2000-142 RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-142
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2000-04191.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application from Chevalier, Allen, and
Lichman LLP, as agent for Sumanbhai N. Patel, for a new
conditional use permit No. 2000-04191 for a 23-unit motel on
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, described as:
THAT NORTH 66 FEET OF THE SOUTH 528 FEET OF
THE WEST 330 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, IN TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11
WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF
RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 1, MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 92.00 FEET THEREOF; and
WHEREAS, said application for a new conditional use
permit was designated No. 2000-04191 and determined to be
complete on March 14, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2000, the City Planning
Commission did hold a public hearing upon said application at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing
were duly given as required by law and the provisions of Title
18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the establishment has been operating as a
motel since December 18, 1996 without any zoning entitlement from
the City of Anaheim, as discussed in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated April 24, 2000, including the
attachments thereto, which sets forth the history of this motel
as follows:
A motel {with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces,
maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback)
was established under Conditional Use Permit No. 1978, which
was approved by the Planning Commission in 1979.
o
°
Following a July 20, 1995 public hearing to consider
modification or termination of CUP No. 1978, the Commission
modified said use permit to allow the operation for six more
months to expire on January 19, 1996, which expiration date
was imposed due to abnormally high police activity and
numerous Code violations. The permittee did not seek
further administrative review of said decision and said
decision became final on August 11, 1995.
Conditional Use Permit No. 1978 expired by its own terms on
January 19,1996.
On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission considered a
request to delete or modify the time limitation imposed on
July 20, 1995, and denied the request. The Commission's
decision was appealed to the City Council and, based on
consideration of a hearing officer's findings of fact and
his recommendation regarding the appeal of the Commission's
decision, on June 4, 1996, the City Council approved the
hearing officer's recommendation and modified said use
permit to expire on December 18, 1996. [The permittee did
not seek further administrative review of said decision and
said decision became final on July 2, 1996.]
An application for a new Conditional Use Permit No. 3949
was filed to permit the existing 23-unit motel. The
application was denied by the Planning Commission on
October 21, 1997. Based on the excessive amount of
criminal activity occurring on the property, the
inordinate number of calls for service to the Anaheim
Police Department and the high number of Municipal Code
violations observed by the Code Enforcement Division, the
Council determined that the use was being exercised in a
manner which was detrimental to the public health, peace,
safety or welfare, or in such a manner as to constitute a
public nuisance and denied the request for a use permit on
January 6, 1998. A request for rehearing was denied by
the Council on February 3, 1998. The motel has continued
to operate without a conditional use permit or any other
zoning entitlement since that time.
[The permittee failed to seek judicial review of the
decisions set forth above within the time provided by law
to seek review of said decisions.]
The applicant's agent filed an application for this new
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04191 pursuant to the
procedures in Section 18.03.050 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after due
inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its
behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at the public hearing on April 24, 2000, did adopt its
Resolution No. PC2000-48 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-
04191; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, on May 16, 2000, within the time
prescribed by law, the City of Anaheim did receive an appeal to
the City Council of Planning Commission Resolution PC2000-48
denying the petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 200-04191,
thereby causing the review of said Planning Commission action at
a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did hold and conduct such public
hearing and did give all persons interested therein an
opportunity to be heard and did receive evidence and reports, and
did consider the same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Section
18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, before the City
Council or Planning Commission may grant any request for a
conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact, by
resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all of the
following conditions exist:
.031 That the proposed use is properly one for which a
conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is
not listed herein as being a permitted use;
.032 That the proposed use will not adversely
affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located;
.033 That the size and shape of the site proposed
for the use is adequate to allow the full development of
the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the
particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare;
.034 That the traffic generated by the proposed
use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area;
.035 That the granting of the conditional use
permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find, after careful
consideration of the action of the City Planning Commission and
all evidence and reports offered at said public hearing before
the City Council, that all of the conditions and criteria set
forth in Section 18.03.030.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are
not present for the following reasons:
That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located. This finding is based
upon the following:
Ao
Since the current property owners purchased the Pacific
Inn in April, 1992, there have been 467 code violations
at the property, which include incidences of
substandard housing, hazardous wiring, hazardous
plumbing, deteriorated walls and flooring, inoperable
or missing smoke detectors and cockroaches. These
inspections were conducted as joint inspections of the
Code Enforcement Division with the Orange County Health
Department and the Anaheim Police Department.
(Testimony of Fred Fix, Senior Code Enforcement
Officer, to Planning Commission at April 24, 2000
public hearing.)
On January 7, 2000, the City filed a criminal complaint
against the owners of the Pacific Inn and its owners
for operating the motel without a conditional use
permit. On February 4, 2000, Pacific Inn began the CUP
application process with the City, and on March 7, 200
submitted a Petition for Conditional Use Permit to the
City Planning Department. (Appeal to Anaheim City
Council of Planning Commission Resolution PC2000-48
Denying Petition for Conditional se Permit No. 2000-
04191.)
Since the time the Petition for a Conditional Use
Permit was submitted, the subject property has been
inspected three times. The Code Enforcement Manager
testified that it is not unusual for properties going
Do
mo
Go
before the Council and which have had extensive
inspections to show improvement. (Testimony of John
Poole before City Council on July 11, 2000.)
Between February, 1998 and March, 2000, there were 107
calls for police service to the motel. Thirty-seven
calls were for the period from February 1998 through
January, 1999; sixty-four were for the period from
February, 1999 through January, 2000 and seven were for
March, 2000, indicating a pattern of increased calls.
(Memorandum from Investigator Tony Montanarella, Vice
Detail to Sergeant Russ Sutter, Vice Detail, provided
to Planning Commission at the public hearing on April
24, 2000.)
During the first six months of the year 2000, the
Pacific Inn had 27 calls for service, 17 of which were
related to the business. Among these calls was an
arrest for prostitution for a female who was going to
take the undercover officer to her room at the Pacific
Inn and a second where the female who had directed the
undercover officer to meet her there. (Testimony of
Sergeant Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police Department Vice
Detail, to City Council at the public hearing on July
11, 2000.)
Comparing the crime statistics for the subject motel to
motels with valid zoning entitlements which are similar
in size to the subject motel and located on Beach
Boulevard, even though they are not similarly situated
with a use which has no zoning entitlement, indicates
that the Pacific Inn has a disproportionately high
number of police calls:
Name of Motel
No. of Police Directly
Rooms Calls Related
Pacific Inn 23
Anaheim Lodge 45
Moonlight Motel 42
Americana Motel 44
27 17
18 Not stated
12 2
13 9
(Testimony of Sergeant Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police
Department Vice Detail, to City Council at the public
hearing on July 11, 2000.)
The history of Municipal Code violations and criminal
activity in this motel at this location indicates the
o
owner's inability to operate this business in
compliance with City, County, and State regulations
even after modification actions were taken by the
Planning Commission, a Hearing Officer and the City
Council regarding the previous conditional use permit.
Motels in the Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue
area have had negative secondary effects, including the
use of motels as substandard apartments which are not
designed for long term residency, causing overcrowded
housing conditions, having a negative impact on local
public schools, negatively affecting adjacent single
family residences, and causing a high incidence of
criminal activity, including drug sales and use,
prostitution, and disturbances, causing blight and
degradation to the area, and creating a
disproportionate burden on city services because of
excessive calls for service. (Memorandum from Ramona
Castaneda, Project Manager, Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, to Dave See, Assistant Planner, dated April 24,
2000, Attachment to April 24, 2000 Staff Report to
Planning Commission.)
Pacific Inn is located within the West Anaheim Corridor
Redevelopment Plan area, and grant of a new conditional
use permit for the Pacific Inn would not be in
conformance with alternative land use recommendations
identified in the Redevelopment Plan. (Memorandum from
Ramona Castaneda, Project Manager, Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, to Dave See, Assistant Planner,
dated April 24, 2000, Attachment No. 5 to April 24,
2000 Staff Report to Planning Commission.)
That the granting of the conditional use permit would be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. This
finding is based upon the following:
Since the current property owners purchased the Pacific
Inn in April, 1992, there have been 467 code violations
at the property, which include incidences of
substandard housing, hazardous wiring, hazardous
plumbing, deteriorated walls and flooring, inoperable
or missing smoke detectors and cockroaches. These
inspections were conducted as joint inspections of the
Code Enforcement Division with the Orange County Health
Department and the Anaheim Police Department.
Testimony of Fred Fix, Senior Code Enforcement
Bo
Co
Do
Officer, to Planning Commission at April 24, 2000
public hearing.)
Pacific Inn has been operating without any zoning
entitlement and in violation of the City's Zoning Code
since February 3, 1998. (The original conditional use
permit expired December 18, 1996, and the City's denial
of an application for a new conditional use permit was
final on February 3, 1998.) Only other motels
operating without any zoning entitlement and in
violation of the City's Code are similarly situated to
applicant. Neither the Covered Wagon Motel or the
Lincoln Inn have been operating without zoning
entitlements or applied for new conditional use
permits.
Between February, 1998 and March, 2000 there were 107
calls for police service to the motel. Thirty-seven
calls were for the period from February 1998 through
January, 1999; sixty-four were for the period from
February, 1999 through January, 2000 and seven were for
March, 2000, indicating a pattern of increased calls.
(Memorandum from Investigator Tony Montanarella, Vice
Detail to Sergeant Russ Sutter, Vice Detail, provided
to Planning Commission at the public hearing on April
24, 2000.)
During the first six months of this year, the Pacific
Inn had 27 calls for service, 17 of which were related
to the business. Among these calls was an arrest for
prostitution for a female who was going to take the
undercover officer to her room at the Pacific Inn and a
second where the female who had directed the undercover
officer to meet her there. (Testimony of Sergeant Russ
Sutter, Anaheim Police Department Vice Detail, to City
Council at the public hearing on July 11, 2000.)
Comparing the crime statistics for the subject motel to
motels with valid zoning entitlements which are similar
in size to the subject motel and located on Beach
Boulevard, even though they are not similarly situated
with a use which has no zoning entitlement, indicates
that the Pacific Inn has a disproportionately high
number of police calls:
Name of Motel No. of Police Directly
Rooms Calls Related
Pacific Inn 23
Anaheim Lodge 45
Moonlight Motel 42
Americana Motel 44
27 17
18 Not stated
12 2
13 9
(Testimony of Sergeant Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police
Department Vice Detail, to City Council at the public
hearing on July 11, 2000.)
The Lincoln Inn is approximately five times larger than
the Pacific Inn, and the two are not comparable.
(Testimony of Sergeant Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police
Department Vice Detail, to City Council at the public
hearing on July 11, 2000.)
The history of Municipal Code violations and criminal
activity in this motel at this location indicates the
owner's inability to operate this business in
compliance with City, County, and State regulations
even after modification actions were taken by the
Planning Commission, a Hearing Officer and the City
Council regarding the previous conditional use permit.
Since 1992 this motel has been operated, and the
previous conditional use permit has been exercised, in
a manner resulting in an inordinate number of calls for
service to this property causing a disproportionate
draw upon Police Department and Code Enforcement
Division resources thereby causing secondary
detrimental impact to the peace, health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Motels in the Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue
area have had negative secondary effects, including the
use of motels as substandard apartments which are not
designed for long term residency, causing overcrowded
housing conditions, having a negative impact on local
public schools, negatively affecting adjacent single
family residences, and causing a high incidence of
criminal activity, including drug sales and use,
prostitution, and disturbances, causing blight and
degradation to the area, and creating a
disproportionate burden on city services because of
excessive calls for service. (Memorandum from Ramona
Castaneda, Project Manager, Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, to Dave See, Assistant Planner, dated April 24,
2000, Attachment No. 5 to April 24, 2000 Staff Report
to Planning Commission.)
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the provisions and limitations
of 18.89.030.032, .033, .034, and .035 setting forth the required
findings for grant of a conditional use permit, subsection
18.89.030.036 provides that the Planning Commission or City
Council may grant any request for a conditional use permit if the
City Council or Planning Commission finds and determines that the
concerns addressed by said subsections are (1) mitigated to a
level of insignificance or (2) that overriding considerations
warrant the approval of the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented, the City
Council does not find and determine that the concerns addressed
by subsections .032 and .035 are mitigated to a level of
insignificance or that overriding considerations warrant the
approval of the conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning
Commission denying said conditional use permit be, and the same
is hereby, upheld for the reasons hereinabove specified, and that
the request of said applicant to permit a 23-unit motel on the
hereinabove described real property be, and the same is hereby,
denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the time within which rehearings
must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section 1.12.100
of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the time within which judicial
review of final decisions must be sought is governed by the
provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 79R-524.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Anaheim this llth day of July, 2000.
ATTEST:
~I'TY C~ERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAY~R~/OF THiSTlY OF~HEIM
36416.1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2000R-142 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 11th day of July, 2000, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution
No. 2000R-142 on the 11th day of July, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of
Anaheim this 11th day of July, 2000.
CI~FY CLERCK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing
is the original of Resolution No. 2000R-142 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim on July 11th, 2000.
CIT'~-~-CLERI~'OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM