughout the country have been found guilty for their unlawful actions, motivated personal gains,
and corrupt alliances with other entities that benefit from the mayor's and city council members support and
contributions.
Evidence that the city elected leadership is currently identified, is the current suit that addresses the alleged unlawful
compliance with he Brown Act and failed transparency that the law requires.
Next steps for this city and the mayor could be the unlawful actions and failed transparency in accordance with the
Hobbs Act, Travel Act, RICO, etc. just to name a few.
Attempting to negotiate and sell the cities largest asset in the dark of night is currently being investigated in the court
system. What's next Anaheim? Who's willing to do the right thing by falling on their sword and coming clean by
providing the much needed transparency that the public is demanding?
If the answer is no one .... the public is poised and positioned to add elected's to the long and growing list of mayor's and
city council members convicted of wrong doing....
David L. Duran
Orange County, California
cell:
email:
Breach of confidentiality & accidental breach of confidentiality
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
Public Comment
From:
DAVID DURAN
Sent:
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:59 PM
To:
Public Comment
Cc:
Harry Sidhu (Mayor); Denise Barnes; Jordan Brandman; Jose Moreno; Lucille Kring;
Stephen Faessel; Trevor O'Neil; Kelly Aviles
Subject:
Re: PUBLIC COMMENT
It is horrific that the public is unable to interact through public comment; yet, you provide developers and others
to access and present.
The malicious and calculated effort to ignore and neglect public participation is not acceptable!
Please reply with the complete "verbatim" transcript of tonights meeting.
The technology continues to fail and it is the public's right to the detailed and accurate access to this meeting.
The online access to the meeting continues to "go silent" except to notice toilet flushing in the background.
Stop ignoring the Brown Act requirements!
In addition, the PowerPoint presentations were illegible online. So, I am also requesting a digital copy of the
Powerpoints presented during the meeting.
Your immediate response is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Dave Duran
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 1:54 PM DAVID DURAN wrote:
Q. Why are "we the people" not being allowed to participate live during public comments when technology is
available to do so?
The city of Anaheim continues to jeopardize the economic stability of the city by continuing to support Mayor Harry
Sidhu by not speaking out against the alleged unlawful actions of the mayor and the majority (Steven Faessel, Lucille
Kring, Trevor O'Neil, and Jordan Brandman) of the city council.
A long list of mayors throughout the country have been found guilty for their unlawful actions, motivated personal
gains, and corrupt alliances with other entities that benefit from the mayor's and city council members support and
contributions.
Evidence that the city elected leadership is currently identified, is the current suit that addresses the alleged unlawful
compliance with he Brown Act and failed transparency that the law requires.
Next steps for this city and the mayor could be the unlawful actions and failed transparency in accordance with the
Hobbs Act, Travel Act, RICO, etc. just to name a few.
Attempting to negotiate and sell the cities largest asset in the dark of night is currently being investigated in the court
system. What's next Anaheim? Who's willing to do the right thing by falling on their sword and coming clean by
providing the much needed transparency that the public is demanding?
If the answer is no one .... the public is poised and positioned to add elected's to the long and growing list of mayor's and
city council members convicted of wrong doing....
David L. Duran
Orange County, California
cell:
email:
Breach of confidentiality & accidental breach of confidentiality
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If
you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.