Loading...
CC - Item 4B - Public Hearing On Modification 21-01 Friendly Inn Motel - 2146 San Gabriel BoulevardROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGEI£� DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2022 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATION 21-01 FRIENDLY INN MOTEL — 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SUMMARY On July 27, 2021, the City Council approved Modification 21-01 and adopted Resolution No. 2021-37, which revised the conditions of approval to thereby amend Conditional Use Permit 88- 447 for the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. On April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted a five-month review on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, remove, or continue conditions of approval based upon the operations of the motel. During the public hearing, the City Council determined that due to the number of calls for service/responses, no change would be imposed on the existing security condition of approval and adopted City Council Resolution 2022-25. Per Condition of Approval No. 10, "If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-25, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2022-25 and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2022-25 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going forward basis. " On October 24, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01. As a result, the public hearing was scheduled for December 13, 2022 to be heard by City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. In addition, Class 9 of Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as AGENDA ITEM 4.11 City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. DISCUSSION In 2021, the City initiated Modification 21-01 to the Friendly Inn's Conditional Use Permit (CUP 88-447) to modify and update the conditions of approval relative to the operational standards and security measures, due to the significant public safety concerns and violations raised by the City's Public Safety Department, Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. The significant public safety concerns from January 1, 2019 thru May 31, 2021 included 178 calls for service/responses, which involves two murders, three shootings, six aggravated assaults, 12 stolen/recovered vehicles, 16 narcotics related arrests, and other crimes. The Planning Commission originally approved Modification 21-01 on April 5, 2021. The project was then appealed to the City Council by the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn Motel. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 21-02 are included in this report as Attachments "B", "C", and "D", respectively. On June 22, 2021, the City Council conducted the appeal public hearing of Modification 21-01 and after hearing all arguments and public testimony, continued the public hearing to the July 13, 2021 City Council Meeting to allow Friendly Inn provide further information and cost estimates on private patrol service versus dedicated armed security guards. The City Council Staff Reports and City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt are attached as Attachments "E", "F", "G" and "H", respectively. All exhibits are specifically made a part of this staff report and public hearing. On July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01. After hearing all public testimony, the City Council agreed that due to the significant public safety concerns that were raised in staff's report and based on the testimony during the public hearing, including the Chief of Police's testimony that proper security conditions of approval were necessary, including the requirement to have two -armed security guards stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week. However, the City Council expressed that the City is supportive of the business and its ability to operate in a safe manner and that the measures to mitigate the public safety concerns be reviewed in the future. As a result, the City Council and the applicant agreed to modify Condition of Approval No. 10 to allow the applicant to request a review of the conditions of approval shortly after five months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37. Consequently, the City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council meeting. On July 27, 2021, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution 2021-37, denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21- 02 with amended conditions of approval. The City Council Staff Report, City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, and City Council Resolution 2021-37 (with Conditions of Approval) are attached as Attachments "I", "J", and "K", respectively. City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 3 of 7 On March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to discuss the condition of approval related to the security at the business, specifically the requirement to have two full-time armed security guards. The public hearing was scheduled for April 12, 2022 to be heard by City Council. However, at the request of the applicant's representative, on April 12, 2022, the City Council continued the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of April 26, 2022. On April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted a five-month review on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the motel. During the hearing, the City Council agreed that the severity of the calls have decreased, however, the total number of calls for service/responses were still excessive. For this reason, the City Council elected to continue the conditions of approval as adopted by City Council Resolution 2021-37 with the exception of revising Condition of Approval No. 10 to allow the applicant to request a review of the conditions of approval in six months. The City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council Meeting. On May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution 2022-25. The City Council Staff Report, City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, and City Council Resolution 2022-25 (with Conditions of Approval) are attached as Attachments "L", "M", and "N", respectively. The applicant has continued to retain two 24/7 full-time armed security guards. Both Community Development and Public Safety Department staff have conducted routine inspections to ensure compliance with the security condition of approval. There were some instances when only one security guard was present due to the second having medical or personal issues. The City's Sheriff's Department Team has also viewed the security footage to ensure the security guards are present. On October 24, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to discuss the Condition of Approval No. 10, which relates to the requirement of two full-time armed security guards. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment "O". Sheriffs Department Analysis and Recommendation The City's Sheriff's Department Team has conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly Inn over the last five months (May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022). As detailed below, the number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Temple Station to the Friendly Inn has decreased as compared to the past few years. • 2019 — 26 calls for service/responses • 2020 — 95 calls for service/responses 0 2021 (January 1 to May 31) — 26 calls for service/responses City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 4 of 7 • 2021-2022 (September I to February 28) — 33 calls for service/responses • 2022 (May 1 to October 31) — 19 calls for service/responses The number of calls for service have decreased over the last five months and the City's Sheriffs Department Team has determined that the incidents are less severe in nature than the crime summary provided during the five-month review. In comparison with previous years, there have been no murders, shootings, or stolen/recovered vehicles from the location. In addition, there was one assault with a deadly weapon as compared to six in the years prior. Furthermore, there were three narcotic related overdoses and one call of shots heard in the area. Lastly, there were no firearms recovered from the location. Based on the City's Sheriffs Department Team's review of the crime summary, there were 19 calls for service/responses, in which one resulted in crime reports. The calls for service/responses include one family disturbance call, three possible elder abuse calls, one domestic violence call, six see the man calls, two suspicious person calls, two battery calls, and four assist fire calls. A summary depicting the significant events from the past five months (May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022) for the Friendly Inn is provided below. Please note that the list entails all calls for services/responses and may not be documented as an incident with a full report, but is still an indication of the required law enforcement monitoring required at the site. • On May 1, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a couple fighting in a hotel room. Deputies contacted all involved parties at the location and determined no crime at the location. • On May 11, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a rental scam, where the landlord was asking for cash only. The informant/possible victim left the location prior to the deputy's arrival and could not be contacted. • On May 16, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a person looking between car windows possibly trying to break into vehicles. The deputies arrived but could not locate the suspect. Deputies determined no crime at the location. • On May 24, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a male and female seen fist fighting. Deputies contacted all involved parties at the location. No arrest made due to all parties non -desirous of prosecution for misdemeanor battery. No report taken. • On May 29, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a "See the man" call for service. Deputies contacted the informant who relayed to the deputies that she felt her friend was being taken advantage of by her friend. After contacting the informant, the deputies determined the incident was happening in Baldwin Park. The deputies advised the informant to contact Baldwin Park Police Department. • On June 2, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a possible elder abuse call for service. The deputies who responded where unable to contact the involved parties. • On June 2, 2022, deputies again responded to the location regarding a possible elder abuse call for service. In this instance the deputy could not make contact due to numerous calls for service throughout the city. City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 5 of 7 • LASD Report No. 022-06078-0533-715: On June 4, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a possible elder abuse call for service. Deputies were able to make contact and a report was written. • On June 6, 2022, deputies responded to the location to conduct a patrol check for suspicious activity. The hotel parking lot and surrounding area checked clear, and the deputies did not observe any criminal activity. • On June 14, 2022, deputies again responded to the location to assist in serve a search warrant. • On June 26, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a domestic violence call for service. The deputies were unable to locate the disturbing parties who left the location prior to their arrival. Due to the involved parties leaving the location the deputies were unable to determine if a crime had occurred. • On July 8, 2022, Deputies contacted the victim regarding her stolen vehicle. The victim told the deputies that she would instead respond to the station to file a report for the stolen car. • On July 12, 2022, deputies responded to the location to assist LA County fire with a person not breathing call for service. The victim was treated by the fire department but refused to be transported to the hospital. No evidence of crime at the location. • LASD Report No. 922-08070-0533-607: On July 18, 2022, deputies were conducting a patrol check in the parking lot and detained two people for a stolen vehicle investigation. One arrest was made report. • On July 26, 2022, deputies responded to the location to check the welfare of two small dogs. After arriving at the location, the deputies could not locate the informant and could not locate and dogs that were in any distress. The deputies determined there was no evidence of any crime at the location. • On August 1, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a theft report call for service. Deputies made contact with the victim who indicated approximately $800 was removed from her account without her permission. The deputies documented the loss via a theft report (922-08961-0532-112). • On September 27, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a suspected elder abuse call for service. For this call the deputies were unable to make contacted with the involved parties. • On October 4, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a suspected child abuse call for service. After conducting their investigation, they determined a crime had occurred and wrote a report (report #022-11329-0533-149). • On October 25, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a suspected child abuse call for service. For the call the deputies were unable to make contact with the involved parties. City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 6 of 7 The volume of calls for service/responses at the Friendly Inn are higher than other hotels/motels within the vicinity. A comparison of the calls for service/responses (time period of May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022) is provided below: 1. Fairfield Inn (705 San Gabriel Boulevard) - There were 15 calls for service, which included five business disturbance or a disturbance calls, two see the man calls, one a hit and run call, one trespassing call, two transients on the property calls, one person down call (possibly needing medical attention), one traffic collision call (not necessarily on the property, but that was the location given for the deputies to respond), and one stolen car call. There were three crime reports generated at this location, one rape, one burglary, and one stolen car. 2. Motel V.I.P. (2619 San Gabriel Boulevard) - There were four calls for service/responses, which were all for a "person acting suspiciously". There were two crime reports generated at this location for aggravated assault and theft. 3. Del Mar Motel (1605 Del Mar Avenue - Unincorporated LA County) - There were eight calls for service/responses at this location, which included four business disturbance or a disturbance calls, one see the man call, two patrol checks created by the deputies, and one domestic violence call. No crime reports were taken. The City's Sheriffs Department Team believes the decrease in severity of the calls for service/responses is due to the City's modification of the motel's security system, which includes two armed security stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week and the installation of a comprehensive surveillance camera system which the Sheriffs Department holds direct access to. Although it would be ideal to continue the requirement of two armed security guards, staff recognizes the financial burden that this requirement has imposed on the applicant and that reduced measures at this time may be able to provide sufficient security at the property. Based on the decrease in the number of calls for service/responses and severity of the calls, the City's Sheriffs Department Team and staff are recommending that the City Council revise the security guard requirement and require one armed security guard in the evening hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and one unarmed security guard 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to be stationed in the parking lot at all times. The amended Condition of Approval will continue to provide the City Council the authority to review and amend the Condition in the event public safety incidents change at the property. It is also recommended that the security plan be re-evaluated in six months upon request of the applicant to determine if the condition for security should be altered at that time based activity at the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct the public hearing and hear all public testimonies and adopt City Council Resolution 2022-68, revising the conditions of approval of Modification 2 1 -01 including the CEQA determination that Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. City Council Meeting December 13, 2022 Page 7 of 7 FISCAL IMPACT - None. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Modification 21-01 is consistent with the City's 2030 Strategic Plan as the objective of Goal A: Safety is, "Rosemead will enhance public safety in our City by providing safe access to public facilities, expand neighborhood safety programs, and improve quality of life, which will include assisting homeless residents in our community." PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to forty-seven (47) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on December 1, 2022, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations. Prepared by: 49 Lily Valenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted c1by: "'k Stan Wong, Interim Director of Community Development Attachment A: City Council Resolution 2022-68 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments), dated April 5, 2021 Attachment C: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 5, 2021 Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02 Attachment E: City Council Staff Report (with attachments), dated June 22, 2021 Attachment F: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated June 22, 2021 Attachment G: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated July 13, 2021 Attachment H: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated July 13, 2021 Attachment I: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated July 27, 2021 Attachment J: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated July 27, 2021 Attachment K: City Council Resolution 2021-37 with Conditions of Approval Attachment L: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated April 26, 2022 Attachment M: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated April 26, 2022 Attachment N: City Council Resolution 2022-25 with Conditions of Approval Attachment O: Applicant's Letter of Request RESOLUTION 2022-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION 21-01, FOR THE FRIENDLY INN. THE MOTEL IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02, approving Modification 21-01 with the amendment to Condition of Approval No. 21 by adding two additional armed security guards; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to the appeal of Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, Mr. Weiser requested that the City Council continue the public hearing, and that if the Council continued the public hearing that he would provide written notice to all inhabitants of the subject property and notify them of their opportunity to comment on the proposed modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to July 13, 2021; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing and allowed additional testimony and at the end of the public hearing, directed staff to bring back a resolution denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21-01 with amended conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2021- 37, denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21-01 with amended conditions of approval. WHEREAS, Condition of Approval No. 10 allowed the applicant to request in writing that the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, remove or continue conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of request for the City Council to review the conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn; and 1 WHEREAS, the public hearing was duly noticed for April 12, 2022, however, on April 4, 2022, Mr. Weiser requested that the public hearing be continued to the April 26, 2022 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City Council continued the duly noticed public hearing the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of April 26, 2022; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-01 and at the end of the public hearing, the City Council elected to maintain the conditions of approval as adopted by City Council Resolution 2021-37 with the exception of revising Condition of Approval No. 10 to allow the applicant to request a review of the conditions of approval in six months. The City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution 2022- 25. WHEREAS, Condition of Approval No. 10 allowed the applicant to request in writing that the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility at a date shortly after six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-25; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allows the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, and allows conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; WHEREAS, on October 24, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of request for the City Council to review the conditions of approval of Modification 2 1 -01 from the Friendly Inn; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2022, forty-seven (47) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader on December 1, 2022, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, December 13, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony and all other information presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 2 1 -01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15309 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Findings Regarding Conditions. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-01, in accordance with Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original 03 approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; FINDING: The City Council finds that facts do justify "Findings A, C, and E". The City's Sheriffs Department Team has conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly Inn over the last five months (May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022). The number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Temple Station to the Friendly Inn totals 19 calls for service/responses, in which two resulted in crime reports. The calls for service/responses included one family disturbance call, three possible elder abuse calls, one domestic violence call, six see the man calls, two suspicious person calls, two battery calls, and four assist fire calls. The City's Sheriffs Department Team believes the decrease in severity of the calls for service/responses is due to the City's modification of the motel's security system, which includes two armed security stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week and the installation of a comprehensive surveillance camera system which the Sheriff s Department holds direct access to. Although it would be ideal to continue the requirement of two armed security guards, staff recognizes the financial burden that this requirement has imposed on the applicant. Based on the decrease in number of calls for service/responses and severity of the calls, the City's Sheriff s Department Team and staff are recommending that the City Council revise the security guard requirement for the Friendly Inn. Due to the reduction in number of calls for service/responses and decrease in severity of the calls, the City Council finds that the requirements within Condition of Approval No. 21 can be revised to one armed security guard in the evening hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and one unarmed security guard 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to be stationed in the parking lot at all times. The security plan be re-evaluated in six months upon request of the applicant to determine if the condition for security should be altered at that time based activity at the property. SECTION 3. Approving Modification 21-01. The City Council adopts City Council Resolution No. 2022-68 to revise the conditions of approval as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022. ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Exhibit: A. Conditions of Approval Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2022-68, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" (City Council Resolution 2022-68) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-036-032) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL December 13, 2022 The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. Starting on the 11th day after the City Council approved Resolution 2022-68, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of all of the conditions of approval as set forth in this list of conditions. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Health Department. 8. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 9. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Safety Department shall have access to the project site at any time to conduct inspections. 10. If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-68, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2022-68 and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2022-68 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going - forward basis. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self - latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: • Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering lst 2"a and 3m floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. • Security Guards o One armed security guard in the evening hours from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and one unarmed security guard 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to be stationed in the parking lot at all times. o The security guard will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guard will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. • Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. E o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. 10 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: APRIL 5, 2021 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SUMMARY On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-447 (CUP 88-447), which permitted a transfer of ownership for a motel use, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, in a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Due to recent activity and violations with the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City is initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 to modify the conditions of approval to include operational and maintenance conditions, which includes a security system for the motel (Friendly Inn). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. In addition, Class 9 of Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, MOD 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 20 PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southeast corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves Avenue. According to the Los Angeles County Assessor's records, the site is approximately 28,870 square feet. On April 28, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 604 (attached as Exhibit "B"), which permitted hotel and motel development in the C-3 and Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M-1) zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. According to Building and Safety Division records, the building permit for motel was issued on January 7, 1987 and building construction was finaled on July 15, 1987. On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved CUP 88-447, which permitted the transfer of ownership of the existing 50 -unit motel. According to the staff report, the original motel was exempt from obtaining a CUP as the building permit was issued (January 7, 1987) before Ordinance 604 was adopted (April 28, 1987). Since a CUP was not required by the City for the motel use, it is assumed that the City required an approval of a CUP for the transfer of ownership. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Resolution 89-11 are attached as Exhibits "C", "D", and "E", respectively. According to business license records, the motel was transferred to the Friendly Inn in 1995. However, there are no records of the transfer of ownership in the CUP 88-447 case file. Since the CUP runs with the land, on March 9, 2021, the City issued an "Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit" for CUP 88-447 to the Friendly Inn. The business owners signed, notarized, and submitted the affidavit to the City on March 10, 2021. In reviewing the history of CUP 88-447, staff found that the staff report inadvertently applied the incorrect municipal code requirement "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)" for the CUP in 1989. The granting of the CUP was for a motel use and not for "any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-1, C-3, CBD and M zones and any establishment having an on -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-3, CBD and M -zones." While the staff report cited the incorrect municipal code requirement of "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)", Resolution 89-11 did approve a motel use. The intent of the aforementioned detailed description of the property history is to correct and clarify these issues. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 20 Elevation from San Gabriel Boulevard (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the Zoning Map it is designated as Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: South: General Plan Zoning: Land Use: East: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: West: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: DISCUSSION Commercial and Low Density Residential Medium Commercial (C-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial and Residential Commercial and Low Density Residential Medium Commercial (C-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial and Residential Low Density Residential Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial Commercial Medium Commercial (C-3) Commercial Since September 2020, the City's Public Safety Department (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division) has observed an increase in public safety concerns. According to the Public Safety Department, this includes thefts, violence, littering of Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 4 of 20 syringes, alcohol bottles, trash, and feces in the neighborhood, and the motel appears to be housing homeless people. On January 6, 2021, the City's Public Safety Department (LA County Sheriff's Department and Code Enforcement Division) and the Building and Safety Division conducted a compliance check on four rooms at the Friendly Inn. The Building Official observed that the rooms inspected were uninhabitable and presented a significant danger to the life and health of any occupant(s). Due to the severity of the findings for the rooms inspected, the Building Official arranged additional inspections for the other guest rooms with the motel management and the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, City's Public Safety Department (LA County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division), Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, on January 21St 26tH 27th, and 28th. Based on the inspections conducted, it was determined that the Friendly Inn is in violation of CUP 88-447, the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC), Los Angeles County Building Code, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. In addition, the Chief of Police has noted a significant increase in criminal activity at the Friendly Inn. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Inspection was issued to the business owner (also the property owner) that an inspection was scheduled for March 23, 2021, for the remaining 18 rooms that have not been inspected. On March 23, 2021, the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department conducted an inspection of 15 rooms. Of the 18 rooms noticed, only 13 rooms were available. The other five rooms were occupied. In addition, the business owner requested an inspection of two additional rooms. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and Los Angeles County Fire Department were invited to the inspection, however, were unable to attend. The details of the violations and concerns from each division or agency can be found below. Planning Division On February 17, 2021, the Planning Division issued the Friendly Inn a letter which addressed the violations to CUP 88-447 (attached as Exhibit "F"). The violations include guests occupying rooms for more than 30 consecutive days; daily room cleaning services are not being provided; registration records of guests are not being kept; food preparation equipment such as toaster ovens, grills, and skillets were found in the rooms; and inconsistency between business owner names on their Business License and Applicant Affidavit for CUP 88-447. The letter also notified the business owner that the City would be initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 to incorporate additional operational and security conditions designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. On March 23, 2021, staff noted that there were property maintenance issues that require improvements. This includes parking lot re -slurry seal, restriping of parking spaces (including ADA spaces), adding a self-closing gate latch to the trash enclosure doors, replacing all broken exterior light fixtures, maintaining the landscape planters, and replacing dilapidated awnings. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to address the property maintenance issues. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 5 of 20 Building and Safety Division On February 17, 2021, the Building and Safety Division issued a formal Notice of Building Code Violation (attached as Exhibit "G"), which included violations that require immediate action, such as missing wall light fixtures, recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits, water damage on walls and ceilings, missing smoke detectors, and hazardous ungrounded or mis- wired electrical receptacles. Many of the violations were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy and as such, the Building Official also posted some of the guest rooms with a "yellow tag" (restricted use) which prohibits the rooms from being occupied and only allows entry for the purposes of making repairs or retrieving personal property. The inspection of the 18 rooms on March 23, 2021, revealed that two rooms had minor deficiencies and may be occupied; six rooms were posted with a yellow tag due to current un- inhabitable conditions, however, repairs are in progress; and seven rooms were posted with a yellow tag and found to have significant deficiencies. To date, 21 rooms have minor or no deficiencies; 23 rooms have been posted with a yellow tag and/or are currently under repair with active permits; and five rooms have not been inspected and may be occupied for more than 30 days. Since the business owner failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection, the Building Official will impose a non-compliance fee, which must be paid prior to further inspections. Code Enforcement Division Since September 2020, the Code Enforcement Division has issued several warning notices and citations to the Friendly Inn. The violations include graffiti inside the rooms, on the exterior walls, and in the parking lot; storage of junk and furniture in plain view, within the parking lot, in the carport, under the stairwell, and in the walkways of the motel; inoperable in -room telephones; inoperative vehicles in the parking lot from motel guests; renting of rooms in excess of 30 days; abandonment of shopping carts on the property; little to no housekeeping; registration records of guests not detailed or incomplete; and guests being registered to multiple rooms with the same names. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a violation notice to the Friendly Inn on January 21, 2021 and January 27, 2021. A copy of both Inspection Reports are attached as Exhibit "H". The violations include vermin infestation/harborage; sewer line discharge; dilapidated appliances, vanities, cabinets, furnishings, ceilings, walls, and flooring; faucet and toilet maintenance and repairs; window repair and/or replacements; and garbage, rubbish, and refuse removal. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department On February 19, 2021, the Chief of Police provided a crime summary for the Friendly Inn. The summary indicates the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department has developed information Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 6 of 20 that the Friendly Inn is considered a safe haven for gang members and criminals. In addition, suspects who have committed crimes or hiding from law enforcement are residing at the Friendly Inn. Furthermore, the Rosemead Sherifrs Department Team has arrested numerous suspects at the Friendly Inn who were hiding and wanted for serious crimes such as murder, carjacking, assault, and robbery. The Sheriffs Department investigation also revealed that video surveillance relating to a murder was deleted. The crime summary from January 1, 2018 thru February 19, 2021 showed 237 calls for service/responses, which include two murders since June 2020, three shootings since September 2020, 12 aggravated assaults, 19 stolen/recovered vehicles,17 narcotics related arrests, and other crimes. The details are provided below: • LASD Report No. 018-00183-0533-051: On January 5, 2018, a gang -on -gang shooting occurred where two rival gang members shot at each other numerous times. • LASD Report No. 918-00234-0533-733: On January 6, 2018, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 918-01451-0533-152: On February 2, 2018, a suspect was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. • LASD Report No. 918-03457-0533-733: On March 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 018-02162-0533-035: On April 19, 2018, a robbery occurred where a suspect pointed a firearm at the victim and stole his personal belongings. • LASD Report No. 918-05074-0533-185: On April 26, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 918-05485-0533-144: On May 6, 2018, two suspects were arrested for fighting. • LASD Report No. 018-05939-0533-146: On May 17, 2018, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 918-06506-0533-037: On May 28, 2018, a robbery occurred. Numerous suspects pointed a gun at the victim and stole his wallet. • LASD Report No. 018-06587-0533-146: On May 30, 2018, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 918-07333-0533-733: On June 14, 2018, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. • LASD Report No. 918-10269-0533-399: On August 15, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 918-10697-0533-185: On August 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of narcotics, paraphernalia, and stolen items. • LASD Report No. 918-10695-0533-117: On August 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of numerous stolen property relating to identity theft. • LASD Report No. 918-12270-0533-091: On September 19, 2018, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 018-13780-0533-172: On October 23, 2018, deputies arrested a suspect for child abuse on two victims. The suspect was also under the influence of a controlled substance. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 7 of 20 • LASD Report No. 018-14620-0533-402: On November 9, 2018, deputies responded to the location regarding a missing juvenile. • LASD Report No. 918-14563-0533-733: On November 9, 2018, deputies arrested a suspect for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 018-14902-0533-402: On November 15, 2018, deputies responded to the location regarding a missing juvenile. • LASD Report No. 918-15379-0533-185: On November 29, 2018, deputies arrested two suspects for possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 918-16546-0533-733: On December 29, 2018, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. • LASD Report No. 919-00605-0533-384: On December 31, 2018, items were stolen from a vehicle. • LASD Report No. 919-02983-0533-185: On March 3, 2019, a suspect was arrested for possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 919-04100-0533-181: On April 3, 2019, two suspects were arrested for possession of narcotics for sales. • LASD Report No. 019-04265-0533-091: On April 7, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 919-06208-0533-091: On May 20, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 019-08048-0533-146: On June 30, 2019, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 919-08729-0533-117: On July 15, 2019, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle and possession of stolen property relating to identity theft. • LASD Report No. 919-09262-0533-255: On July 28, 2019, a suspect was arrested for driving without a license. • LASD Report No. 919-09740-0533-399: On August 8, 2019, two suspects were arrested for possession of stolen property and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 919-14878-0532-091: On December 9, 2019, a vehicle was stolen. • LASD Report No. 920-00808-0533-093: On January 20, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 920-01200-0530-093: On January 29, 2020, deputies saw a stolen vehicle parked at the location. They reviewed surveillance footage and identified two suspects staying at the location. Both suspects were arrested for numerous charges of driving a stolen vehicle, possession of a controlled substance, paraphernalia, and possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 920-00780-1461-091: On February 6, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-02244-0533-181: On February 18, 2020, deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop of vehicle leaving the location. After a brief vehicle pursuit, the suspect collided into a curb and fled on foot. While hiding from deputies, the suspect kidnapped and held a victim against his will. The suspect was ultimately arrested. He was also in possession of a loaded firearm and controlled substances for sale. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 8 of 20 • LASD Report No. 920-02438-0533-185: On February 22, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a person with a gun call. Deputies located a suspect and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02763-0533-185: On February 29, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot and arrested one suspect for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02808-0533-733: On March 1, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 020-03173-0535-050: On March 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding domestic violence. The suspect struck the victim and fled the location. • LASD Report No. 920-04420-0532-091: On April 12, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 020-06046-0533-053: On May 20, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a fight. The victim was stabbed in the head by an unknown suspect. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Covina Police Department): On June 9, 2020, the Rosemead Team assisted Covina Police Department in locating and arresting a suspect wanted for murder. The suspect committed a murder the prior week and was hiding at the location. • LASD Report No. 020-07154-0533-058: On June 10, 2020, the Fire Department responded to the location regarding a power outage. They attempted to rescue two people stuck in an elevator. A suspect challenged a firefighter to a fight and struck his arm. The suspect was arrested for assaulting a firefighter. • LASD Report No. 920-07635-0533-733: On June 21, 2020, deputies arrested a suspect for driving a stolen vehicle inside the parking lot. The suspect was also in possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 020-07764-0532-011: On June of 2020, a murder occurred at the location. Active Investigation. • LASD Report No. 920-08216-0533-185: On July 4, 2020, deputies conducted a traffic stop inside the parking lot. One suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-08549-0533-733: On July 11, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-09404-0533-185: On August 1, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding an assault with a deadly weapon. The deputies were unable to locate a victim. They located and arrested a suspect who was in possession of a knife and narcotics. • LASD Report No. 020-10871-0533-151 and 020-10865-0533-051: On September 10, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a gunshot victim. One victim was shot in his upper body. During the investigation, they recovered a loaded firearm and arrested a suspect. • LASD Report No. 920-11100-0532-183: On September 16, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot. Deputies contacted a suspect who was under the influence of a controlled substance and arrested the suspect. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 9 of 20 • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Santa Monica Police Department): On September 26, 2020, a carjacking occurred in Santa Monica where an elderly lady was pistol whipped numerous times on the head. After the carjacking, the suspect drove to the Friendly Inn. Deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop. After a brief pursuit, two suspects abandoned their vehicle and fled on foot. Two suspects were arrested, and a firearm was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-09699-0533-185: On October 8, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. Two suspects were arrested in the parking lot for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-12016-0533-185: On October 9, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. A suspect was found to be in possession of narcotics and paraphernalia and was arrested. • LASD Report No. 920-12624-0533-145: On October 23, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the location and saw a traffic violation. The suspect ran away from the deputy and a fight ensued. The deputy was injured during the fight. During the incident, an angry crowd from the motel gathered around the deputy. • LASD Report No. 920-12892-0533-091: On October 30, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 020-13290-0533-449: On November 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance -domestic violence. There was a verbal argument only. • LASD Report No. 920-13566-0533-183: On November 16, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance. The suspect was throwing items at parked vehicles. They arrested a suspect in the parking lot for being under the influence of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 020-14191-0533-051: On December 3, 2020, three victims were sitting in a parked vehicle inside the parking lot. A suspect approached and began shooting at the victims. Two victims were struck by gunfire. • LASD Report No. 920-15269-0533-261: On December 30, 2020, a vehicle was vandalized. • LASD Report No. 020-00046-0533-011: On January 2, 2021, a murder occurred at the location. One victim was shot and died. Active Investigation. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by a jurisdiction in Orange County): On January 6, 2021, deputies arrested one suspect for a no bail parole warrant and possession of narcotics and a second suspect for a robbery that occurred in Orange County. Los Angeles County Fire Department The Los Angeles County Fire Department has informed City staff that the Friendly Inn is in violation of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, however, was unable to release the violations to the City due to confidentiality reasons. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 10 of 20 Modification to CUP 88-447 — Proposed Amendment to Conditions of Approval Due to the public safety concerns and violations raised by the City's Public Safety Department, Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the City initiated the modification of CUP 88-447 to modify and update the conditions of approval for the motel use. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 and included limited conditions of approval which are no longer consistent with the current operational standards for motels/hotels, as codes have been updated over the last 32 years. A copy of the conditions of approval for CUP 88-447, approved in 1989, is attached as Exhibit "I". Since the conditions of approval are outdated, staff has drafted new conditions of approval for Modification 21-01, which will supersede the original conditions of approval for CUP 88-447. The proposed conditions of approval will ensure that the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. Staff has incorporated a condition of approval requiring the motel to comply with the operational standards in RMC Chapter 5.42 and RMC Section 17.30.130. In addition, staff has also included maintenance conditions to ensure the site is adequately maintained. Based on the public safety concerns described in the crime summary, the Chief of Police has requested that the following security measures be incorporated into the conditions of approval for Modification 21-01: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 15f 2nd and 3rd floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 11 of 20 • Security Guards o Two -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times. o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. • Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. To date, the business owner of the Friendly Inn has been working with City staff, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Public Health Department on addressing some of the violations. In addition, they will install a new security system as recommended by the Chief of Police. Furthermore, the business owner has indicated to staff that they would also like to comply with the current RMC requirements as they relate to the operation and maintenance of a motel use. Written Comments Received The City has received two written public comments. On March 28, 2021, the City's Clerk's Office received an email from a neighboring resident (Eric Wu). The neighboring resident informed the City that there are drainage issues that are spilling from the Friendly Inn onto his property to the east. In addition, he expressed his concerns on patrons of the hotel littering; bullet casings found in the public right-of-way; and homeless, alcohol, and drug issues. The details of his concerns are attached as Exhibit "J" and will be read at the Planning Commission Meeting. On March 30, 2021, the City's Clerk's Office received a second email from a neighboring resident (Anthony Tran). The neighboring resident expressed his concerns regarding the security of the neighborhood and incidents that have occurred with patrons residing at the Friendly Inn. The details of his concerns are attached as Exhibit "K" and will be read at the Planning Commission Meeting. The City's Building Official is currently reviewing the drainage issues that were raised by resident Eric Wu. Staff anticipates that the approval of Modification 21-01 and working closely with the business owner will assist in mitigating the safety, maintenance, and operational concerns raised by both residents. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 12 of 20 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS The underlying CUP (CUP 88-447) continues to satisfy RMC Section 17.132.040 (B) through (E) and will remain unchanged as part of this modification. The proposed modifications are consistent with RMC Section 17.132.040(A). Per RMC Section 17.168.030, the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. RMC Section 17.168.040(A)(1) provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvementluse allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 with limited conditions of approval. Due to the public safety concerns raised by the Chief of Police and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and violations with the Building and Safety, Planning, and Code Enforcement Divisions and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the motel operation is creating conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and creating a nuisance. Modification 21-01 will update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in- Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 13 of 20 room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to (47) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on March 25, 2021, and postings of the notice at five (5) public locations. Prepared by: 41-� Lily Valenzuela Planning & Economic Development Manager Submitted by: t Angelica Frausto-Lupo Director of Community Development EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 21-02 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval) B. Ordinance 604 C. Planning Commission Staff Report (dated February 6, 1989) D. Planning Commission Minutes (dated February 6, 1989) E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-11 F. Planning Division CUP Violation Letter G. Building Division Notice of Violation H. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Inspection Reports (APN: 8577-009-026) I. CUP 88-447 Conditions of Approval J. Public Comment (dated March 28, 2021) K. Public Comment (dated March 30, 2021) Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 5, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:25 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Tang INVOCATION — Commissioner Leung ROLL CALL — Commissioners Berry, Leung, Tang, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Assistant City Manager ICrm, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong, Building Official Fliehmann, and Commission Liaison Huang EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. ' PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (MCA) 21.01 — The proposed Residential Small Lot Ordinance ("Small Lot Ordinance") amends various sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code Title 17 ("Zonins7 by defining and establishing standards to allow the construction of homes on small lots with fee -simple ownership in the R-3 ("Medium Multiple Residentiall zone. The Small Lot Ordinance creates incentives for infill residential development in areas zoned for multi -family to spur more fee -simple housing production and will not increase the allowed density permitted in the R-3 zone. The goal is to create new homeownership opportunities compared to that of traditional single-family homes or condominiums. PC RESOLUTION 21-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 998 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-01, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING DEFINITION FOR SMALL LOT AND AMENDING THE DEFINITION FOR LOT AREA TO SECTION 17.04.050; AMENDING SECTION 17.12.010.0 TO INCLUDE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.020 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.020.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.030 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.030.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; ADDING SECTION 17.12.030.B.2.g FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 17.136.030.A TO ADD SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Rosemead Pkmft CDMMiKko MeeOng Mkuks ofAPn15, 2021 Pege 1 of 13 Assistant City Manager Kim presented the Staff Report He recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Commissioner Berry asked what other cities are implementing this, and what are the benefits other than owning a part of the land. Assistant City Manager Kim replied the City of Los Angeles started this Small Lot Subdivision, which was adopted in 2005. Subsequently after that, vadous other cities such as Westminster, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Burbank have adopted a similar type of ordinance, and cities such as Orange and Pomona are also in the process for review. He explained that traditionally, condominiums would mandate a property owner to join a Homeowner Association (HOA). It could be costly for homeowners as there are fees required to be part of a HOA, in addition to their mortgage. This implementation will help save each homeowner a fee into the HOA itself. Chair Lopez asked if we received any public comments. Commission Liaison Huang replied no public comment was received for this item. City Attorney Thuyen confirmed that there are no members of the public on the phone who would like to speak on this item There being no public comment, Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tang welcomed and thanked Assistant City Manager Kim for the staff report. He stated, Commissioner Vuong was initially on the Housing Development Subcommittee and attended the first meeting, and subsequently, he attended the second meeting. He added that when they walked through the small lot subdivision presentation at the Housing Development Subcommittee meeting, he thought this was a nice tool to encourage development and build homes for residents to live in Rosemead. He expressed that this is the innovative and creative thinking needed to address the housing and development needs in our community, and if successful, he believes other cities in the San Gabriel Valley would also follow. Commissioner Berry asked if this is specifically for the small lot sizes with a few units. Assistant City Manager Kim replied if you were to physically view the project itself, you would not be able to see the difference between a small lot subdivision and a traditional two- or three-story townhome project as they both look and function very similarly. He added, the only difference is that there is a little gap between each unit, and each individual unit sits on its own foundation and there is no attachment between the units themselves. He also added, the physical gap establishes a property line between the individual units and physically, it would be difficult to distinguish a small lot subdivision versus a traditional townhome project. Commissioner Berry inquired if there are any special amenities like a traditional townhome project, or If it is simply a driveway and a couple of small homes, where they can own the land underneath as well. Assistant City Manager Kim concurred, owning the land will provide fee ownership of the property, and if a homeowner was looking at creating value to their purchase, there are substantial benefits of owning the land versus going into a townhome, where you own the building but do not own the property in fee. He said, in title, the homeowner owns the property in fee versus traditional condominiums. Commissioner Tang stated that it does not have to be small homes on the lot, it can be one- or two-story traditional townhomes. Assistant City Manager Kim clarified that the home is not small. The lot itself is traditionally small with a standard sized home. Rosemead Plamfng Commission MeefMg Mlmin ofApq 5, 2021 Page 2 of 13 Chair Lopez asked what the size of each unit will be Assistant City Manager IGm stated it would depend on the size of the project, but it would be atypical townhome size, ranging from 1,200 sq ft to 1,800 sq ft. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent None Roll call vote resulted In 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. MODIFICATION (MOD) 21.01- On February 6,1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-447 (CUP 88.447), which permitted a transfer of ownership for a motel use, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, in a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Due to recent activity and violations with the City's Public Safety Department (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division), Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City is initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 by modifying the conditions of approval to include operational conditions and a security system for the motel (Friendly Inn). PC RESOLUTION 21.02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-01, A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-047 TO IMPOSE UPDATED AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR THE MOTEL USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE (APN: 5283-036-032) STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented the Staff Report. She recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and approve MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions. Commissioner Tang asked how many rooms are available if the motel is at a hundred percent capacity and what is the definition of motel use in our Municipal Code. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied 50 rooms would be occupied at a hundred percent capacity. She added the requirements for a motel use is listed in Section 17.30.130, which defines the minimum numbers of rooms, and the minimum requirements that a motel should have; anything under 50 rooms would typically be considered a motel. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a limit to the duration of stay, and how is ft different from a short-term rental or a hotel use. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied according to our Code, it is 30 days. Short-term rental is not permitted in the City, and a hotel use must submit transient occupancy tax. Rosenwad Pimft canmissim Meeting . Mk6s ofW 5, 2021 Pegg 3 of 13 Commissioner Tang asked if there is transient occupancy tax for motel use and asked If the City conducts an audit on their tax or transient occupancy tax. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, there is a transient occupancy tax and believes the City does collect from them. Commissioner Tang mentioned the Staff Report stated that the owners do not maintain records of guests that stay and suggested the City address this by conducting an annual audit to ensure their records are maintained. Commissioner Tang asked if a guest maximized their allowed 30 -day stay, could they leave for a day, and come back to stay for an additional 30 days. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the Code does have requirements for extended days; the applicant (business owner) must apply for an extended stay in their CUP if they want guests to stay more than 30 consecutive days. Commissioner Tang asked if they stay for 30 consecutive days, leave, and come back, would that restart it to 30 consecutive days again? He indicated that this could be a loophole. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela asked to address the next question while she reviews the transient occupancy tax and 30 -day occupancy requirements. Commissioner Berry asked if there are any issues with similar hotels or motels in disrepair, not keeping -up to code, etc., and what are we doing about those. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered we did not encounter any issues in terms of planning and zoning requirements with the other hotels. She added the Chief of Police is on the line to address any crime issues. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong stated as far as he is aware, there are no other motels or hotels in the City with anything near the crime activities that the Friendly Inn has had. Chair Lopez asked if they are still in operation. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered yes, the Friendly Inn is open, but is not operating with full capacity. Chair Lopez asked even with the modification, how will Friendly Inn get things straightened out. He indicated that they have not followed the rules for years, what is our plans with them to get things straightened out. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that the Chief of Police recommended several security measures, and with these security measures, it would help alleviate the crime activities. Regarding the violation from the Planning, Building and Safety and the Code Enforcement Division, they are working closely with the business owner to ensure all violations are corrected. In the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP), they did not have many operational conditions of approval. She added the City initiated the modification with these conditions to correct these issues. Chair Lopez asked if the business owner is willing to make these changes. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela indicated that the business owner is on the line to speak. Chair Lopez noted he would like to hear from the business owner and said there is still violence going on even with a few of the rooms closed. He added that he understands the owner is trying to make some changes, but how will the City go about Rosemead Planning conaarssion Meeting Minutes orApd 5, 2021 Page 4 of 13 making these changes? City Attorney Thuyen provided a background that this motel was operated awhile back before there were some extensive regulations and there was a CUP issued. That CUP did not have a lot of operational conditions and a part of the purpose here is to have a more specific expectation and standards for this motel use to operate in the manner that is safer and more organized. He said it would be the first step which gives the City some remedies in terms of enforcing CUP or impose citation if there are additional violations. He added there are more specific standards, and hopefully with the condition of approval, some of the health and public safety issues that were presented from the previous operation would be addressed. He also added staff is suggesting first to do a modification for the CUP, so we can have more specificity as to what the expectations are for motel operation. He continued that if there are violations, more standards can be enforced again. Chair Lopez asked if the modification passes, will the business close their operation to make these changes, or will it be an ongoing process which they will clean up as people are still staying there? City Attorney Thuyen suggested deferring to staff. He added that these things do not happen overnight and takes a little time to get everything worked out, but this is a start and there will be some more specific regulations that can help reach our end goal. Chair Lopez answered very good Referring to Commissioner Tang's question about the transient occupancy tax, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela referred to Municipal Code Section 5.42.030 — "Letting rooms in excess of thirty days prohibited". She read, "No rooms shall be rented to persons whose occupancy exceeds thirty (30) consecutive days or exceeds thirty (30) days in any sixty (60) consecutive day period, unless such extended occupancy is authorized pursuant to a conditional use permit as provided in Section 17.112.030. This provision shall not apply to a maximum of one unit per motel or hotel complex designated for a manager's occupancy.' Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela for the clarification. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela provided the definition of a motel. She read, "Motel means one or more buildings containing guest rooms without kitchen facilities, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building designed and used as rental for temporary or overnight accommodations for guests and are offered primarily to automobile tourists or transients, with garages or parking spaces conveniently located to each room or unit" Chair Lopez and Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela. There being no public comment, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Hearing. Representative Mr. Andrew Chen spoke on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Li Yuen Chen, who is the business owner of Friendly Inn and presented his statement He stated the motel has been a part of his family for over 30 years, and ownership was transferred to his mother 23 years ago. He expressed how his family has operated and maintained this business relatively smoothly for a few decades. However, recent events have led to certain issues they are eager to address. He along with his mother, reviewed the Staff Report for Modification (MOD) 21-01 and went through all the conditions listed and stated they do not have issues complying with the majority of the conditions. However, there are a few requirements he would like to discuss. He addressed Ordinance No. 604, Item N, which stated rooms are not allowed refrigerators. Mr. Chen stated they would like to comply with the latest Municipal Code Section 5.42.140, which allows a small refrigerator for drinks. He added, a few of the modifications requested by the Chief of Police are not financially feasible. He expressed that installing a new surveillance system would be beneficial to the business and the community, however, adding ten (10) cameras on each floor is excessive. He indicated the first floor has much fewer rooms than the upper two quarters, and even then, he does not see Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Mnuln ofA05, 2021 Page 5 of 13 areas to install no more than 7 cameras for each floor. He spoke with Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela to request the Chief of Police stop by the motel, so he can help determine which location makes sense to install the cameras. Other than that, had no other any issues with the other camera requirements from the Chief of Police. The second issue he addressed was the requirement of armed security guards. He understands the Chief of Police's concern to have armed security guards on site, however, he stated it is not financially feasible to maintain two -armed security guards 24 hours a day. He was quoted for $25 per hour for each armed security guard, which adds up to $1,200. per day. In their current state, they have rooms which are yellowed tagged and are currently in the process of doing a large-scale renovation, so daily income is less than $600. He stated at full capacity, it would bring in $3,250 per day. Mr. Chen emphasized as a small business, allocating over a third of their total income is not financially feasible, which leaves their business with no profit margin. He said they are eager to find a solution that works for the business, the City, and the community. They are curenfly remodeling all the rooms and have eliminated and blacklisted undesirable guests. He added their goal is to improve their standing in the community and rebuild a good relationship with neighbors and expressed they will do whatever it takes to comply with these modifications. He requested that the feasibility of these mandates is taken into consideration. Commissioner Leung asked what the business is going to do differently to make sure record keeping is accurate and present compared to the past. Mr. Chen replied they train their employees to take down all guests' card and license information. They are trying to keep frank of all the vehicles and will have employees check the customers' license plate information and all the things required by the City. Commissioner Leung asked when the business blacklists someone, is it based on their legal California ID and database for reference? How do you blacklist a person? I Mr. Chen replied they do not have any criminal records or information on probation or parole. He stated it is based on previous experience whether they destroyed a room or are not a good guest. They created a list which staff references. Commissioner Tang questioned how many employees are employed. Mr. Chen replied six employees. Commissioner Tang questioned employee roles. Mr. Chen stated four at the front desk staff and two housekeepers. Commissioner Tang questioned the business hours? Mr. Chen stated the business is open 24 -hours and they always have someone at the front desk. Commissioner Tang questioned If a guest stops by at midnight, would you check the guest in? Mr. Chen stated that if a guest comes in at midnight, they can still be checked in. Commissioner Tang noted he is aware that the business wants to make improvements on the property, and added we only have criminal records for the past three years and mentioned how Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela reported there has been 237 calls to your location. He questioned if the Sheriffs comes to the motel 79 times per year, if that raises any concern to address these issues. Mr. Chen explained how some of the calls were incidents that happened outside the motel, such as occurrences that happened around the intersection. He added, he is aware that there is a lot of calls but not all calls were related to their Rosemead Planning Commkslon Meelrng Wades ofAp 5,, 2021 PW6of13 guests, and they are trying their best to make it a better place Commissioner Tang mentioned he is aware that there are activities that occur outside their property boundaries. He mentioned how he lives very close to the Friendly Inn and notices crime activities are rampant in this area - discarded alcoholic containers, cigarette buds, and people riding bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night. He added that a lot of the patrons go through the residential streets to go to the Friendly Inn. He also added, these occurrences are not included on the statistics listed on the Staff Report and stated their business impacts the neighborhood. Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong how many incidents were associate with guests of the motel. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong responded based on the crime report listed in the Staff Report, none of those involved incidents that occurred somewhere else (where someone walks to the Friendly Inn to report the crime). He said all the incidents outlined in the Staff Report are incidents that occurred directly at Friendly Inn and involves the guests or their friends that are staying with them. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized that two murders have occurred at this single location. He added that he was assigned to Temple Station since December of 2013, and during the past 7 years, there has not been a single location in the City of Rosemead that has had two murders occur. He also pointed out that there have been multiple other shootings and if those victims died, it would have been six murders to date. He added, aside from what is listed in the crime report, he recently had a conversation with a mother who lives right down the street She had communicated with him that due to the clientele that this establishment has brought to the City, she cannot walk her children down the street Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized that this area has gotten bad and urges the recommendations he put forth to help make the City a bit safer. Commissioner Berry asked Mr. Chen who oversees the six employees and what is his role in the business. Mr. Chen responded that his mother oversees the six employees. He assists with the maintenance at the establishment, and he works somewhere else. Chair Lopez opened the public comment period. Commission Liaison Huang stated four public comments were received. Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo read the public comments: 1. Public Comment received on March 28th via email from Eric Wu: Hello, we live next to the Friendly Inn on Graves Ave. We have had many problems with the inn already regarding their maintenance and safety issues. Attached to this email are some pictures and videos of the problems. The issues: -We have seen leaks coming down the walls and leaking through into the dirt on our side which also causes some sewer like smell coming from there. It is shown in the pictures/videos below. This is an ongoing issue over many years. -People living in the inn and tossing trash down from the balcony onto the grass (including beer bottles that end up shattering upon impact on the street). Some pictures of that are also attached (a few of countless instances of trash being littered everywhere). This seemed to happen for months since the street sweeping vehicle comes by every Friday to clean up. But we kept seeing the glass in different places everywhere. We have called the inn many times to resolve this issue, but they did not. Rosemead Pfam#V Commission Meedng M6x4esofApdi5, 2021 Page 7 of 13 -Bullet casings found about 4 different times on the street or sidewalk between my house and the inn. There are no bullet casings found elsewhere, so the issue arises with the people staying at the inn that are a danger to the neighborhood. -Homeless, drunks, drug addicts. In the pictures, there is a grassy area that will often have homeless people trying to pitch a tent, drunks sleeping in the area, or drug addicts roaming this area causing a commotion, or very suspicious looking loiterers. This is right next to my house. We have had to call the police MULTIPLE times EVERY year because this inn attracts all sorts of bad people to the area. We cannot leave our house or even go out into our yard when this happens because we do not feel safe with these types of people around especially with older people in the house. -There have been inn customers that toss their cigarettes, bongs, and drug needles into our backyard from the balcony windows behind the inn (where the laundry is). -There are also some people that have been selling drugs over multiple years since we would see cars that would pull up in front of our house, mostly at night. They would park in front of my house, get out of the car and head in the direction of the inn for about 30 seconds to a minute, then come right back to their car with a pack in their hands. There is no reason to be in my neighborhood this late at night and heading to the direction of the inn since the entrance is on San Gabriel Blvd and not Graves Ave. All of these issues happen many times, not just once, but over the span of many years. Which is why we have to call the police many times every single year. Thank you. Second email received on April 51' from Eric Wu: Hello, this Is Eric again, next door to the Friendly Inn. I forgot to add in my previous email that there is also possible prostitution that had been happening in the inn too. I was reminded of that while talking to the neighbors. So there is the issue of drugs, violence, gangs, and prostitution with this inn due to being so cheap, that it attracts all sorts of unwanted people. This only brings more problems to our neighborhood. Thank you. 2. Public Comment received on March 30e via email from Anthony Tran: Hello, I am writing this letter regarding the motel (Friendly Inn) on 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. I have many concerns regarding the security of our neighborhood due to this motel. We have many incidents in which people residing in the motel would trespass many homes around us. I have seen some people jumping out of the Friendly Inn's windows. They were always being chased by cops and many times when they run, they would jump into our yard and run all around to try to get away. it is a safety concern because it would frighten the elders we have at home. More importantly, if the people who live in the motel have weapons, it would not just result in us being frightened but also us possible getting injured or killed. If it becomes a shootout between the police and those who live in the motel. Too many people would get affected and this neighborhood would be dragged through the dirt for having so many bad reviews. We are concerned for our lives and for everyone's life around us. We appreciate it if this matter can be taken care of and thank you. 3. Public Comment received on April 4U via email from Patricia Sona: To the Rosemead Planning Commission, Rose WW RennkV Com &&w Mee ft MbWes ofA95, 2021 Pape 8 of 13 We would like to provide inputs and public comments for the Friendly Inn public hearing but are unable to attend the meeting. Our comments are as follow: As long-time neighbors of Friendly Inn, we would like to provide our comments regarding the recent activities and events that have taken place at Friendly Inn. The recent public safety issues surrounding Friendly Inn and those staying there are of great concern to the neighborhood. We hope that the city can help the owners of the property develop a safer environment at the Inn and in the neighboring area. We have, in the past year, experienced burglaries, porch -pirating, and trespassers in the area. We hope to be able to work together with the City and Friendly Inn in improving public safety and quality of life in the area. However, we also believe it is important to note that we value the presence of Friendly Inn and do not support any plans that would involve modifying or changing the property into higher -density housing. While we understand the need to address any housing supply and demand issues, we are strongly against any plan that may affect the housing values and already affected quality of life in the neighborhood. We believe modifying the safety and security requirements and developing a sustainable and concrete facility improvement plan can help resolve the existing public safety issues at Friendly Inn. Thank you. 4. Public Comment received on April 5"h via email from Lauraaaml9: We are residents of Rosemead, CA and we received a Notice of Public Hearing on Case No.: MODIFICATION (MOD) 21-01. We live here for many years and things have changed a great deal since the operations going on at Friendly Inn. There have been numerous Firemen calls and ambulances at the said property and not very long ago even death in front of the motel. It is known that there are drug dealings and most likely sex trafficking going on in that facility as we notice suspicious loitering of people around the vicinity at dusk and even during the day and late at nights. There is a public Elementary School down the road on Graves Avenue and these illegal activities are not safe for the children living in this community. We see some kids walking home alone without adult supervision and passing through the motel. It is not safe for the kids to be walking by themselves, or even playing on the streets surrounding this motel due to this illegal activities going on. It is not a healthy environment anymore because of transients coming and going in that motel. There have been incidents of houses broken into in this community as well. Because of these problems we are witnessing and happening in our community, we sincerely request that this Friendly Inn (motel) be shut down due to illegal activities going on and it is not safe for the children and everyone else living in this community. We believe that this is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. We pray that the City of Rosemead shall keep our community safe and clean and would only permit business establishments who operate under the CEQA guidelines and all establishments be subject for regular inspections relating to their activities for the safety of our community. Respectfully, Residents of Rosemead Chair Lopez closed public comments period. Commissioner Tang shared his comments and stated how this topic is very close to home, and shared similar experiences along with his fellow neighbors in the neighborhood. He said in full disclosure, he lives within the community, about 1,500 ft away from the establishment. Just down the street, less than a 1,000 It away from the business is Rice Elementary School and if the school was in full operation, you can see there are kids and families that comes through Graves Avenue and San Rosemead Plamnv Commission Meedm MlnuW dApi85, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Gabriel Boulevard all the time. He expressed his stance in supporting businesses in Rosemead and wants to see them thrive, but unfortunately, we come across a case where businesses along major corridors abut residential communities. If it synchronizes well, the business and the residential community can live symbiotically, but there are times where there are certain negative impacts that a business can have in its surrounding neighborhood. In this case, this business has had a tremendous negative impact on the surround community. Based on the Staff Report, there are 237 calls and two murders; the ultimate crime that can happen in a community and that is not including the number of crimes in and around that community. He added, from an anecdotal perspective, that he has had his car broken into twice; on two occasions and both overnight As he walks his kids around the neighborhood, he often discovers discarded alcoholic beverage containers, and numerous amounts of cigarette buds. He refers to an incident where his neighbor across the street was yelling at someone at 2:00 a.m. that hopped over their fence to look in his house from the back yard. He expresses his fears and concern for this matter as he also has two daughters and a family that he lives with. The police were called, and the suspect was apprehended, and that case would not show up in the Staff Report as one of the many incidents that occurred. From an anecdotal perspective, this could happen in any community but what he has seen is that Friendly Inn has drawn those kinds of people into the community, and they would often be the ones who commit these crimes. He also added, there are people who ride their bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night which is alarming. Commissioner Tang questioned the consequences of a business that is in violation of a CUP or a business permit. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded the City has a revocation process for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and indicated that the City can revoke a CUP if necessary. Commissioner Tang expressed how the business is fortunate to operate this long without any revocation of their CUP. He added, as he reviews the Staff Report, he thought that two -armed security guards were not sufficient; there should be one per floor, one in the parking lot, and maybe one in the front to check in the guests. Commissioner Tang recommended going above the suggested proposal and requiring two additional armed security guards to be stationed in the lot, if the Commissioners are willing to adopt these proposed amendments or even propose to revoke their business permit. Chair Lopez referred the question to City Attorney Thuyen. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Commissioners that for this item, there is a recommendation from staff to modify the CUP to ensure a list of requirements for the business to operate to address the health and safety issues heard from the public and through public comments. He said, for the first portion, that would be considered a business license issue and that is separate from the item discussed tonight and advised the Commission not to engage in further discussion. He added, the second part of whether to revoke is a part of the reason staff has suggested the modification because the existing conditions in the CUP are baring. He also added this new set of modified conditions provides a lot more operational standards that are intended to address some of the public safety issues that staff has presented in the Staff Report and heard of in the public comments. Furthermore, he said adding additional conditions is permissible if that is the will of the Commission, but the only requirement would be the land use permit, which we would have to demonstrate a nexus between the public safety impact issues identified by this land use and connect it with the conditions we wanted to add. He stated, if we do have those, he asked staff to comment on whether those additional conditions would help assist the public safety issues and other land use related impact identified in the Staff Report for the record. He concluded that the Commission could articulate additional conditions and draw a connection between the impact of the land use and the additional conditions we want to impose, then we can add it as part of this modification. Commissioner Tang stated his rational behind the proposal. He said that if you are seeing this level of criminal activity and you want to put armed security guards, you need to make it clear to someone that wants to come to this place of business and wants to conduct criminal activities, that there are four -armed security guards, and this is not a place where they can do something like that. He points out, there has been two murders and the Chief of Police has not encountered a business that has two murders on site. He added; he does not believe two -armed security guards would be sufficient; they have 50 rooms, three levels, plus a large parking lot which is not enough coverage territory for two -armed guards to cover at full capacity. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofApM5, 2021 Page 10 of 13, Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong to comment whether they should require the extra security guards. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong elaborated on his initial proposal. He believed that having two -armed security guards to be stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week would be the absolute bare minimum and pointed out it would have to be in pairs. He added it is safer to have two additional security guards roam the motel as perimeter security or roving security type, it would be extremely beneficial. He noted that in the Staff Report, the motel is confirmed to be a haven for local gang members and criminals and when criminals that want to hide from law enforcement, there are no better place than the Friendly Inn Motel. Referring to the Staff Report, he said, they had people wanted for robbery from Orange County, people who committed a murder in the City of Covina, and armed carjacking occur in the City of Santa Monica who were suspects hiding at the Friendly Inn. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized it was reasonable and prudent to require an additional two -armed security guards. Commissioner Tang asked the Commissioners to evaluate if this business establishment is a recognized haven for gang members and criminals and questioned if the Commission wanted to be known as the City that has a motel that harbors these types of activities. He highlighted some of the criminal activities: possession of controlled sustains and paraphernalia, stolen vehicle on premise or brought to the premise or stolen from the premise, domestic violence, and loaded firearms. He then added, this is a rap sheet for any business that has gone through more than a few strikes. Chair Lopez asked staff for their intake on this item and if we should move or wait to see if this is possible. He believes this is a good idea. City Attorney Thuyen recapped and stated if the Planning Commission's will be to modify the conditions of approval, based on testimonies and evidence presented, if four -armed security guards at this location would better address the public health and safety impact, the Planning Commission can go ahead and suggest that as part of the motion. Chair Lopez said he thinks it is a good idea based on everything that has occurred and asked staff if the addition of two security guards is possible. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, a motion is needed to add and update the change to Condition No. 21. Chair Lopez asked the Commissioners If anyone would like to make a motion Commissioner Tang motioned and made it clear to the business owner that any business that has 237 police activity calls including two murders, he is not even sure why the City would allow this type of business to operate with that number of criminal activities in the last three years alone. He added as a Commission, they want to work with all businesses; adding modifications and these amendments to the Conditional Use Permit and hopes that the business can still operate, but in a way that will bring a positive community. Commissioner Berry seconded the motion and concurred and stated a clear message needs to be sent to the business owner and people who frequent this business establishment that the City will not stand for this kind of behavior. He expressed that this gives him pause that many records are not upkept; without proper records of people staying there, who knows what is going on. Commissioner Tang asked if it is possible to insert language to allow an annual review of this site. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that a condition was added. She said Condition of Approval No. 10 allows the Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of Modification 21-01 within six (6) months of the approval date. Rosemead Plenrym Commission Mee" MinutesofAPrMS, 2021 Page 11 of 13 Commissioner Tang asked if there is a way to modify the conditions to six months of the approval date, and subsequently annually. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Berry questioned if this can be done at the six-month mark. At six months„Commissioners can see how things progress and change modification or make other changes along the way. City Attorney Thuyen concurred and asserted this can be added in as an item if the issues have not been addressed by the six-month mark. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions, with AMENDED conditions to add two additional armed security guard. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo explained the 10 -day appeal process. Commissioner Tang asked if staff could respond to residents that submitted comments and informed them of the actions taken at this meeting. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo replied yes, staff can reach out to the residents that provided public comment 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 03.01.21 Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Leung, to approve PC Minutes 03-01-21 as presented Vote resulted In: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo reminded Commissioners the next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021. Rosemead Ploft Commission Maefmg Minutes dApril4 2021 Page 12 of 13 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Berry inquired about the status of other hotels and motels, such as staying clean, maintaining good repairs, and following City's ordinances. He added, for reference he noticed that Bokai Garden Hotel has a lot of rubbish outside and appears to be in disrepair. He asked, what about other places like that in the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that the City occasionally receives complaints, and staff would input the request on a CRM (Citizen Request Management) and Code Enforcement would conduct a site inspection and work with Planning staff to ensure that the hotels or motels meet the conditions of approval. If a business is in violation, staff would write a letter notifying the business of the violations. Commissioner Berry asked what the City is doing to proactively ensure other businesses meet the conditions of approval. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong addressed his question and talked about the Rosemead Special Assignment Team. He said there are a total of ten deputies, and they work closely with Code Enforcement on all issues throughout the Co. He added, he will ensure to address and inspect other motels in the City and work with Code Enforcement on that issue. Commissioner Berry asked if the City proactively goes out to keep an eye out on things. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong explained how its common practice for Code Enforcement Officers and Community Service Officers (CSO) to patrol the parking lots and make notes of any violation or anything relating to ordinance that needs attention. He said they usually brief us on that subject at least once a week if not more. He added, there has not been any motels in the City that has risen to this level. Commissioner Tang thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work on this item and thinks It is great the City is taking action. Another item he wanted to address was the "Rosemead" sign at Rosemead Place Shopping Center. He said some of the letters are not lit. He asked if staff could work with the property owner to fix this issue. He added, thousands of people see that sign as they drive on the freeway, and if some of the letters are off, it sends a bad branding message about the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, staff can contact the property manager to address this issue. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work and adjourned the meeting at 8:49 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Daniel Lopez Chair gelica P sto-Lupo Commission Secretary Rosemead Planning Commission Meering Minutes ofApril 5, 2021 Page 13 of 13 PC RESOLUTION 21-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-01, A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 TO IMPOSE UPDATED AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR THE MOTEL USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE (APN: 5283- 036-032). WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021, the City of Rosemead initiated a Modification application to amend Conditional Use Permit 88-447, by modifying all the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard is located in a Medium Commercial (C- 3) Zone; WHEREAS, Section 17.168.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allows the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. WHEREAS, Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, forty-seven (47) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader on March 25, 2021, and notices were posted in five (5) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 21-01; WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21- 01; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and a Class 9 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-01, in accordance with Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.168.040(A)(1) provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: 1. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; 2. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; 3. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; 4. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or 5. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. FINDING: CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 with limited conditions of approval. Due to the public safety concerns raised by the Chief of Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and violations with the Building and Safety, Planning, and Code Enforcement Divisions and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the motel operation is creating conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and creating a nuisance. Modification 21-01 will update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Modification 21- 01, a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of April, 2021. Daniel Lopez, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 5th day of April, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Ang ca Frausto-Lupo, Secreta APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane TheyPlanning C-ornnifeskion Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT"A" (PC RESOLUTION 21-02) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-036-032) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APRIL 5, 2021 The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 4. Approval of Modification 21-01 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Health Department. 8. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 9. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Safety Department shall have access to the project site at any time to conduct inspections. 10. The Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of Modification 21-01 within six (6) months of the approval date. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self -latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 1g' 2nd and 3rd floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Security Guards o Four -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times (Modified by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2021). o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. c Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. RID OSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER � \ DATE: JUNE 22, 2021 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF MODIFICATION 21-01 On April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing of a City Inititiated Modification 21-01 to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88- 447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). The Planning Commission approved Modification 21-01 containing staffs recommended conditions as well as the addition of an amended Condition of Approval to No. 21 by adding two additional armed security guards for a total of four armed security guards. On April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. As a result, the public hearing for the appeal was scheduled for June 22, 202, with the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. In addition, Class 9 of Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 2 of 14 Property History and Description The project site is located at the southeast comer of San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves Avenue. According to the Los Angeles County Assessor's records, the site is approximately 28,870 square feet. On April 28, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 604 (attached as Attachment "A"), which permitted hotel and motel development in the C-3 and Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M-1) zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. According to Building and Safety Division records, the building permit for motel was issued on January 7, 1987 and building construction was finaled on July 15, 1987. On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved CUP 88-447, which permitted the transfer of ownership of the existing 50 -unit motel. According to the staff report, the original motel was exempt from obtaining a CUP as the building permit was issued (January 7, 1987) before Ordinance 604 was adopted (April 28, 1987). Since a CUP was not required by the City for the motel use, it is assumed that the City required an approval of a CUP for the transfer of ownership. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Resolution 89-11 are attached as Attachments `13," "C," and "D," respectively. According to business license records, the motel was transferred to the Friendly Inn in 1995. However, there are no records of the transfer of ownership in the CUP 88-447 case file. Since the CUP runs with the land, on March 9, 2021, the City issued an "Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit" for CUP 88-447 to the Friendly Inn. The business owners signed, notarized, and submitted the affidavit to the City on March 10, 2021. In reviewing the history of CUP 88-447, staff found that the staff report inadvertently applied the incorrect municipal code requirement "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)" for the CUP in 1989. The granting of the CUP was for a motel use and not for "any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-1, C-3, CBD and M zones and any establishment having an on -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-3, CBD and M -zones." While the staff report cited the incorrect municipal code requirement of "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)," Resolution 89-11 did approve a motel use. The intent of the aforementioned detailed description of the property history is to correct and clarify these issues. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 3 of 14 Elevation from San Gabriel Boulevard (Existing) Public Safety Concerns Since September 2020, the City's Public Safety Department has observed an increase in public safety concerns. According to the Public Safety Department, this includes thefts, violence, littering of syringes, alcohol bottles, trash, and feces in the neighborhood, and the motel appears to be housing homeless people. On January 6, 2021, the City's Public Safety Department coordinated an inspection with the City's Building and Safety Division to investigate alleged Building Code violations in the guest rooms at the Friendly Inn. The City's Public Safety Department contacted the Motel Manager onsite and was given permission to inspect the rooms. A total of four rooms were inspected (Room Nos. 340, 341, 342, and 344). In addition, the Building Official obtained verbal permission from the occupants of the occupied rooms to inspect the rooms. During this inspection, the Building Official observed that some of the violations were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy. Due to the severity of findings for the rooms inspected, on January 12, 2021, the Building Official issued a "Notice of Inspection" (attached as Attachment "F'), which was posted onsite and served as proper and reasonable notice that the Building Official intended to inspect the subject property and guest rooms according to the following schedule: • Thursday January 21, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. — Room Nos. 340-350 • Tuesday January 26, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. — Room Nos. 221-231 • Wednesday January 27, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. — Room Nos. 332-339 • Thursday January 28, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. — Room Nos. 212-220 • Friday January 29, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. — Room Nos. 102-111 City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 4 of 14 The "Notice of Inspection" was also mailed to the business and property owners on January 13, 2021. The five inspections were coordinated with the business owner, the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Public Safety Department (Code Enforcement and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department), Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department. However, not all agencies were present at all the inspection dates. The details of all inspections and violations from each division or agency is discussed below. Planning Division Based on the inspections, the Planning Division issued the Friendly Inn a letter on February 17, 2021, which addressed the violations to CUP 88447 (attached as Attachment "F"). The violations include guests occupying rooms for more than 30 consecutive days; daily room cleaning services are not being provided; registration records of guests are not being kept; food preparation equipment such as toaster ovens, grills, and skillets were found in the rooms; and inconsistency between business owner names on their Business License and Applicant Affidavit for CUP 88447. The letter also notified the business owner that the City would be initiating a modification to CUP 88- 447 to incorporate additional operational and security conditions designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. In addition to the violations, staff noted that there were property maintenance issues that require improvements. This includes parking lot re -slurry seal, restriping of parking spaces (including ADA spaces), adding a self-closing gate latch to the trash enclosure doors, replacing all broken exterior light fixtures, maintaining the landscape planters, and replacing dilapidated awnings. Conditions of approval were incorporated to address the property maintenance issues. Building and Safety Division On January 12, 2021, the Building Official issued a "Notification of Code Violation" (Attachment "G") to the Friendly Inn, which was posted onsite and mailed to the business and property owners on January 13, 2021. The "Notification of Code Violation" detailed the violations of Room Nos. 340, 341, 342, and 344, some of which were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy. In addition, the "Notification of Code Violation" also outlined the violations in each room, which included missing or damaged smoke detectors and hazardous electrical receptacles. While onsite, the Building Official obtained approval from the Motel Manager to conduct a brief visual of Room Nos. 340, 341, 342, and 344. The observations confirmed that some of the most significant violations were still present (such as missing smoke alarms and/or excessive storage). For this reason, the Building Official posted `yellow tags" on Room Nos. 340, 341, 342, and 344, limiting the occupancy to restricted entry only. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 5 of 14 Based on the five inspections conducted between January 21, 2021 to January 29, 2021, the Building Official issued a second "Notification of Code Violation" on February 17, 2021 (attached as Attachment "H") to the Friendly Inn. The "Notification of Code Violation" was emailed to the business owner on February 17, 2021 and was posted onsite and mailed to the business and property owners on February 18, 2021. The "Notification of Code Violation" detailed the violations of Room Nos. 102, 103, 105, 108-111, 212, 214, 216-218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227-229, 331, 334, 335, 339, and 340- 349. Some of the violations were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy, specifically in Room Nos. 102, 103, 105, 110, 216, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225,227-229,331, 340, and 341. Asa result, the Building Official posted the rooms with a "yellow tag." The "Notification of Code Violation" also outlined the violations in each room, which included missing wall light fixtures, recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits, water damage on walls and ceilings, missing smoke detectors, and hazardous ungrounded or mis-wired electrical receptacles. In addition, Room No. 339 was "red tagged" due to probable asbestos contamination as the popcorn ceiling was removed. On February 8, 2021, the business owner obtained building permits for repairs/renovations to several rooms and worked with the Building Official on correcting the issues. On February 18, 2021, the Building Official issued a second "Notice of Inspection" (attached as Attachment "I"), which was emailed and hand delivered to the business owner and mailed to business and property owner of the Friendly Inn. The "Notice of Inspection" served as proper and reasonable notice that on March 23, 2021, the Building Official intended to inspect all the rooms that were not previously available at the prior scheduled inspection dates, specifically Room Nos. 104, 106, 107, 213, 215, 219, 220, 223, 226, 230, 231, 332, 333, 336-339, and 350. The inspection on March 23, 2021, revealed that a few rooms had minor deficiencies and may be occupied; several rooms were posted with a "yellow tag" due to current un -inhabitable conditions. Six of the rooms were "yellow tagged" as repairs were in progress. On March 24, 2021, the Building Official issued a third "Notice of Inspection" (attached as Attachment "J"), which was emailed and hand delivered to the business owner and mailed to business and property owner of the Friendly Inn. The "Notice of Inspection" served as proper and reasonable notice that on May 12, 2021 (note: letter states March 12, 2021, however, typo was clarified with business owner), the Building Official intended to inspect Room Nos. 213, 215, 219, 220, and 336. In addition, on April 1, 2021, the Building Official issued a "Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation," which detailed the additional violations discovered during the inspections conducted on March 23, 2021. The "Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation," (attached as Attachment "IC") informed the motel that some of the violations were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy, and, as such, the Building Official posted some of the guest rooms with a "yellow tag." In addition, the "Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation," stated that the property owners may not allow these guest rooms to be re -occupied until approved by the Building City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 6 of 14 Official. The "Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation" was emailed and hand delivered to the business owner and mailed to business and property owner of the Friendly Inn. At the request of the business owner of the Friendly Inn, on May 6, 2021, the Building Official inspected Room Nos. 104-107, 332, 337, 338, 344, and 350. As a result, all of the "yellow tags" were removed from the rooms inspected by the Building Official. However, they must correct some minor issues and obtain final approval prior to occupancy. The scheduled inspection of Room Nos. 213, 215, 219, 220, and 336 on May 12, 2021, revealed that minor code violations were noted, however, the rooms were deemed to be suitable for occupancy. The result of the inspection was emailed to the business owner on May 13, 2021. To date, the Building and Safety Division has inspected all 50 rooms. Of the 50 rooms, 35 rooms may be occupied and 15 rooms have been posted with a yellow tag and/or are currently under repair with active permits. Code Enforcement Division Since September 2020, the Code Enforcement Division has issued several warning notices and citations to the Friendly Inn. The violations include graffiti inside the rooms, on the exterior walls, and in the parking lot; storage of junk and furniture in plain view, within the parking lot, in the carport, under the stairwell, and in the walkways of the motel; inoperable in -room telephones; inoperative vehicles in the parking lot from motel guests; renting of rooms in excess of 30 days; abandonment of shopping carts on the property; little to no housekeeping; registration records of guests not detailed or incomplete; and guests being registered to multiple rooms with the same names. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a violation notice to the Friendly Inn on January 21, 2021 and January 27, 2021. A copy of both Inspection Reports are attached as Attachment "L." The violations include vermin infestation/harborage; sewer line discharge; dilapidated appliances, vanities, cabinets, furnishings, ceilings, walls, and flooring; faucet and toilet maintenance and repairs; window repair and/or replacements; and garbage, rubbish, and refuse removal. Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department On June 1, 2021, the LA County Sheriff's Department provided an updated crime summary for the Friendly Inn. The two year crime summary is from January 1, 2019 thru May 31, 2021. The crime summary showed 178 calls for service/responses, which City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 7 of 14 include two murders (June 2020 and January 20211 three shootings (September 2020, December 2020, and January 2021), 6 aggravated assaults (all from 2020), 12 stolen/recovered vehicles (nine in 2019 and three in 2020), 16 narcotics related arrests (three in 2019, 11 in 2020, and two in 2021), and other crimes. The details are provided below: • LASD Report No. 019-01352-0533-419: On January 31, 2019, deputies responded to the location regarding a child abuse investigation. Deputies did not find evidence of a crime. • LASD Report No. 919-02983-0533-185: On March 9, 2019, deputies conducted a patrol check at the location. They arrested a suspect for possession of narcotics. • LASD Report No. 919-04100-0533-181: On April 3, 2019, deputies conducted a patrol check at the location. They arrested two suspects for numerous narcotics related charges including possession for sales. • LASD Report No. 019-04265-0533-091: On April 7, 2019, deputies responded to the location regarding a family disturbance. The investigation revealed a family member stole another family member's truck from the location. • LASD Report No. 919-06208-0533-091: On May 20, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 019-07763-0533-449: On June 23, 2019, deputies responded to the location regarding a domestic violence incident. No crime was committed. • LASD Report No. 019-08048-0533-146: On June 30, 2019, deputies responded to the location regarding a domestic violence incident that occurred at the location. Deputies arrested the suspect for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 919-08729-0533-117: On July 15, 2019, deputies saw a stolen vehicle parked at the location. The vehicle was stolen from Los Angeles. Deputies discovered the driver was staying in a room at the location and arrested him. During a room search, deputies recovered numerous stolen I.D. cards, credit cards, and skimming devices. The suspect arrested for numerous charges relating to driving a stolen vehicle and identity theft. • LASD Report No. 919-09262-0533-255: On July 28, 2019, deputies conducted a traffic stop inside the parking lot of the location and cited the driver for being unlicensed. • LASD Report No. 919-09254-0533-501: On July 28, 2019, a vehicle was repossessed from the location. • LASD Report No. 919-09740-0533-399: On August 8, 2019, deputies conducted a patrol check at the location. They saw two suspects in the parking lot and arrested them for possession of stolen property and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 919-14878-0532-091: On December 9, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 920-00808-0533-093: On January 20, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 8 of 14 • LASD Report No. 920-01200-0530-093: On January 29, 2020, deputies saw a stolen vehicle parked at the location. The vehicle was stolen several hours prior at another location in Rosemead. They reviewed surveillance footage and identified two suspects staying at the location. Both suspects were arrested for numerous charges of driving a stolen vehicle, possession of a controlled substance, paraphernalia, and possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 920-00780-1461-091: On February 6, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. The vehicle was originally stolen from an unincorporated area of LA County, Bassett. • LASD Report No. 920-02244-0533-181: On February 18, 2020, deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop of vehicle leaving the location. After a brief vehicle pursuit, the suspect collided into a curb and fled on foot. While hiding from deputies, the suspect kidnapped and held a victim against his will. The suspect was ultimately arrested. He was also in possession of a loaded firearm and controlled substances for sale. • LASD Report No. 920-02438-0533-185: On February 22, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a person with a gun call. Deputies located a suspect and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02763-0533-185: On February 29, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot and arrested one suspect for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02808-0533-733: On March 1, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. The vehicle was originally stolen from the City of Alhambra. • LASD Report No. 020-03173-0535-050: On March 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding domestic violence. The suspect struck the victim and fled the location. • LASD Report No. 920-04420-0532-091: On April 12, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 020-06046-0533-053: On May 20, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a fight. While at the location, the victim was stabbed in the head by an unknown suspect. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Covina Police Department): On June 9, 2020, the Rosemead Team assisted Covina Police Department in locating and arresting a suspect wanted for murder. The suspect committed a murder the prior week and was hiding at a room at the location. • LASD Report No. 020-07154-0533-058: On June 10, 2020, the Fire Department responded to the location regarding a power outage. They attempted to rescue two people stuck in an elevator. A suspect challenged a firefighter to a fight and struck his arm. The suspect was arrested for assaulting a firefighter. • LASD Report No. 920-07635-0533-733: On June 21, 2020, deputies arrested a suspect for driving a stolen vehicle inside the parking lot. The suspect was also in possession of burglary tools. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 9 of 14 • LASD Report No. 020-07764-0532-011: In June of 2020, a murder occurred at the location. Active Investigation. • LASD -Report No. 920-08216-0533-185: On July 4, 2020, deputies conducted a traffic stop inside the parking lot, One suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-08549-0533-733: On July 11, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered from the location. The vehicle was originally stolen from City of Whittier. • LASD Report No. 920-09404-0533-185: On August 1, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding an assault with a deadly weapon. The deputies were unable to locate a victim. While at the location, they located and arrested a suspect who was in possession of a knife and narcotics. • LASD Report No. 020-10871-0533-151 and 020-10865-0533-051: On September 10, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a gunshot victim. One victim was shot in his upper body. During the investigation, they recovered a loaded firearm and arrested a suspect. • LASD Report No. 920-11100-0532-183: On September 16, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot. Deputies contacted a suspect who was under the influence of a controlled substance and arrested the suspect. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Santa Monica Police Department): On September 26, 2020, a carjacking occurred in Santa Monica where an elderly lady was pistol whipped numerous times on the head. After the carjacking, the suspect drove to the Friendly Inn. Deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop. After a brief pursuit, two suspects abandoned their vehicle and fled on foot. Two suspects were arrested and a firearm was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-09699-0533-185: On October 8, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. Two suspects were arrested in the parking lot for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-12016-0533-185: On October 9, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. A suspect was found to be in possession of narcotics and paraphernalia and was arrested. • LASD Report No. 920-12624-0533-145: On October 23, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the location and saw a traffic violation. The suspect ran away from the deputy and a fight ensued. The deputy was injured during the fight. During the incident, an angry crowd from the motel gathered around the deputy. • LASD Report No. 920-12892-0533-091: On October 30, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 020-13290-0533-449: On November 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance -domestic violence. There was a verbal argument only. i • LASD Report No. 920-13566-0533-183: On November 16, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance. The suspect was throwing City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 10 of 14 items at parked vehicles. They arrested a suspect in the parking lot for being under the influence of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 020-14191-0533-051: On December 3, 2020, three victims were sitting in a parked vehicle inside the parking lot. A suspect approached and began shooting at the victims. Two victims were struck by gunfire. • LASD Report No. 920-15269-0533-261: On December 30, 2020, a vehicle was vandalized at the location. • LASD Report No. 020-00046-0533-011: On January 2, 2021, a murder occurred at the location. One victim was shot and died. Active Investigation. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by a jurisdiction in Orange County): On January 6, 2021, deputies discovered 3 parolees/probationers staying at the location. Deputies arrested one suspect for a no bail parole warrant and possession of narcotics. Another suspect was arrested for a robbery from Orange County. Since the Planning Commission public hearing on April 5, 2021, the following crime reports were documented: LASD Report No. 921-04471-0533-151: On April 29, 2021, gang detectives arrested a suspect for possession of a large amount of narcotics and a loaded firearm inside the parking lot of the location. LASD Report No. 921-04850-0533-389: On May 2, 2021, a petty theft occurred in Montebello. Deputies confirmed the suspect possessed the stolen item and was staying at the location. Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has informed City staff that the Friendly Inn is in violation of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, however, was unable to release the violations to the City due to confidentiality reasons. City Initiated Modification to CUP 88-447 Due to the public safety concerns and violations raised by the City's Public Safety Department, Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the City initiated the modification of CUP 88-447 to modify and update the conditions of approval for the motel use. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 and included limited conditions of approval which are no longer consistent with the current operational standards for motels/hotels, as codes have been updated over the last 32 years. A copy of the conditions of approval for CUP 88-447, approved in 1989, is attached as Attachment KLA„ On April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-01. The City received four written City Council Meeting June 22,2021 Page 11 of 14 public comments from neighboring residents. The concerns were related to patrons of the hotel littering; bullet casings found in the public right-of-way; homelessness, alcohol and drugs, gangs, sex trafficking, prostitution, public safety, trespassing, shootings, and murders. The four public comments were read out loud at the Planning Commission Meeting and are attached as Attachment "N." After hearing all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission approved Modification 21-01 with an amendment to the "security guards" condition, bullet point two of Condition of Approval No. 21, which required two -armed security guards be stationed in the parking lot at all times. The Planning Commission discussed and agreed that due to the significant public safety concerns that were raised in staffs report and during the public hearing, additional armed security guards should be incorporated into the condition. Former Chief of Police (Lieutenant Duong) elaborated on his initial proposal of requiring two -armed security guards, as they go in pairs, to be stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week. He agreed that it would be safer and beneficial to have two additional armed security guards secure the motel perimeter. In addition, Lt. Duong elaborated that the motel is confirmed to be a safe haven for local gang members and criminals when they want to hide from law enforcement. He also elaborated that suspects wanted for robbery from Orange County, committed a murder in the City of Covina, or committed an armed carjacking in the City of Santa Monica were all hiding at the Friendly Inn. Lt. Duong emphasized it was reasonable and prudent to require two additional armed security guards. As a result, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed and modified bullet point two of Condition of Approval No. 21 to require four -armed security guards. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 21-02 are included in this report as Attachments "O," "P," and respectively. APPEAL On April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment "R." Per RMC Section 17.168.030, the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. As detailed in the discussion, the City initiated the modification of CUP 88-447 due to recent activity and violations with the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department. Modification 21-01 will ensure that the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 12 of 14 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS The underlying CUP (CUP 88-447) continues to satisfy RMC Section 17.132.040 (B) through (E) and will remain unchanged as part of this modification. The proposed modifications are consistent with RMC Section 17.132.040(A). Per RMC Section 17.168.030, the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspecticondition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. RMC Section 17.168.040(A)(1) provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority fust makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvementluse allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 with limited conditions of approval. Due to the public safety concerns raised by the Chief of Police and Los Angeles County Sherifrs Department and violations with the Building and Safety, Planning, and Code Enforcement Divisions and Los City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 13 of 14 Angeles County Department of Public Health, the motel operation is creating conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and creating a nuisance. Modification 21-01 is intended to update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying this appeal and supporting Modification 21-01 and present this to the Council for adoption at its July 13, 2021 City Council Meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Modification 21-01 is consistent with the Strategic Plan's "Vision 2020" to provide Rosemead residents with, "a low crime rate and general feeling of safety" and "well maintained residential and business properties that are consistent with the community/neighborhood." PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a public hearing notice published in the Rosemead Reader on June 10, 2021, and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations. City Council Meeting June 22, 2021 Page 14 of 14 Prepared by: 11-44� Til alenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted by: Attachment A: Ordinance No. 604 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report (dated February 6, 1989) Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes (dated February 6, 1989) Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-11 Attachment E: Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection (dated January 12, 2021) Attachment F: Planning Division Letter of Violation (dated February 17, 202 1) Attachment G: Building & Safety Division Notification of Code Violation (dated January 12, 2021) Attachment H: Building & Safety Division Notification of Code Violation (dated February 17, 2021) Attachment I: Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection (dated February 18, 202 1) Attachment J: Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection (dated March 24, 202 1) Attachment K: Building & Safety Division Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation (dated April 1, 2021) Attachment L: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Inspection Reports Attachment M: CUP 88-447 Conditions of Approval Attachment N: Wrtitten Public Comments Attachment O: Planning Commission Staff Report (dated April 5, 2021) Attachment P: Planning Commission Minutes (dated April 5, 2021) Attachment Q: Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02 Attachment R: Appeal Letter from Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser Attachment A Ordinance No. 604 ORDINANCE NO. 604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING HOTEL AND MOTEL REGULATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9111.1B (24) of Part XI of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby deleted. Section 2. Section 9111.IB (20b) of Part XI of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby deleted. Section 3. Section 9181.1 of Part XXV of the Rosemead Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (30) thereto to read as follows: (30) Hotels and motels in the C-3 and M-1 Zone subject to the following conditions: (a) Lot Area - The minimum area of the parcel or lot shall not be less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet. (b) Lot Width - Each lot shall have a minimum frontage of not less than one hundred (100) feet on a major street as depicted an the Circulation Element of the General Plan. (c) Maximum Coverage - The maximum lot coverage of all structures shall not exceed forty percent (40R) of the total lot area. (d) Landscaping - A minimum of tan percent (10,T) of the total lot area is to be landscaped. (e) Yards - Side and rear yards when abutting residentially zoned or used property shall be not less than ten (30) feet from property line. (f) The owner and/or operator of such hotel or motel shall not permit any person as.+.an occupant. 'in such a hotel or motel for a period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, except for one (1) permitted manager's unit; and (g) The owner and/'or operator of any such hotel or motel shall not permit . any hotel or motel room to he ranted more than twice in any consecutive twenty-four (24) hour period; and (h) The owner and/or operator of any such hotel or motel shall have and maintain only one (1) meter for each utility service to the entire use; (i) A hotel or motel may provide manager's quarters not to exceed one (1) dwelling unit, which complies with the minimum multi -family (R-3) standards as set forth in this Code. (j) The owner and/or operator of any such hotel or motel shall provide daily room cleaning service for each room in such hotel or motel; (k) Every hotel and motel shall obtain and keep records of the name and address of guests, the make, year and license of the guest's vehicle, end the state in which such vehicle is licensed. (1) Every hotel and motel shall have an office with a registration desk, and the office shall be located in close proximity to the entry driveway to the street front. (m) Vehicles exceeding eighty (80) inches in width shall not be permitted to park in any required parking lot used exclusively for hotel or motel customers. (Non-commercial) recreational vehicles or motor homes shall be permitted to park in such lots, provided that at least one (1) designated recreational vehicle parking space, which is a" -minimum of ten (10) feet by thirty (30) feet, is provided for each twenty-five (25) rooms in the hotel or motel complex. (N) That no portable refrigerators, microwaves or other appliances necessary for the preparation of Fdod be permitted in any hotel or motel room. (0) That an Economic Feasibility Study be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The Economic Feasibility Study shall be prepared by a professional who is familiar with preparation of such documents. The study shall include data to support a finding that there is a demonstrated need for the project and that the project will economically benefit the co®unity as a whole. (P) Conditions of Approval - A conditional use permit for any hotel/motel may be authorised by the Planning Commission upon its making the following findings: (a) That the conditional use permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of this chapter; (b) That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. (c) That the establishment, maintenance, or conduct of the use for which the conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, or welfare of persons residing or working • in the neighborhood of such use and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. (d) That the granting of such conditional use permit will not advevasly affect the General Plan of the City. Section 4. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner required by law. 1987. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of April ' r ATTEST: `tf - . •_� City C rk Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report Dated February 6, 1989 Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting of February 6, 1989 CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 88-447 APPLICATION REQUEST: A new conditional use permit to transfer the ownership of an existing 50 -room motel, dba Travelodge Rosemead South. LOCATION: 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, Rosemead APPLICANT: Sung Fu Chen 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: 43 Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on 1-27-89. EXHIBITS: Application Floor Plan, marked Exhibit B, dated 11-2-88 Ordinance 604, marked Exhibit C Assessor's Map, Book 5283, Page 36 Zoning Map GENERAL PLAN: Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial ZONING: -- C-3, Commercial SURROUNDING ZONES AND LAND USES: tel .Z To the north , south and wast is commercial (C-3) and developed accordingly. W To the east is low density residential (R-1) and developed accordingly. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUTRRMNNTS: Issa 9181.1 - Uses permitted In specific zones. The following uses may be Q permitted in the zones herein indicated upon the granting of a conditional use permit: a 20. Any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages Q in the C-1, C-3, CHD and M zones and any establishment having an on -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-3. CED and M-zonea. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERM: aV Such conditional use permit may be issued only after a public hearing Z before the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead upon application therefore, - and the findings by the Planning Commission that the Z establishment, maintenance, or operation of the we so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular was, be detrimental to the bealth, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood tbereof, not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. a ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Q On the basis of evaluation, this project has been determined to be a class 9 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of CEQA. W! PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: This project was submitted for building permits before Ordinance No. 604 LU establishing regulations for all hotels and motels was adopted. This •' N project, therefore, was exempt from obtaining a conditional use permit. O They received their final building approval in July of 1987. 09 STAFF REPORT O.U.P. 88-447 Report for 12-9-88 PC Meeting page 2. The subject property is located on the south east corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves Avenue. This existing 50 -unit, throe -story motel is built on a 28,600 square foot lot with 15,777 square feet of floor area (18,774 total floor area including the carports). 59 Parking spaces are provided on Graves and San Gabriel Boulevard. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to operate an existing motel with 50 rooms. As motels change ownership, the Municipal Ordinance requiring conditional use permits for hotels and motels becomes applicable. The Motel Ordinance was approved after the Travelodge Rosemead South wag eatablisbad and, therefore, the motal cannot meet all of the requirements, particularly those sections relating to side yard setbacks and feasibility studies. However, the sections of the ordinance pertaining to the operation of motels are included with the approval of this conditional we permit. Staff is requiring existing motels to apply for conditional use permits in order to make the new owners aware of the City's newly created motel standards. Also, attaching those standards to the existing motels will, in affect, permit the City to bave greater review over these projects and bring them in conformance. with today's standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Categorical Exemption for Conditional Use Permit 88-447; make the required findings set forth in Section 9181.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Code; and approve Conditional Use. Permit 88-447 subject to the conditions of the attached Exhibit A. ERNIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD TRAVELODGE ROSEMEAD SOOTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 6, 1989 1. That the property be maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B. 2. That the project complies with Section 9181.1 (30) of the Rosemead Municipal Code except for subsections a, c, e, and o submitted and marked Exhibit C. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required City business licenses (i.e. Business Occupancy Permit, Business License, etc.) 4. The applicant shell sign a notarised affidavit of agreement with the above listed conditions and return it within tan days of approval to the City. SCUP447:3 Attachment C Planning Commission Minutes Dated February 6, 1989 PC Minutes 2-6-89 page 3. Commissioner Clark concurred with Commissioner Mattern and would like to see the business relocate somewhere else in Rosemead. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern to deny Conditional Use Permit 88-407. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 - 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard - Request from Jung Fu Chen for a conditional use permit to operate a motel dba TraveLodge Rosemead South. Mr. Collin presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was Jimmy Tran, interpreting for Jung Fu Cheng, the property owner. Commissioner Lowrey asked the applicant if he understood the conditions of approval and he said he did. The Chairman closed the public hearing. (NO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-447. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-449 - 8921 Valley Boulevard - Request from Katherine and Herbert Romer to transfer an existing alcoholic beverage license for on-site sale in conjunction with a cocktail bar/restaurant dba The Silver Mug. Ms. Donnell presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was Katherine Romer, 305 W. Newby OF, Rosemead. Mrs. Romer stated that this was a simple request for transfer of an existing license. Sandra Calla, (no address stated) was in favor off granting approval as the Silver Mug hosted many of the local City of Mope functions. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Discussion by the Commission: Commissioner Mattern suggested a change in condition #4 and extend the time to maintain a light in the driveway to 2:30 instead of 2:00 a.m. The Commission was in agreement with the proposed change. (NO) It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-449 subject to the conditions as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yes: Matern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark Attachment D Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-11 PC RESOLUTION 89-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A MOTEL AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD, DBA TRAVELODGE ROSEMEAD SOUTH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead does hereby find and determine that an application was duly filed by Jung Fu Chen to allow the operation of a 50 -room motel located at: 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard and that a public hearing was duly scheduled for February 6, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, and that notice of the time, date, place, and purpose of the aforesaid hearing was duly given according to law; and that a public hearing was duly conducted at the aforementioned time and place. Section 2. The Planning Commission further finds and determines that facts do exist as required by Section 9181, at seq. of the Ordinance of the City of Rosemead justifying the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Section 3. The Planning Commission further finds: 1. The project is in harmony with the elements and objectives of the General Plan. 2. The project will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. 3. The project is desirable to the public convenience. Section 4. On the basis of evaluation, this project has been determined to qualify for a Class 9 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit with respect to the property described in Section 1, subject to the conditions contained within the attached exhibit "A". Section 6. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 7. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on February 6, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Section 8. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 1989. MERCED "BILL" ORTIZ, CHAIRMAN Resolution 89-11 I hereby certify that the toregofng is a true copy or a resoiucio by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular held on the 21st day of February, 1989. by the following vote: AYES: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark NOBS: Mone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 2146 SAN GASRIEL BOULEVARD TRAVELODGE ROSEMEAD SOUTH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 7, 1989 1. That the property be maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B. 2. That the project complies with Section 9181.1 (30) of the Rosemead Municipal Code except for subsections a, c, a, and o submitted and marked Exhibit C. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required City business licenses (i.e. Business Occupancy Permit, Business License, etc.) 4. The •applicant shall sign a notarised affidavit of agreenant with the above listed. conditions and return it withia tan days of approval to the City. SCUP447%3 Attachment E Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection Dated January 12, 2021 S�,A city of I?psemead NOTICE OF INSPECTION Subject Property: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. Friendly Inn Motel Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Notice Date: January 12, 2021 The City of Rosemead has been made aware that conditions may exist in some of the guest rooms of the subject property which could be deemed as "unsafe" as defined by the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 102). As such, the Building Official for the City of Rosemead is obligated to examine the premises for these alleged conditions, and pursuant to the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.1) the Building Official has the authority to enter the subject premises upon reasonable notice. This "Notice of Inspection" hereby serves as proper and reasonable notice that the Building Official intends to inspect the subject property and guest rooms according to the following schedule: 1) Thursday January 21, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 340-350. 2) Tuesday January 26, 2021 at 11 AM- Rooms 221-231. 3) Wednesday January 27, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 332-339. 4) Thursday January 28, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 212-220. 5) Friday January 29, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 102-111. �Z Vc--YO Page I1 PoLLY Low 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 COUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 Mnaauu r Cw TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 S& DANO FAX(626)307-9219 SI ml,Y NOTICE OF INSPECTION Subject Property: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. Friendly Inn Motel Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Notice Date: January 12, 2021 The City of Rosemead has been made aware that conditions may exist in some of the guest rooms of the subject property which could be deemed as "unsafe" as defined by the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 102). As such, the Building Official for the City of Rosemead is obligated to examine the premises for these alleged conditions, and pursuant to the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.1) the Building Official has the authority to enter the subject premises upon reasonable notice. This "Notice of Inspection" hereby serves as proper and reasonable notice that the Building Official intends to inspect the subject property and guest rooms according to the following schedule: 1) Thursday January 21, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 340-350. 2) Tuesday January 26, 2021 at 11 AM- Rooms 221-231. 3) Wednesday January 27, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 332-339. 4) Thursday January 28, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 212-220. 5) Friday January 29, 2021 at 11AM- Rooms 102-111. �Z Vc--YO Page I1 The Property Owner must provide for safe and full access to each of the rooms listed at the indicated time of inspection. Furthermore, due to COVID safety protocols each of the rooms indicated must remain un -occupied during the inspections. The Property Owners should plan accordingly on which rooms are rented each day so that the rooms scheduled for inspection remain un -rented and un -occupied during the date and times indicated. City representatives in attendance will ensure that all inspection activities will be conducted in a manner to reduce the potential spread of COVIDA9 and will wear face coverings and maintain social distance. California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.4) declares that it is a violation for any person to fail or refuse authorized entry to the Building Official for the purposes of inspection after reasonable notice of inspection has been properly served. Failure to comply with this Notice could fully result in criminal or civil penalty. Questions or concerns regarding this notice should be directed to the Building Official for the City of Rosemead. Sr4Zd:r '0FMan)z Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department 8830 Valley Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. 91770 (626) 569-2130 (END) Page 12 Attachment F Planning Division Letter of Violation Dated February 17, 2021 MAYOR: City _J `/, ►/ O�N[ / v1SeI/W SANDRA ARMEM'A � OTBM: :M D Y Low 8839 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 COUNCILUNCQ. MEMBERS: ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 MARc� CLA TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 SEAND"o FAX (626) 307-9218 STEYENLY February 17, 2021 CERTIFIED MAIL Friendly Inn, Inc. 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear Business Owner, On February 21, 1989, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 88-447, allowing the operation of a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard (formerly Travelodge). Due to recent activity and violations with the City's Building and Safety Division, City's Planning Division, City's Public Safety Department, LA County Fire Department, and LA County Public Health, the City will pursue a modification of CUP 88-447, which may include new conditions pertaining to operation of the project, such as buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, security, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. More information will be provided to you soon on the City's initiated modification of CUP 88-447. Planning Division staffs site inspection on January 21, 2021, revealed that Friendly Inn is in violation of the conditions of approval (enclosed with this letter) of CUP 88-447. All violations shall be corrected by Wednesday. March 4, 2021. The following conditions of approval are in violation: 1. Per Condition of Approval Number 2, the project shall comply with Section 9181.1 (30) of the Rosemead Municipal Code except for subsections a, c, e, and o submitted and marked Exhibit C. • Per Ordinance 604, subsection f states, the owner and/or operator of such hotel or motel shall not permit any person as an occupant in such a hotel or motel for a period in excess of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, except for one (1) permitted manager's unit. Comment: Staffs inspection revealed that guests are occupying some of the rooms for more than 30 consecutive days. The City s Code Enforcement Division issued a warning notice and citation regarding this matter on January 21st. The motel operator shall immediately comply with this requirement and shall not allow any person to occupy a roam for more than 30 consecutive calendar days. • Per Ordinance 604, subsections j and k, the owner and/or operator of such hotel or motel shall provide daily room cleaning service for each room in such hotel or motel; and every hotel and motel shall obtain and keep records of the name and address of guests, the make, year and license of the guest's vehicle, and the state in which such vehicle is licensed. Comment: Staffs inspection revealed that housekeeping service is not provided in the guestrooms as required by the Code. In addition, registrations requirements were not met (names, addresses, valid driver's license, etc.). The City's Code Enforcement Division issued a warning notice regarding this matter on January 21st. The motel operator shall immediately comply with registration requirements. • Per Ordinance 604, subsection n, no portable refrigerators, microwaves or other appliances necessary for the preparation of food be permitted in any hotel or motel room. Comment: Staffs inspection revealed that portable grills, skillets, or toaster ovens are installed in some of the rooms. All food preparation equipment shall be removed from the rooms. 2. Per Condition of Approval Number 3 and 4, the applicant shall obtain all required City business license (i.e. Business Occupancy Permit, Business License, etc.) and shall sign a notarized affidavit of agreement with the above listed conditions and return it within ten days of approval to the City. Comment: According to Planning Division records, there is inconsistency between the corporate officer names on the Friendly Inn, Inc. State of California Statement of Information and the name on the Applicant Affidavit for CUP 88-447. The Applicant Affidavit was signed and notarized by Jung Fu Chen. The corporate officer names listed on the State of California Statement of Information are Li Yuan Chen, Andrew Chen, and Alexander Chen. In addition, during staffs inspection on January 21st, the hotel manager, Renee Chen, stated that she has no knowledge of who Jung Fu Chen is. For this reason, if the motel business owner has been transferred, please immediately contact the Planning Division to process the transfer of business ownership for CUP 88-447 and update the Applicant Affidavit. In addition, the City's initiated modification will also require a notarized affidavit of agreement to be signed by the motel operator. Furthermore, the business license renewal that was submitted to the City has been placed on hold until this issue is corrected. Please contact Planning & Economic Development Manager Lily Valenzuela at (626) 569-2142 or Itrinh@cityofrosemead.org to discuss immediate action to correct all violations. Enclosure Sincerely, AQ— Lily Valenzuela Planning & Economic Development Manager Cc: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Director of Community Development Brad Fiiehmann, Building Official Lt. Tony Duong, Chief of Police Wayne Co, Public Safety Manager Attachment G Building & Safety Division Notification of Code Violation Dated January 12, 2021 MAYOR: SANDM ARNMNtA MAYOR PRO TEM: Po yLow COUNCIL MEMBERS: MARGA CLARK Saw DAM Snv Lr City of lZqsemead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 5694100 FAX(626)307-9218 NOTIFICATION OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATION Violation Address: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Case # CE 21-0043 Violation Date: January 12, 2021 Notice Date: January 12, 2021 Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Based on a recent inspection of the property listed above on January 12, 2021 the following Building Code violations are determined to be outstanding at the subject address. These violations are deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy and as such the Building Official has posted the subject guest rooms with a 'yellow tag" (restricted use) which prohibits the rooms from being occupied and only allows entry for the purposes of retrieving personal property. The property Owners may not allow these guest rooms to be re -occupied until approved by the Building Official. Room 340 Violation 1- Missing or damaged smoke alarms. Violation 2- Hazardous electrical receptacle- receptacle not grounded. Corrective action #1- Within 30 days the Property Owner must obtain a permit to "restore guest room 340 to a habitable condition, including restore smoke alarms to original required condition and repair hazardous electrical t �L17 receptacle." xAzvAl/ Page 11 7\x(2 I2, 7c'z I Corrective action #2 - Corrective action #3 - Room 341 Within 45 days complete the required work as described and secure City of Rosemead Inspections. Do not allow or cause guest room 340 to be re- occupied until approved by the Building Official. Violation 1- Missing or damaged smoke alarms. Violation 2- Hazardous electrical receptacle- grounded and un -grounded conductors are reversed. Corrective action #1- Within 30 days the Property Owner must obtain a permit to 'restore guest room 341 to a habitable condition, including restore smoke alarms to original required condition and repair hazardous electrical receptacle." Corrective action #2- Within 45 days complete the required work as described and secure City of Rosemead Inspections. Corrective action #3- Do not allow or cause guest roopf3Fingg"Official. e re- occupied until approved by the � Room 342 Violation 1- Missing or damaged smoke alarms. Corrective action #1- Within 30 days the Property Owner must obtain a permit to "restore guest room 342 to a habitable condition, including restore smoke alarms to original required condition." Corrective action #2- Within 45 days complete the required work as described and secure City of Rosemead Inspections. Corrective action #3- Do not allow or cause guest roo34 o be re- occupied until approved by the ;—wild"ing Official. Page 12 Room 344 Violation 1- Missing or damaged smoke alarms. Corrective action #1- Within 30 days the Property Owner must obtain a permit to "restore guest room 344 to a habitable condition, including restore smoke alarms to original required condition." Corrective action #2- Within 45 days complete the required work as described and secure City of Rosemead Inspections. Corrective action #3- Do not allow or cause guest roo 4 be re- occupied until approved by the Building Official. A Compliance inspection will be conducted on February 16, 2021 at 2pm, or earlier at the request of the Property Owner. Unless otherwise noted, all the listed violations must be corrected as noted to avoid fines and penalties. Please feel free to call me directly if there are any question regarding this notice. Sincerely, Brar%rzefi'mann Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department (626) 569-2130 (END) Page 13 Attachment H Building & Safety Division Notification of Code Violation Dated February 17, 2021 MAYOR: SA mAP wA MAYOR PRO TSM: POLLY Law COUNCIL MEMBERS: MARGARET CLAP% SEAN DANG STEVEN LY City of &semwd 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 NOTIFICATION OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATION Violation Address: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Case # CE 21-0043 Violation Date: January 21, 2021- January 29, 2021 Notice Date: February 17, 2021 Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Based on inspections of the property listed above between January 21, 2021 through January 29, 2017, the following Building Code violations are determined to be outstanding at the subject address. Many of these violations are deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy and as such the Building Official has posted some of the subject guest rooms with a "yellow tag" (restricted use) which prohibits the rooms from being occupied and only allows entry for the purposes of making repairs or retrieving personal property. The property Owners may not allow these quest rooms to be re -occupied until approved by the Building Official. The Building Division recognizes that some corrective action is already underway in some of these guest rooms and encourages the property Owners to continue in these efforts. This Notice serves solely to document the violations observed on the given dates and the corrective actions required for each room. This Notice only addresses violations of the building codes and other agencies are conducting their own independent enforcement of the laws and codes under their authority. These agencies include the City of Rosemead Planning Division, City of Rosemead Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Health Department. � A— Page Page 1 1 of 16 i z� A 4p" e� Room 340 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Water damage on ceiling. Violation 4- Missing smoke detectors* (1/12/21). Violation 5- Hazardous ungrounded electrical receptacle in Bathroom (1/12/21). Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). *Note- Smoke detector enforcement action is now being managed by Los Angeles County Fire Department. Room 341(1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Missing smoke detectors* (1/12/21). Violation 3- Hazardous mis-wired electrical receptacle in Bathroom (1/12/21). Room status at close of inspection- Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 342 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Missing smoke detectors* (1/12/21). Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 343 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Water damage on wall. Violation 4- Missing smoke detectors* Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Page 12of16 Room 344 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Missing smoke detectors* (1/12/21). Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 345 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Termite damage at door. Violation 4- Missing smoke detectors*. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 346 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Missing smoke detectors*. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 347 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Missing smoke detectors*. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 348 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Missing wall light fixture. Vlolation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Missing smoke detectors*. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Page 13 of 16 Room 349 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violationl- Missing wall light fixture. Violation 2- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 3- Missing smoke detectors*. Violation 4- Door frame damage/ not secure. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy Room 221(1/26)21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- HVAC unit not working/ unsanitary. Violation 3- Water damage on ceiling. Violation 4- Hazardous mis-wired electrical receptacle in bathroom (open neutral). Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 221(1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann} Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- HVAC unit not working/ unsanitary. Violation 3- Water damage on ceiling. Violation 4- Hazardous mis-wired electrical receptacle in bathroom (open neutral). Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 222 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Door not marked with guest room number. Violation 3- Loose receptacle in living area. Violation 4- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 5- Hazardous mis-wired electrical receptacle in bathroom (open ground/ fails to trip). Violation 6- Hole in Bathroom wall Violation 7- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Page 14 of 16 Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 223 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 224 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Loose receptacle in living area. Violation 3- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits. Violation 4- Hazardous mis-wired electrical receptacle in bathroom (fails to trip). Violation 5- Bathroom vent fan does not work. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 225 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Violation 3- Missing light fixture cover. Violation 4- Recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits/ missing fixture exposing hole in ceiling. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 226 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Page 16 of 16 Room 227 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Hazardous loose electrical receptacle in living area (on/off Violation 2- condition). Violation 2- GFCI receptacle in Bathroom is off and wont reset. Violation 3- Bathroom door does not fully open/ scrapes on floor. Violation 4- Damaged/ unsanitary countertop in bathroom. Violation 5- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Violation 6- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 228 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- HVAC unit not working/ unsanitary. Violation 3- Hole in Living area wall. Violation 4- Hazardous mis-wired GFCI receptacle in bathroom (open neutral). Violation 5- Bathroom vent fan does not work. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 229 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- HVAC unit not working/ unsanitary. Violation 3- Bathroom door does not fully open/ scrapes on floor. Violation 4- Missing section of carpet (replacement in progress). Violation 5- Bathroom vent fan does not work Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 230 (1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Violation 2- Guest room door mismarked as room 109. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Page 16 of 16 Room 231(1/26/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 339 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Probable asbestos contamination observed due to removal of popcorn ceiling. Field notice issued to secure services of an AQMD certified hygienist to test for asbestos and provide report. No further interior inspection was conducted. Room status at close of inspection- Red tag (entry prohibited). NOTE- Report provided on February 11, 2021 confirmed that the material does not contain asbestos. Email response to Andrew gave OK to proceed with cleanup and rehab per issued permit. Room 338 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 9- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 337 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 336 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Page 17 of 16 Room 335 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Recessed can lights installed without permits. Violation 2- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 3- Bathroom vent fan does not work. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 334 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Violation 3- Missing light fixture cover. Violation 4- GFCI in bathroom is out and will not reset. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur on 1/28/21). Room 333 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 332 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 331(1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room appears to be used primarily for storage but is overloaded with unorganized storage items presenting a hazard for egress and fire spread. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tagged (do not occupy). Page 18of16 Room 213 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fflehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 214 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- GFCI in bathroom is out and wont reset. Violation 3- Loose connection on living area receptacle (on/ off condition). Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur on 1/28121). Room 108 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 109 (1/27/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- GFCI in bathroom is out and wont reset. Violation 3- Bathroom vent fan does not work. Violation 4- Missing receptacle cover in living area. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur on 1/28/21). Page 19 of 16 Room 111(1/27/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Repairs required, OK to occupy. Room 109 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. Room 212 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fllehmann) Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- GFCI in bathroom is out and wont reset. Violation 3- Bathroom vent fan does not work. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur on 1/29/21). Room 213 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 214 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. Page 110 of 16 Room 215 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 216 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Large section of torn carpet. Violation 2- Water damaged ceiling. Violation 3- GFCI receptacle in Bathroom does not trip. Violation 4- Bathroom wall near sink is not painted. Violation 5- Shower walls not finished/ painted. Violation 6- Tub is chipped. Violation 7- Bathroom vent fan not working. Violation 8- Visible mildew in bathroom. Violation 9- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tagged (do not occupy). Room 217 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Recessed can lights added without permits. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan not working. Violation 3- GFCI in bathroom does not trip. Violation 4- Tub/ shower missing caulking. Violation 5- pesticide residue throughout floors (borax powder). Violation 6- Bathroom sink is clogged. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tagged (do not occupy). Page 111 of 16 Room 218(1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Excess pesticide residue throughout floors (borax powder). Violation 2- Living area receptacle is loose. Violation 3- Carpet is badly stained. Violation 4- Mis-wired receptacle near TV (hot/neutral reversed). Violation 5- Broken mirror in bathroom. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tagged (do not occupy). Room 219 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 220 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 334 (1/28/21- Inspector B. Fliehmann)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. Room 102 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Faulty outlet by AC unit. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur upon Owner's request). Page 112 of 16 Room 103 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Faulty outlet by bed. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur upon Owner's request). Room 104 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 105 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Broken mirror in bathroom Violation 2- mildew in bathtub. Violation 3- missing switch in bathroom. Violation 4- clogged sink in bathroom. Violation 5- HVAC unit not working. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 106 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Room 107 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection performed. Room status at close of inspection- not changed. Page 113 of 16 Room 108 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Minor wall damage. Room status at close of inspection- Repair required, OK to occupy. Room 109 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Minor wall damage. Room status at close of inspection- Repair required, OK to occupy. Room 110 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Faulty outlet by bed. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Field notice issued to allow re -occupancy after repairs have been approved (re -inspection to occur upon Owner's request). Room 111(1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ worn- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. Room 212 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. Page 114 of 16 Room 217 (1/29/21- Inspector D. Hemandez)- Re -inspection per field notice Violation 1- Window frame damaged/ wom- does not seal, not secure. Violation 2- Bathroom vent fan does not work/ missing vent fan cover. Room status at close of inspection- Hazardous repairs approved- OK to occupy. Minor repairs still required. ROOM STATUS SUMMARY. Clear to occupy- 108. 109, 111, 212, 214, 217, 334, 335, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349. Yellow tagged (do not occupy)- 102, 103, 105, 110, 216, 218, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 331, 340, 341. Rooms not yet inspected- 104, 106, 107, 213, 215, 219, 220, 223, 226, 230, 231, 332, 333, 336, 337, 338, 339, 350. Corrective action #1- On or before March 23, 2021, the Property Owner must cause each of the rooms listed as 'not yet inspected" to be un -occupied (not under the legal possession of a guest) and arrange with the Building Official to inspect each of these rooms (see also Notice of Inspection dated February 17, 2021). obtain a permit to "restore guest room 344 to a habitable condition." Corrective action #2- On or before March 10, 2021, the Property Owners must obtain permits from the Building Division to restore all guest rooms that have been yellow tagged to a habitable condition, which will include legalizing any fixtures previously installed without permits. Page 115 of 16 Corrective action #3- Complete all work required to restore all units to a habitable condition on or before April 5, 2021, and secure final inspections from the City of Rosemead Building Division. Corrective action #4- On or before March 2, 2021 remove all unpermitted temporary electrical wiring installations at front entry and planter area. Corrective action #5- On or before April 19, complete all repair work to area damaged by fire above the enclosed parking area (see permit # B00-014-036) and secure final inspections from the City of Rosemead Building Division. A follow up inspection is scheduled for March 23, 2021 at 2PM to check for compliance with corrective action #1. All the listed violations in this Notice must be cleared as noted to avoid fines and penalties. Please feel free to call me directly if there are any question regarding this notice. Sincerely, Bradr'rte`imann Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department (626) 569-2130 (EM) Page 116of16 Attachment I Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection Dated February 18, 2021 MAYOR: , City of �semead SANDRA AR wA M B 213 PD y Low 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 COUNCILUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 MARD. CL. TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 SEAN DAM FAX (626) 307-9218 STEVEN LY 336 NOTICE OF INSPECTION Subject Property: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. Friendly Inn Motel Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Notice Date: February 18, 2021 The City of Rosemead has been made aware that conditions may exist in some of the guest rooms of the subject property which could be deemed as "unsafe" as defined by the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 102). As such, the Building Official for the City of Rosemead is obligated to examine the premises for these alleged conditions, and pursuant to the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.1) the Building Official has the authority to enter the subject premises upon reasonable notice. This "Notice of Inspection" hereby serves as proper and reasonable notice that the Building Official intends to inspect the following listed guest rooms on March 23, 2021 at 2PM (or sooner at the Property Owner's request): Room 104 Room 213 Room 332 Room 106 Room 215 Room 333 Room 107 Room 219 Room 336 Room 220 Room 337 Room 223 Room 338 Room 226 Room 339 Room 230 Room 350 Room 231 © k 4—� `� / Page 11 W The Property Owner must provide for safe and full access to each of the rooms listed at the indicated time of inspection. Furthermore, due to COVID safety protocols each of the rooms indicated must remain un -occupied during the inspections. The Property Owners should plan accordingly on which rooms are rented each day so that the rooms scheduled for inspection remain un -rented and un -occupied during the date and times indicated. City representatives in attendance will ensure that all inspection activities will be conducted in a manner to reduce the potential spread of COVID-19 and will wear face coverings and maintain social distance. California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.4) declares that it is a violation for any person to fail or refuse authorized entry to the Building Official for the purposes of inspection after reasonable notice of inspection has been properly served. Failure to comply with this Notice could fully result in criminal or civil penalty. Questions or concerns regarding this notice should be directed to the Building Official for the City of Rosemead. Bra��lzehmann Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department 8830 Valley Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. 91770 (626) 569-2130 (END) Page 12 Attachment J Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection Dated March 24, 2021 MAYOR: City o f W9 eme/!// POILY Low V�'y, Z�Jri��WffM//���WWW MAYOR PRO TEM: WNDA 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 COUNCD:MEMBERS: ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 SANDM A�A TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 MAxa T Cw FAX (626) 307-9218 SmLY NOTICE OF INSPECTION Subject Property: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. Friendly Inn Motel I� Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. C/ Temple City Ca. 91780 Notice Date: March 24, 2021 The City of Rosemead has been made aware that conditions may exist in some of the guest rooms of the subject property which could be deemed as "unsafe" as defined by the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 102). As such, the Building Official for the City of Rosemead is obligated to examine the premises for these alleged conditions, and pursuant to the California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.1) the Building Official has the authority to enter the subject premises upon reasonable notice. This "Notice of Inspection" hereby serves as proper and reasonable notice that the Building Official intends to inspect the following listed guest rooms on May 12, 2021 at 1 1A (or sooner at the Property Owner's request): Room 213 Room 215 Room 219 Room 220 Room 336 The Property Owner must provide for safe and full access to each of the rooms listed at the indicated time of inspection. Furthermore, due to COVID safety protocols each of the rooms indicated must remain un -occupied during the inspections. The Property Owners should plan accordingly on which rooms are rented each day so that the rooms scheduled for inspection remain un -rented and un -occupied during the date and times indicated. City representatives in attendance will ensure that all inspection activities will be conducted in a manner to reduce the potential spread of COVID-19 and will wear face coverings and maintain social distance. California Building Code (as amended by Los Angeles County Title 26- Section 104.2.3.4) declares that it is a violation for any person to fail or refuse authorized entry to the Building Official for the purposes of inspection after reasonable notice of inspection has been properly served. Failure to comply with this Notice could fully result in criminal or civil penalty. Questions or concerns regarding this notice should be directed to the Building Official for the City of Rosemead. Brarf:F&Aimann Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department 8830 Valley Blvd. Rosemead, Ca. 91770 (626) 569-2130 (END) Attachment K Building & Safety Division Supplemental Notification of Building Code Violation Dated April 1, 2021 MAYOA: Pou.v Low MAYOR PRO TEM: SEAN DANO COUNCIL MEMBERS: SANURAAR NiA MAaQn Cw SnWNLV City of Wpsemead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATION OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATION Violation Address: 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. a��@tCCL4dCt� --4 Case # CE 21-0043 Violation Date: on or before March 24, 2021 Notice Date: April 1, 2021 i7 Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen 9433 Garibaldi Ave. Temple City Ca. 91780 Based on inspections of the property listed above on Marq!� P021, the following Building Code violations are determined to be outstanding at the subject address. Many of these violations are deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy and as such the Building Official has posted some of the subject guest rooms with a "yellow tag" (restricted use) which prohibits the rooms from being occupied and only allows entry for the purposes of making repairs or retrieving personal property. The Property Owners may not allow these guest rooms to be re -occupied until approved by the Building Official. The Building Division recognizes that some corrective action is already underway in some of these guest rooms and encourages the property Owners to continue in these efforts. This Notice serves solely to document the violations observed on the given dates and the corrective actions required for each room. This Supplemental Notice is in addition to prior Notices issued by the B Ing Division and only addresses violations of the building codes found on Mar 2 021. Other agencies including the City of Rosemead Planning Division, City of Rosemead Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Health Department are also conducting their own independent enforcement of the laws and codes under their authority. NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE- Guest room numbers 213, 215, 219, 220, and 336 were occupied at the scheduled inspection date and time, in violation of the "Notice of Inspection" issued on February 18, 2021 which gave proper and legal notice that these rooms were not to be occupied but were to be made available for a full inspection. As such, a "non-compliance fee" in the amount of $357.30 has been assessed and must be paid to the Building Division prior to any inspection requests. Room 104 — (Inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 106 — (Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 107— (Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Dry -rot or termite damage at front door. Violation 2- Heater not working and/or in unsanitary condition. Violation 3- Carpets damaged and/or unsanitary. Violation 4- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired. Violation 5- Light fixtures missing covers. Violation 6- Bathroom supply fan not fully functional. Violation 7- Phone missing or non -operational. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 213 (inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection. Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined. Room 215 — (Inspector D. Hemandez) Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection. Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined. Room 299 — (Inspector D. Hemandezl Volation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection. Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined. Room 220 — (Inspector D. Homandezl Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection. Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined. Room 223— (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Dry -rot or termite damage at front door. Violation 2- Window not in working condition. Violation 3- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired. Violation 4- Light fixtures missing covers. Violation 5- Bathroom supply fan not fully functional. Violation 6- Phone missing or non -operational. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 226— (InsoectorB. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 226 — (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Volation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 229 — (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Volation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 230 — (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Volation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Volation 2- Door number mis-marked (shows room #109) Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 239— Onspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window not in working condition. Violation 2- Carpets damaged or unsanitary Violation 3- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired near HVAC. Violation 4- Hot/ Neutral reversed on bathroom receptacle. Violation 5- Damaged formica countertop- not water resistant. Violation 6- missing light bulbs in fixtures. Violation 7- broken mirror. Violation 8- baseboards loose/ not sealed behind toilet. Violation 9- recessed light broken. Violation 10- missing box cover behind N. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 332— (InspectorA Hemandez) Violation 1- Dry -rot or termite damage at front door. Violation 2- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired. Violation 3- Light fixtures missing covers. Violation 4- Bathroom supply fan not fully functional. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 333 — (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Missing room number (#3_3). Violation 2- Bathroom supply fan not fully functional. Room status at close of inspection- OK to Occupy. Room 336— (inspector B. F/lehmann) Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection. Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined. Room 337— (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Smoke alarm not functioning Violation 2- Phone not working Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 338- (nspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- HVAC not functioning and/or unsanitary. Violation 2- Mis-wired receptacle left of HVAC. Violation 3- missing bulb in bathroom light fixture. Violation 4- bathroom supply fan not fully functioning. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 339- (Inspector B. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 344-(7,spectorB. Fliehmann) Violation 1- Window not in working condition. Violation 2- Missing receptacle cover. Violation 3- Missing light bulbs in fixtures. Violation 4- phone missing/ not working. Violation 5- no caulking at base of tub. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). Room 350 - (inspector D. Hernandez) Violation 1- HVAC not functioning and/or unsanitary. Violation 2- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired near HVAC. Violation 3- Light fixtures missing covers. Violation 4- Smoke alarm missing/ not functioning. Violation 5- Bathroom supply fan not fully functional. Violation 6- Phone not operational or missing. Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy). ROOM STATUS SUMMARY: Clear to occupy- 102, 103, 108. 109, 111, 212, 214, 216, 217, 333, 334, 335, 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349. Yellow tagged (do not occupy)- 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 331, 332, 337, 338, 339, 344, 350. Rooms not yet inspected- 213, 215, 219, 220, 336. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED: Corrective action #1- On or before May12, 2021, the Property Owner must cause each of the rooms listed as "not yet inspected" to be un -occupied (not under the legal possession of a guest) and arrange with the Building Official to inspect each of these rooms (see also Notice of Inspection dated April 6, 2021). Corrective action #2- Complete all work required to restore all °yellow tagged" units to a habitable condition on or before May 12, 2021, and secure final inspections from the City of Rosemead Building Division. f1�. A follow up inspection is scheduled f9fi62, 2021 at 1 1A to check for compliance with corrective action #1 and #2 as well as all other corrective action items on previous Notices. All the listed violations in this Notice must be cleared as noted to avoid fines and penalties. Please feel free to call me directly if there are any question regarding this notice. Sincerely, Brad:r9k mann Building Official (Contract) City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department (626) 569-2130 (END) Attachment L Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Inspection Reports �"'rs, :1 ;til OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Violation: Cockroaches -Unit Inspection Date: lirn021 OwnorlPxmllW: CHEN. UYUAN retehdce). LACCJ Title 111 Section 11.20.140;11.20.160; 11.20.170; 1120.330; 11.30.010; 11.30.050; 11.30.080; 11.30.070; 11.34080 OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN 3630YALSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010- Phone: (213135"288 FaMOb Address: 2148 BAN GABRIEL BLVD WWW P I R t HATH 4 0 NTY OV H P111111111110 Hem Facility Name: FRIENDLY INN Violation: Cockroaches -Unit Inspection Date: lirn021 OwnorlPxmllW: CHEN. UYUAN retehdce). LACCJ Title 111 Section 11.20.140;11.20.160; 11.20.170; 1120.330; 11.30.010; 11.30.050; 11.30.080; 11.30.070; 11.34080 11"nspection Date: NIA FaMOb Address: 2148 BAN GABRIEL BLVD Cltealp: ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-384 1. Room 334 spproxlmetey 16 cockroaches 01" and dead) 1M"houtthe unit. Phan. 0; Email Addnu: NONE SPECIFIED 3. Room 338- epproximeWy 50 cockroaches throughout the unit with focal spottlngs on eledriml socket next to the sink. ENS: DIOSDADO YAP MatBng Adarw: 2148 SAN GABRIEL BLVD, ROSEMEAD, CA 91770842 S. Room 218- approximately, 10 cockroaches In unit Tiniest: 11:OOAM Th ODU 01:00PM EH OBIS Number: 12131351-0288 Proarem Wenwar. WA Service: INSPECrONBNVESTIGATIOWCARRYOVER Result: CORRECENEACTIONIFOLLaWUPREOUIRED ACUon: REINSPECTIONREOUIRED FA: FA015D282 PP. WA SR: WA 00: C00264MB pE 2421 11.20.180; 11.20.190; 11.20.340 PIC/0wnersigneture DIOSDADO YAP ENS Signature Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit ourwebsile at www.nubllchealth.lamuna.mv/eh. 1.1 Page 1 of 4 Cockroaches Violation: Cockroaches -Unit Violation Text Dwellings shall be free of vemin Infestatlaniharborage (I.e., mdaaeches, Bles, mosquitoes, mug, Bees, bedbugs, retehdce). LACCJ Title 111 Section 11.20.140;11.20.160; 11.20.170; 1120.330; 11.30.010; 11.30.050; 11.30.080; 11.30.070; 11.34080 Corrective Action: Eliminate mckroadles eM all evidence, ofoockroechec by safe, legal and effective methods In all units. Observed codooeMasand all evIdenre of mducadles In the k5mving areas; 1. Room 334 spproxlmetey 16 cockroaches 01" and dead) 1M"houtthe unit. 2. Room 335- appnolmatey3 cockroaches In unit. 3. Room 338- epproximeWy 50 cockroaches throughout the unit with focal spottlngs on eledriml socket next to the sink. 4. Room 213- appmtlmetely 2 cockroaches In unit 5. Roan 214- eppMXIM My 2 mclacaches In unit. _ S. Room 218- approximately, 10 cockroaches In unit 7. Ram 219- app rodm usly 5 coclacaches in unit B. Room 1031 pgoximetsy 10 coda oarhea in unit 9. Room105. appnothr sly 10 cockroaches In unlL 10. Room 106. approximaldy 10 mdaoechos In uniL Tank l Bain Violation: 78nkfBese/BOWODther-Unit Bowl I Other Wotatim Text: Dwelling units shall he" an approved Collet or privy structure In goad repair. 11.20.140; 11.20.180; 17.20,170; 11.20.180; 11.20.190; 11.20.340 Correcd"Aution: Replace all mining toilets and Meir Components In all unite. Observed Isaft under the toilet tank (dean water) In Room 214. Observed slow dreMing hand sink In Room 105. - Observed unsecured toilet In Room 219. Appliances Violation: Appliances - Unit Violation Text AppllanceslFumishmas 0.e. Supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanities, shelvings, etc.) shall be maIntalned M good mndltlm or repair. 11.20.18q 11.20.170 1120.340 Corree8ve Action: Maintain all owner -supplied appliances in good condition or repair. Observed food, dirt end other debris erxxwied on personal reMgelator Malde and out In Bre following rooms (105, 334, 335,338, 214, 102). Observed Inoperable mechanical exhaust vent In reeboom In Roane 1 D4 and 102. PIC/0wnersigneture DIOSDADO YAP ENS Signature Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit ourwebsile at www.nubllchealth.lamuna.mv/eh. 1.1 Page 1 of 4 OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT 'f COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICE:HOUSING AND INST. ♦ CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN 3630 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phone: (213) 361 -MB -' WWW.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNTY.GOV/EH 1w wwraw,axens revue ®tanr Faculty Nam: FRIENDLY INN Impaction Wb: 1272021 Fadity Address: 21415 SANGABRIELBLVO Cay2p: ROSEMEAOCA 61770-364 ph..*: FA: FA0150RE PR: WA SR: WA CO: COD2545M PE: 2423 r Violation: Fumlture - Unit Furniture Violation rax! ApPllencea/Fumlahkgs (I.e. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanities, shelvings, eta) shall be maintained In good condition or repair. 11.20.160; 11.20.170; 11.20.340 Comsetiva Action: Maintain all owner -suppled furnishings in good oD i0on or repair. Observed cabinets, drawers, tables, chalis and other furnituree with stains, dirt and otler debris acurmilatlon broken and missing handles and other components, in the following mane (334, 335, 338, 213, 214, 216, 219,102, 1 D3,106, 105 and 1 D4) Wotation: Counters, Cabinets, Vanities, Shelving, etc. - Unit Counter, Cabinets, Violation Taw Appliances/Furnishings 0.9. suppled betiding, fumtturs, counters, cabinets, vanities, shatvings, etc.) shall be Vanhtes, maintained In good condition or repair. 1120.160;11.2D.170;11.20.340 Shelving, atc. Comecti Action: Maintain all owner -furnished buittin appliances and furnishings In good condition or repair. Damaged/cracked minor above the sink In Rooms 1 D5 and 21 S. Wo/aeon: WelliCeiling/Fba-General- Unit Well I Going / Floor- Wolation next Wells / Callings / Floors shall be maintained In good repelr a condition. 1120.140:11.20.160;11.20.170;11.20.190; General 11.20.340; Corrective Action: Repair/replace all damaged, broken, buolded, missing, or deteriorated we WoelNgs. Repaidrapece all tom, deteriorated, worn, loose, damaged, or cracked floors or floor coverings. Observed the following violetkaw 1. Roan 334- Damaged well around Bre electrical socket neer the etc unit 2.Room 335- Holelopenhg around the drainline below the hand sink 3.Room 33& a. Damaged wall below the hand sink b. Dar ageNcrseked side panel in hand sink canter. a Remove fecal spotting on wall Around the electrical socket near the sink 4.Room 219- Damaged8ale In well inside the bathroom. 5.Room 102-a. Damaged !lase cove the inside the bathroom. b. Hole around the shower Ore. 8.Room 105- s. Damaged wall next to the cabinet with cable attach to the hole. b. Clean and maintain carpet floor with dli, trust and other debris accumulation. 7.Room 106-a. Damaged hole In wall near the toilet paper holder. b. Danagedndelseloralad calling around the mechanical vont. a Water damaged telling with black substance In bathroom and outside ger bathroom calling. 6.Room 1 DB- Damaged wall neer the sink. S.Rocm 104-x. Damaged calling Around the mechanical vent In hathroom. b. Damaged carpet floor. Wolatlon; W ndows/Saeem - Ung Window/ Screens WAlatiun Teat: Windows and other openings In the axeriorwags of dwell shall be reps provided with approved screening of az least 16 mesh eel lo tight -fitting frarrea. 1120.160; 11.20.170; 11.20.190; 11.20.330; 11.20.340; 11.30.010; 11.30.D50 ConecWa Action: Repairl replace all damaged, broken, cracked, tan, Inoperable, maltunctioning, missing, or delarlorated windows, or their components. Observe tam window screen outside Room 334. PIC/Owner Signature DIOSDADO YAP Ei3 Signature Help us terve you better by competing a short survey. Vett our websge at www.oublkhealth.laoounw.00v/eh. 1.1 Pape 2 of 4 2dnj Q OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT �I COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1J OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN 'd 5 . OFF,, a 3830 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 . Phone: (213) 331-0288 WWW.P B H♦ TH. A O NTY OV H Facility Name: FRIENDLY INN leapecibntmte: 1nIn021 F'eellity A4drns: 2146 SANCIABRIELOWD Clynlp: RQSEW". CA 917]0.364 Phone P. FA: FAD150262 PR: WA SR: NIA CO: C00189885 PE; 2123 Violation; Faucet Flames - Unit Faueet Flxtuna Vlolatlon Text Dwelling was shall have approved shpt, Inood g rapek. 11.18.050; 11.20.140; 11.20.180;1120.170; 71.20.7 B0; 11.20.340 COTCtive Aalon: Replace missing or nonoperational sink faucet fixtum N a0 units. Observed Inking bathtub faucet In Room 338. Violation: Cant-Oge/DebriaWaste - Premises Cast- Offs l Debris / Waeb Violation Tart Premises shall be m intkned in a dean, sanka Ncondition, free from accumulations of garbage, rubbish, refuse and other waste, at all times. Garbage and pubmadble mailer, whether mixed with rubbish or other mater or not shall be kept In watertight reception with ckm"fing Oda and with handles or balls. Such receptacles Shall be thoroughly dearred each time Onlr contents are removed. 11.16.020; 11.10.030; 11.15.050;11.15.0601120.140; 11.20.160, 11.20.170; 11.20.180, 11.20.180; 11.20.340:11.3D.01 0; 11.30.050;11.30080; 11.30.070; 11.30.000 Comct"Accton: Remove unreasonable collection of csataR materials from prari es. Observed mattresses, nurnitures, ha dboards, cabinets and DOW cast off gams In hall on Bud floor and 2nd floor and let floor. I OVERALL INSPECTION COMMENTS I The purpose of this visit is to provide an addendum inspection due to multiple Complaints from diRerent agencies. It la Improper and illegal for any County officer, employee or Inspector to Solicit bees, gifts or granulites in oonnectlon with pedorming their oMdal duties. Improper Solicitations Include requests for artydit of value such as cash, free services, paid travel or enbrtalnmen4 or tangible fierce Such am food or beverages. Any attempt by a County employee to Solicit betas, gifts or gratuities for any renown should be reported Immediately to either the Comity manager responsible for SupeMalng the employee or the Fraud Hotline at (800) 544-8861 a wormlecounlvfreud.on. YOU MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS. Fallure to correct the vidkons by the oompllence data may result In additional fees. Yom Signature on this form does not constitute agreement with Its contents. You may discues tide content of this report by contwft the suparAw at the phone number of the Environmental Health office Indicated on front Pegs of thio report UPS such Oma act a dedplon Is tendered try this departnal the content of this raport shell remain In ei By signing below the Person in ChargalOwnet understands the above noted violations and statements. PICIOamerSlgnatun Help us serve you better by competing a short survey. Vlalt our wattage at PN83cr4 DIOSDADD YAP ENS Signature A I&\ OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT ;'( I�1, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH �' +� OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN -` " 3620 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 80010 - Phone: (2131281-0268 v SwarA+v WWVV.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNTY_GOVn H . da, — Public necue Facility Name: FRIENDLY WN InapadPon Dats: 1272021 FadlayAldne.: 2148 SAN GABRIEL BLVD Cay21p: ROSEMEAD. CA 97770-284 Monk FA: FA0160282 PR: NIA SR: WA fA: C00281885 PE: 2423 ADVISORIES I WARNINGS CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WARNING Section 17274 and 24436.6 of the State Revenue and Taxation code provide, In pan, that a taxpayer, who dedves rental Income from housing determined by the local regulatory agency to be substandard by reason of vleletlon of State at local codea dealing with health, safety, or building, cannot deduct from State personal income lax and bank and corporation Income tax, deductions for Interest, depredation W texas attributable to such substandard structure whom the substandard conditions are not connected within six (6) months after notice of violation by the regulatory agency. THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE MARKS THE BEGINNING OF THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD. The Department Is required by law to notify the Franchise Tax Board of failure to comply with these code sections. Please be advised that the above WARNING is for purpose of Compliance with the State Revenue and Taxation Cade ok. Compliance with Health Laws as noted on the attached Inmpaxlon Report or Notice of Vlomtbn must be trade within the III speddW on the report or notice. WARNING: You are hereby advised that corrections ordered by this reporVol ldd notice may dbtwb eudacea that my contain lead -Mesad paint. Lead -basad paint can be commonly found In housing built prior to 1978. Prior to meking em corrections ordered and In conjunction with repairs of rehabilitation, you must determine S lead Is present In the dwelling unlVepertrnsngroom. All oonacWe actions must be ooMueadl In a manner Sat will protect occupants, workers, and other from exposure to contamination For further Information on lead hazards call 1(BBO) LAd-LEAD. OTHER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Exposure to Internal environmental elaments, such is asbestos, molds, and mildew. dust mites, droppings from cockroaches and rodents, carbon monoxide, fomaidehyde, pesticides, and radon also conbibute to unhealthy housing environments. All corrective actions must be conducted In a manner that will protect occupants, woduss, and otl7ere from exposure to meas elements. PIC/Ownsr Signature DIOSDADO YAP ENS Signature Help us serve you better by completing a Short survey. Visit ourwehshe at www.ouNlchealth.lemunty.am/eh. 1.1 Page 4 of OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH r/ OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN d • 3630 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phone: (213) 361-0298 .P 'eeF VUWW PARI ICHFALTH LACOUNTY.GOV/EH �K rowneu, sawn PMO OMM Ferd8ly Name: FRIENDLY INN Violation: Cockroaches -Unit Impecton Data: 1818021 0wnm1P.ddaa: CHEN. U YUAN Violation Text. Dwellings shell be free of vermin InhateBoNherborege g.e., cockroaches, files, mosquitoes, mltea, fleas, bedbugs, Re-Insp&eU n Data: 2/118021 FaoilNy Add.*: 2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD city121p: ROSEMEAD, CA 81710-364 Observed cockroaches (adult, nymph. egg casings and fecal 9") In the fctlowblg areas: Phone P. Erman Address: NONE SPECIFIED ENS: DIOSDADD YAP Melling Addreea: 2148 SAN GABRIEL BLVD, ROSEMEAD, CA 917708642 d. Room 348- approximately 5 coclaoabhes and evidence of Infestation. Tmeln: 1QWAM 71me Oub 01:30PM EN Omce Number. (213)351-0288 Program idmnN .. WA an approved onsite wastewater treatment system. Sewer fines shell not discharge to the ground surface or to a location other Mn Serelca COMPWNT INVESTIGAmON Result CORRECTNEAC 0t1/FOUDWUPREQURED AeBon: ftEH3PEOTION REDURED FA: FAD750282 PR: WA SR WA CO: COM4886 F;;7-2423 PICIOwner Signature DIOSDADO YAP ENS Signature Help us serve you better by oompletlng a short Survey. Visit o rweballe at www.publi heakth.lacounty.bov/eh. LI Page 1 of 3 Violation: Cockroaches -Unit Cockroaches Violation Text. Dwellings shell be free of vermin InhateBoNherborege g.e., cockroaches, files, mosquitoes, mltea, fleas, bedbugs, rals/mke). LACC/Tlle 11/Section 11.20.140; 11.20.18.11.20.170; 11.20.330; 11.30.01&., 11.30.050; 11,30.060:11.30.070; 11.30.080 CorreadmAction: Eliminate cockroaches and all evidence of cockroaches by safe. legal and effective methods In all units. Observed cockroaches (adult, nymph. egg casings and fecal 9") In the fctlowblg areas: a. Room 340- appnxximelaiy 20 cockroaches and evidence of infestation. b. Room 341- appmdmir" 10 coolaoschea and evidence of Infestation. c. Room 343- approximately 5 cockroaches end evidence of Infestation. d. Room 348- approximately 5 coclaoabhes and evidence of Infestation. Woletion: Sawer/Dreln Lienee - Unl Sewer/ Drain Linea Violation Taal: All plumbing drains end sewer Imes shall be water light, free flowing, and drain Into a municipal sewer system or Into an approved onsite wastewater treatment system. Sewer fines shell not discharge to the ground surface or to a location other Mn Intended. 11.20.140, 11.20.180, 11.38.042, 11.38.810, 11.38.700, 11.38.720,11.38.820 Comctive Action: Maintain all seweddraln Ilrras free from defects and free flowing. Observed leaking p trap under the sink outside the bathroom In Room 344. Violation: Appliances - Unit Appliances Violation Text ApplianceNFumishlrgs (Ie. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanities, shewirgs, etc) shall be maintained in good condition or repair. 11.20.160; 11.20.170; 1120.340 Corrective Action: Maintain all owner-supplbd appliances In good condition or repair. Observed personal refrigerator have dust dirt and other debris axomulated and enmuated In Interior and m0flor In Rooms 340, 341 and 345. Violation: Beddng - Unit Badding Violation Taxt Appllences/Fumishings (Le. supplied bedding, fumll re, counters, cabinets, vanities, shelvings, etc.) shag be maintained In good condition or repair. 11.2D.160; 11.20.171); 11.20.34D Connective Action: Maintain an owner -supplied bedding In good condition or repair. Observed dusk food, dirt and other dell's accumulated on mattress and box spring and damaged/detedoraled fabric on mattress and box spring In Robins 340, 341,343,344, 345, 346. PICIOwner Signature DIOSDADO YAP ENS Signature Help us serve you better by oompletlng a short Survey. Visit o rweballe at www.publi heakth.lacounty.bov/eh. LI Page 1 of 3 °"'OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT In 1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH �i� OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN 3630 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phorrs: (213) 3610288 VYWW.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNTY.COV/EH l" rw,,.awa,,.,,,. Pere eeuu Finley Name: FRIENDLY INN Inspection Dale: 1/21/2n21 Faa111ty Addreas: 2146 SANGABRIELBLVD Cey0p: ROSEMFAD,CAg1n7 4 Phone 9: FA: FADIa PR: [A Sfu WA co: COQ1645B5 PE 2123 Woleflon: Fumfture - Unit Furniture violation Text: Appliances/Furnishings g.s. supplied bedding, furniture, counter, cabinets, vanites, shelvings, etc.) shall be maintained In good condition or repair. 11,20.160;1120.170;11.20.340 Corrective Action: Maintain all owner -supplied furnishings In good co vitlon or repair. Observed wooden cabinets and drawers with dust dead cockroaches and other debris accumulation In Rooms 340, 341, 343, 344, 345,345. violation: Countsra, Cabinets, Vanities, Shelving, Ste. - Unit Counter, Cabinets, violation Text: A Ilancee/Fumishi s a. supplied PP ng h PPS bedding, furniture, counters cabinets, vanities, shelvinga, etc.) shall be Vanities maintained In good condition or repair. 11.20.190; 1120.170; 11.20.340 ShslOng, sta. Corrective Action: Maintain all owner-fumishacil built-in appliances and furnishings in good conedgkon or repair. Observed mining cabinet handles In most of the rooms (340, 341, 343, 344, 345 and 349). violation: Wall/Calling/Floor. General - Unit Wall / Calling / Floor - violation Taxa Wells / CaWngs / Flocs shall be maintained In good repair or condition. 11.20.140;11.20.160;11.20.170;11.20.190; General 11.20.340; Corrective Action; Repaiheplace all damaged, broken, buckled, missing, or deteriorated walls/callings. Observed to following: a. Water damaged calling above the metresa in Room 340, b. Water damaged calling in the bathroom In Room 344. c. Damaged door frame at the main entrance In Room 349. d. Damaged wall along to hallway outside Room 347. e. Walar damaged calling in perMng stall next to Room 111. L Damaged wall on 2nd end and floor below Room 347 and 247. I OVERALL INSPECTION COMMENTS I The purpose of this visit is to determine Compliance with Public health laws. City of Rosemead ordinance, local fine dept, shedfrs dept., building and safety, planning from the city of Rosemead. A multi agency task tome was scheduled and coordinated by Rosemead Public Safety, PIC/Owner Signature DIOSDADO YAP EHS Signature Help us a" you better by completing a short survey. Visit our weballe at www.nublbheallh.IacounN.00v/eh. Page 2 of 3 ".INk OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT W.W.1-111 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Inspection cora: ; OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN 2140 SAN GABRIEL BLVD Qty21p: 3530 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 50010 - Phone: (213) 381-0268 Phone a: VAMN.PUBLICHEALTH LACOUNTY.GOV/EH Facility Name: FRIENDLY INN Inspection cora: 71212021 FedBly Addreee: 2140 SAN GABRIEL BLVD Qty21p: ROSEMEAD. CA 81770-384 Phone a: FA: 17=50282 PR: N/A 58: WA CO: 000264885 PE: 24M It Is Improper and Illegal for any County officer, employee w Inspector to solldl bribee, gine or gratuities In connection with performing their official duos& Improper solicitations Include requests for anything of value such as cash, free services, paid travel or entertainment, or tangible Nemo such as food or beverages. Any attempt by a County employee to Wick bribee, gft or gratuities for any reason should be reported Immediately to either She County manager responsible for supervising the employee or the Fraud Hotline at (800) 544-3861 or www.lacoumvfraud.wa. YOU MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS. Failure to correct the violations by the cornolance dale may mauh In addldcnal fees. Your signature on this form does not constitute agreement with Its contents. You may discos this content of this report by comacting the supmvLaw at the phone number of the Environmental Health oMoe Indicated on front page of this repoR Until such time as a decision Is rendered by this departmanl, the content of this report shell remain In effect, By signing below the Person In Charge/Owner understands the above noted violations and statements. CALIFORNIA STATE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WARNING Section 17274 and 24438.5 of the State Revenue and Taxation code provide, In part, that a taxpayer, who derives rented Income from housing determined by the local regulakey agency to be substandard by reason of violation of State or local codes dealing with health, eatery, or Wilding, cannot deduct from Slate personal Income tax and bank and corporation income tax, deductions for interest, depreciation or taxes attributable to such substandard structure where the substandard conditions are not corrected within tux (6) months afar notice of violation by the regulatory agency. THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE MARKS THE BEGINNING OF THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD. The Department Is required by law to notify the Franchise Tax Board of failure to comply with these code sections. Please be advised that the above WARNING is for purpose of compliance with the State Revenue and Taxation Code Filly. Compliance with Health Laws as noted on the attached Inspection Report or Notice of Vlolatlon must be made within the Oma speGf ed on the report or notice. WARNING: You are hereby advised that corrections ordered by this reporUoffMW notice may disturb surfaces that may contain lead-based paint Laed-based palm can be commonly found in housing built prior to 1878. Prior to making any correctiona ordered and in conjunction with ropers or relabUbtion, you must determine If dead Is present In the dwelling unig luntmentlroont All conactive actions must be conducted in a manner that will protect occupants, workers, and other from exposure to contamination For further Information on load hazards call 1(800) LA -4 -LEAD. Exposure to intemal environmental elements, such as asbestos, mods, and n- Maw, dust Mea, droppings from oDduoaches and rodent, carbon monoxide, formadMyde, pesticides, and radon elw contribute to unheabhy housing environments. All corrective actions must be inducted In a manner that will protect occupants, workers, and others from exposure to these elements. PIC/Owner Signature DIOSDADO YAP FHS Signature Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit our websim at �.oublicbeaith.lecounN.aov7�. 1 Page 3of3 Attachment M CUP 88-447 Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD TRAVELODGE ROSEMEAD SOUTH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FEBRUARY 7, 1989 1. That the property be maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B. 2. That the project complies with Section 9181.1 (30) of the Rosemead Municipal Code except for subsections a, c, e, and o submitted and marked Exhibit C. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required City business licenses (i.e. Business Occupancy Permit, Business License, etc.) 4. The applicant shall sign a notarised affidavit of agreement with the above listed conditions and return it within ten days of approval to the City. SCUP447:3 Attachment N Written Public Comments From: 5i To: Public Comment subject: Regarding Public Hearing Df the Friendly Inn (April 5) Date: Sunday, March 28, 20215:51:12 PM Attachments: Video 4.mov Leak V Irn Leak Vid Lrnw Leak VW 2.mov Hello, we live next to the Friendly Inn on Graves Ave We have had many problems with the inn already regarding their maintenance and safety issues. Attached to this email are some pictures and videos of the problems The issues• -We have seen leaks coming down the walls and leaking through into the dirt on our side which also causes some sewer like smell coming from there. It is shown in the pictures/videos below. This is an ongoing issue over many years. -People living in the inn and tossing trash down from the balcony onto the grass (including beer bottles that end up shattering upon impact on the street). Some pictures of that are also attached (a few of countless instances of trash being littered everywhere). This seemed to happen for months since the street sweeping vehicle comes by every Friday to clean up. But we kept seeing the glass in different places everywhere. We have called the inn many times to resolve this issue, but they did not. -Bullet casings found about 4 different times on the street or sidewalk between my house and the inn. There are no bullet casings found elsewhere, so the issue arises with the people staying at the inn that are a danger to the neighborhood -Homeless, drunks, drug addicts. In the pictures, there is a grassy area that will often have homeless people trying to pitch a tent, drunks sleeping in the area, or drug addicts roaming this area causing a commotion, or very suspicious looking loiterers. This is right next to my house. We have had to call the police MULTIPLE times EVERY year because this inn attracts all sorts of bad people to the area. We cannot leave our house or even go out into our yard when this happens because we do not feel safe with these types of people around especially with older people in the house. -There have been inn customers that toss their cigarettes, bongs, and drug needles into our backyard from the balcony windows behind the inn (where the laundry is). -There are also some people that have been selling drugs over multiple years since we would see cars that would pull up in front of our house, mostly at night. They would park in front of my house, get out of the car and head in the direction of the inn for about 30 seconds to a minute, then come right back to their car with a pack in their hands. There is no reason to be in my neighborhood this late at night and heading to the direction of the inn since the entrance is on San Gabriel Blvd and not Graves Ave. All of these issues happen many times, not just once, but over the span of many years. Which is why we have to call the police many times every single year. Thank you, Eric r �I Y f ti' y ry4 -0.i{rY��• �YtisF� �i \ Y � t - x ' i f t dyw � r �I From: E& To: Public Cmnrnen Subject: In Regards to Friendly Inn Date: Sunday, April 4, 202110:29:27 PM Hello, this is Eric again, next door to the Friendly Inn. I forgot to add in my previous email that there is also possible prostitution that had been happening in the inn too. I was reminded of that while talking to the neighbors. So there is the issue of drugs, violence, gangs, and prostitution with this inn due to being so cheap, that it attracts all sorts of unwanted people. This only brings more problems to our neighborhood. Thanks, Eric From: Anthony Tran To: Nhilc rrynment Subject: Case No.: Modification (MOD) 21-01 Regarding Hardly Inn Date: Tuesday, March 30, 20216:30:58 PM Hello, I am writing this letter regarding the motel (Friendly Inn) on 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. I have many concerns regarding the security of our neighborhood due to this motel. We have many incidents in which people residing in the motel would trespass many homes around us. I have seen some people jumping out of the Friendly Inn's windows. They were always being chased by cops and many times when they run, they would jump into our yard and run all around to try to get away. It is a safety concern because it would frighten the elders we have at home. More importantly, if the people who live in the motel have weapons, it would not just result in us being frightened but also us possible getting injured or killed. If it becomes a shoot out between the police and those who live in the motel. Too many people would get affected and this neighborhood would be dragged through the dirt for having so many bad reviews. We are concerned for our lives and for everyone's life around us. We appreciate it if this matter can be taken rare of and thank you. Froin; 1 SSF SON To: Public =nn nt Subject: Fwd: Letter for Friendly Inn Comments Date: Sunday, April 4, 20217:45:46 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patricia Song Date: A ril 4 2021 at 2:39:42VM RPM To: Dad Subject: etter or en y n Comments to: nubliecommentasityofrosemead.org subject: Comments for Case No.: Modification (MOD) 21-01 - Friendly Inn, 2146 San Gabriel Blvd To the Rosemead Planning Commission, We would like to provide inputs and public comments for the Friendly Inn public hearing but are unable to attend the meeting. Our comments are as follow: As long-time neighbors of Friendly Inn, we would like to provide our comments regarding the recent activities and events that have taken place at Friendly Inn. The recent public safety issues surrounding Friendly Inn and those staying there are of great concern to the neighborhood. We hope that the city can help the owners of the property develop a safer environment at the Inn and in the neighboring area. We have, in the past year, experienced burglaries, porch - pirating, and trespassers in the area. We hope to be able to work together with the City and Friendly Inn in improving public safety and quality of life in the area. However, we also believe it is important to note that we value the presence of Friendly Inn and do not support any plans that would involve modifying or changing the property into higher -density housing. While we understand the need to address any housing supply and demand issues, we are strongly against any plan that may affect the housing values and already affected quality of life in the neighborhood. We believe modifying the safety and security requirements and developing a sustainable and concrete facility improvement plan can help resolve the existing public safety issues at Friendly Inn. Thank you. From: Lauraoam19 To: Public Comment Subject: REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT RE: FRIENDLY INN (MOTEL) Date: Monday, April 5, 20212:27:53 PM We are residents of Rosemead, CA and we received a Notice of Public Hearing on Case No.: MODIFICATION (MOD) 21-01. We live here for many years and things have changed a great deal since the operations going on at Friendly Inn. There have been numerous Firemen calls and ambulances at the said property and not very long ago even death in front of the motel. It is known that there are drug dealings and most likely sex trafficking going on in that facility as we notice suspicious loitering of people around the vicinity at dusk and even during the day and late at nights. There is a public Elementary School down the road on Graves Avenue and these illegal activities are not safe for the children living in this community. We see some kids walking home alone without adult supervision and passing through the motel. It is not safe for the kids to be walking by themselves, or even playing on the streets surrounding this motel due to this illegal activities going on. It is not a healthy environment anymore because of transients coming and going in that motel. There have been incidents of houses broken into in this community as well. Because of these problems we are witnessing and happening in our community, we sincerely request that this Friendly Inn (motel) be shut down due to illegal activities going on and it is not safe for the children and everyone else living in this community. We believe that this is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) GUIDELINES. We pray that the City of Rosemead shall keep our community safe and clean and would only permit business establishments who operate under the CEQA guidelines and all establishments be subject for regular inspections relating to their activities for the safety of our community. Respectfully, Residents of Rosemead Attachment O Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 5, 2021 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: APRIL 5, 2021 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SUMMARY On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-447 (CUP 88-447), which permitted a transfer of ownership for a motel use, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, in a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Due to recent activity and violations with the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the City is initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 to modify the conditions of approval to include operational and maintenance conditions, which includes a security system for the motel (Friendly Inn). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. In addition, Class 9 of Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, MOD 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 20 PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southeast corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves Avenue. According to the Los Angeles County Assessor's records, the site is approximately 28,870 square feet. On April 28, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 604 (attached as Exhibit "13% which permitted hotel and motel development in the C•3 and Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M-1) zones upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. According to Building and Safety Division records, the building permit for motel was issued on January 7, 1987 and building construction was finaled on July 15,1987. On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved CUP 88-447, which permitted the transfer of ownership of the existing 50 -unit motel. According to the staff report, the original motel was exempt from obtaining a CUP as the building permit was issued (January 7, 1987) before Ordinance 604 was adopted (April 28, 1987). Since a CUP was not required by the City for the motel use, it is assumed that the City required an approval of a CUP for the transfer of ownership. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Resolution 89-11 are attached as Exhibits "C", "D", and "E", respectively. According to business license records, the motel was transferred to the Friendly Inn in 1995. However, there are no records of the transfer of ownership in the CUP 88-447 case file. Since the CUP runs with the land, on March 9, 2021, the City issued an "Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit' for CUP 88-447 to the Friendly Inn. The business owners signed, notarized, and submitted the affidavit to the City on March 10, 2021. In reviewing the history of CUP 88-447, staff found that the staff report inadvertently applied the incorrect municipal code requirement "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)" for the CUP in 1989. The granting of the CUP was for a motel use and not for "any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-1, C-3, CBD and M zones and any establishment having an on -sale license for alcoholic beverages in the C-3, CBD and M -zones." While the staff report cited the incorrect municipal code requirement of "9181.1 — No. 20 (alcohol use)", Resolution 89-11 did approve a motel use. The intent of the aforementioned detailed description of the property history is to correct and clarify these issues. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 3 of 20 Elevation from San Gabriel Boulevard (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the Zoning Map it is designated as Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: South: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: East: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: West: General Plan: Zoning: Land Use: DISCUSSION Commercial and Low Density Residential Medium Commercial (C-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial and Residential Commercial and Low Density Residential Medium Commercial (C-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial and Residential Low Density Residential Single Family Residential (R-1) Commercial Commercial Medium Commercial (C-3) Commercial Since September 2020, the City's Public Safety Department (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division) has observed an increase in public safety concerns. According to the Public Safety Department, this includes thefts, violence, littering of Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 4 of 20 syringes, alcohol bottles, trash, and feces in the neighborhood, and the motel appears to be housing homeless people. On January 6, 2021, the City s Public Safety Department (LA County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division) and the Building and Safety Division conducted a compliance check on four rooms at the Friendly Inn. The Building Official observed that the rooms inspected were uninhabitable and presented a significant danger to the life and health of any occupant(s). Due to the severity of the findings for the rooms inspected, the Building Official arranged additional inspections for the other guest rooms with the motel management and the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, City's Public Safety Department (LA County Sheriff's Department and Code Enforcement Division), Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department, on January 21et, 26th, 27th, and 28th. Based on the inspections conducted, it was determined that the Friendly Inn is in violation of CUP 88-447, the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC), Los Angeles County Building Code, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. In addition, the Chief of Police has noted a significant increase in criminal activity at the Friendly Inn. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Inspection was issued to the business owner (also the property owner) that an inspection was scheduled for March 23, 2021, for the remaining 18 rooms that have not been inspected. On March 23, 2021, the City's Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department conducted an inspection of 15 rooms. Of the 18 rooms noticed, only 13 rooms were available. The other five rooms were occupied. In addition, the business owner requested an inspection of two additional rooms. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and Los Angeles County Fire Department were invited to the inspection, however, were unable to attend. The details of the violations and concerns from each division or agency can be found below. Planning Division On February 17, 2021, the Planning Division issued the Friendly Inn a letter which addressed the violations to CUP 88-447 (attached as Exhibit "F°). The violations include guests occupying rooms for more than 30 consecutive days; daily room cleaning services are not being provided; registration records of guests are not being kept; food preparation equipment such as toaster ovens, grills, and skillets were found in the rooms; and inconsistency between business owner names on their Business License and Applicant Affidavit for CUP 88-447. The letter also notified the business owner that the City would be initiating a modification to CUP 88-447 to incorporate additional operational and security conditions designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. On March 23, 2021, staff noted that there were property maintenance issues that require improvements. This includes parking lot re -slurry seal, restriping of parking spaces (including ADA spaces), adding a self-closing gate latch to the trash enclosure doors, replacing all broken exterior light fixtures, maintaining the landscape planters, and replacing dilapidated awnings. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to address the property maintenance issues. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 5 of 20 Building and Safety Division On February 17, 2021, the Building and Safety Division issued a formal Notice of Building Code Violation (attached as Exhibit "G"), which included violations that require immediate action, such as missing wall light fixtures, recessed ceiling light fixtures installed without permits, water damage on walls and ceilings, missing smoke detectors, and hazardous ungrounded or mis- wired electrical receptacles. Many of the violations were deemed to be potentially hazardous or unhealthy to human occupancy and as such, the Building Official also posted some of the guest rooms with a "yellow tag" (restricted use) which prohibits the rooms from being occupied and only allows entry for the purposes of making repairs or retrieving personal property. The inspection of the 18 rooms on March 23, 2021, revealed that two rooms had minor deficiencies and may be occupied; six rooms were posted with a yellow tag due to current un- inhabitable conditions, however, repairs are in progress; and seven rooms were posted with a yellow tag and found to have significant deficiencies. To date, 21 rooms have minor or no deficiencies; 23 rooms have been posted with a yellow tag and/or are currently under repair With active permits; and five rooms have not been inspected and may be occupied for more than 30 days. Since the business owner failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection, the Building Official will impose a non-compliance fee, which must be paid prior to further inspections. Code Enforcement Division Since September 2020, the Code Enforcement Division has issued several warning notices and citations to the Friendly Inn. The violations include graffiti inside the rooms, on the exterior walls, and in the parking lot; storage of junk and furniture in plain view, within the parking lot, in the carport, under the stairwell, and in the walkways of the motel; inoperable in -room telephones; inoperative vehicles in the parking lot from motel guests; renting of rooms in excess of 30 days; abandonment of shopping carts on the property; little to no housekeeping; registration records of guests not detailed or incomplete; and guests being registered to multiple rooms with the same names. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a violation notice to the Friendly Inn on January 21, 2021 and January 27, 2021. A copy of both Inspection Reports are attached as Exhibit "H". The violations include vermin infestation/harborage; sewer line discharge; dilapidated appliances, vanities, cabinets, furnishings, ceilings, walls, and flooring; faucet and toilet maintenance and repairs; window repair and/or replacements; and garbage, rubbish, and refuse removal. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department On February 19, 2021, the Chief of Police provided a crime summary for the Friendly Inn. The summary indicates the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department has developed information Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 6 of 20 that the Friendly Inn is considered a safe haven for gang members and criminals. In addition, suspects who have committed crimes or hiding from law enforcement are residing at the Friendly Inn. Furthermore, the Rosemead Sheriff's Department Team has arrested numerous suspects at the Friendly Inn who were hiding and wanted for serious crimes such as murder, cadacking, assault, and robbery. The Sheriffs Department investigation also revealed that video surveillance relating to a murder was deleted. The crime summary from January 1, 2018 thru February 19,2021 showed 237 calls for service/responses, which include two murders since June 2020, three shootings since September 2020, 12 aggravated assaults, 19 stolen/recovered vehicles,17 narcotics related arrests, and other crimes. The details are provided below: • LASD Report No. 018-00183-0533-051: On January 5, 2018, a gang -on -gang shooting occurred where two rival gang members shot at each other numerous times. • LASD Report No. 918-00234-0533-733: On January 6, 2018, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 918-01451-0533-152: On February 2, 2018, a suspect was arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. • LASD Report No. 918-03457-0533-733: On March 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 018-02162-0533-035: On April 19, 2018, a robbery occurred where a suspect pointed a firearm at the victim and stole his personal belongings. • LASD Report No. 918-05074-0533-185: On April 26, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 918-05485-0533-144: On May 6, 2018, two suspects were arrested for fighting. • LASD Report No. 018-05939-0533-146: On May 17, 2018, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 918-06506-0533-037: On May 28, 2018, a robbery occurred. Numerous suspects pointed a gun at the victim and stole his wallet. • LASD Report No. 018-06587-0533-146: On May 30, 2018, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 918-07333-0533-733: On June 14, 2018, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. • LASD Report No. 918-10269-0533-399: On August 15, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 918-10697-0533-185: On August 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of narcotics, paraphernalia, and stolen items. • LASD Report No. 918-10695-0533-117: On August 20, 2018, a suspect was arrested for possession of numerous stolen property relating to identity theft. • LASD Report No. 918-12270-0533-091: On September 19, 2018, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 018-13780-0533-172: On October 23, 2018, deputies arrested a suspect for child abuse on two victims. The suspect was also under the influence of a controlled substance. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 7 of 20 • LASD Report No. 018-14620-0533-402: On November 9, 2018, deputies responded to the location regarding a missing juvenile. • LASD Report No. 918-14563-0533-733: On November 9, 2018, deputies arrested a suspect for driving a stolen vehicle. • LASD Report No. 018-14902-0533-402: On November 15, 2018, deputies responded to the location regarding a missing juvenile. • LASD Report No. 918-15379-0533-185: On November 29, 2018, deputies arrested two suspects for possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 918-16546-0533-733: On December 29, 2018, a stolen vehicle was recovered at the location. • LASD Report No. 919-00605-0533-384: On December 31, 2018, items were stolen from a vehicle. • LASD Report No. 919-02983-0533-185: On March 3, 2019, a suspect was arrested for possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 919-04100-0533-181: On April 3, 2019, two suspects were arrested for possession of narcotics for sales. • LASD Report No. 019-04265-0533-091: On April 7, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 919-06208-0533-091: On May 20, 2019, a vehicle was stolen from location. • LASD Report No. 019-08048-0533-146: On June 30, 2019, a suspect was arrested for spousal assault. • LASD Report No. 919-08729-0533-117: On July 15, 2019, a suspect was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle and possession of stolen property relating to identity theft. • LASD Report No. 919-09262-0533-255: On July 28, 2019, a suspect was arrested for driving without a license. • LASD Report No. 919-09740-0533-399: On August 8, 2019, two suspects were arrested for possession of stolen property and paraphernalia. • LASD Report No. 919-14876-0532-091: On December 9, 2019, a vehicle was stolen. • LASD Report No. 920-00808-0533-093: On January 20, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 920-01200-0530-093: On January 29, 2020, deputies saw a stolen vehicle parked at the location. They reviewed surveillance footage and identified two suspects staying at the location. Both suspects were arrested for numerous charges of driving a stolen vehicle, possession of a controlled substance, paraphernalia, and possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 920-00780-1461-091: On February 6, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-02244-0533-181: On February 18, 2020, deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop of vehicle leaving the location. After a brief vehicle pursuit, the suspect collided into a curb and fled on foot. While hiding from deputies, the suspect kidnapped and held a victim against his will. The suspect was ultimately arrested. He was also in possession of a loaded firearm and controlled substances for sale. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 8 of 20 • LASD Report No. 920-02438-0533-185: On February 22, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a person with a gun call. Deputies located a suspect and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02763-0533-185: On February 29, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot and arrested one suspect for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-02808-0533-733: On March 1, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 020-03173-0535-050: On March 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding domestic violence. The suspect struck the victim and fled the location. • LASD Report No. 920-04420-0532-091: On April 12, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from the location. • LASD Report No. 020-06046-0533-053: On May 20, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a fight. The victim was stabbed in the head by an unknown suspect. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Covina Police Department): On June 9, 2020, the Rosemead Team assisted Covina Police Department in locating and arresting a suspect wanted for murder. The suspect committed a murder the prior week and was hiding at the location. • LASD Report No. 020-07154-0533-058: On June 10, 2020, the Fire Department responded to the location regarding a power outage. They attempted to rescue two people stuck in an elevator. A suspect challenged a firefighter to a fight and struck his arm. The suspect was arrested for assaulting a firefighter. • LASD Report No. 920-07635-0533-733: On June 21, 2020, deputies arrested a suspect for driving a stolen vehicle inside the parking lot. The suspect was also in possession of burglary tools. • LASD Report No. 020-07764-0532-011: On June of 2020, a murder occurred at the location. Active Investigation. • LASD Report No. 920-08216-0533-185: On July 4, 2020, deputies conducted a traffic stop inside the parking lot. One suspect was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-08549-0533-733: On July 11, 2020, a stolen vehicle was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-09404-0533-185: On August 1, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding an assault with a deadly weapon. The deputies were unable to locate a victim. They located and arrested a suspect who was in possession of a knife and narcotics. • LASD Report No. 020-10871-0533-151 and 020-10865-0533-051: On September 10, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a gunshot victim. One victim was shot in his upper body. During the investigation, they recovered a loaded firearm and arrested a suspect. • LASD Report No. 920-11100-0532-183: On September 16, 2020, deputies conducted a patrol check of the parking lot. Deputies contacted a suspect who was under the influence of a controlled substance and arrested the suspect. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 9 of 20 • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by Santa Monica Police Department): On September 26, 2020, a carjacking occurred in Santa Monica where an elderly lady was pistol whipped numerous times on the head. After the catjacking, the suspect drove to the Friendly Inn. Deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop. After a brief pursuit, two suspects abandoned their vehicle and fled on foot. Two suspects were arrested, and a firearm was recovered. • LASD Report No. 920-09699-0533-185: On October 8, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. Two suspects were arrested in the parking lot for possession of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 920-12016-0533-185: On October 9, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the parking lot of the location. A suspect was found to be in possession of narcotics and paraphernalia and was arrested. • LASO Report No. 920-12624-0533-145: On October 23, 2020, a deputy was patrolling the location and saw a traffic violation. The suspect ran away from the deputy and a fight ensued. The deputy was injured during the fight. During the incident, an angry crowd from the motel gathered around the deputy. • LASD Report No. 920-12892-0533-091: On October 30, 2020, a vehicle was stolen from thelocation. • LASD Report No. 020-13290-0533-449: On November 9, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance -domestic violence. There was a verbal argument only. • LASD Report No. 920-13566-0533-183: On November 16, 2020, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance. The suspect was throwing items at parked vehicles. They arrested a suspect in the parking lot for being under the influence of a controlled substance. • LASD Report No. 020-14191-0533-051: On December 3, 2020, three victims were sitting in a parked vehicle inside the parking lot. A suspect approached and began shooting at the victims. Two victims were struck by gunfire. • LASD Report No. 920-15269-0533-261: On December 30, 2020, a vehicle was vandalized. • LASD Report No. 020-00046-0533-011: On January 2, 2021, a murder occurred at the location. One victim was shot and died. Active Investigation. • Report Number Not Identified (Investigation lead by a jurisdiction in Orange County): On January 6, 2021, deputies arrested one suspect for a no bail parole warrant and possession of narcotics and a second suspect for a robbery that occurred in Orange County. Los Angeles County Fire Department The Los Angeles County Fire Department has informed City staff that the Friendly Inn is in violation of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, however, was unable to release the violations to the City due to confidentiality reasons. Planning Commisswn Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 10 of 20 Modification to CUP 88-447 — Proposed Amendment to Conditions of Approval Due to the public safety concerns and violations raised by the City's Public Safety Department, Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the City initiated the modification of CUP 88-447 to modify and update the conditions of approval for the motel use. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 and included limited conditions of approval which are no longer consistent with the current operational standards for motels/hotels, as codes have been updated over the last 32 years. A copy of the conditions of approval for CUP 88-447, approved in 1989, is attached as Exhibit "I". Since the conditions of approval are outdated, staff has drafted new conditions of approval for Modification 21-01, which will supersede the original conditions of approval for CUP 88-447. The proposed conditions of approval will ensure that the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. Staff has incorporated a condition of approval requiring the motel to comply with the operational standards in RMC Chapter 5.42 and RMC Section 17.30.130. In addition, staff has also included maintenance conditions to ensure the site is adequately maintained. Based on the public safety concerns described in the crime summary, the Chief of Police has requested that the following security measures be incorporated into the conditions of approval for Modification 21-01: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 15t, 2nd, and 3'd floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. c Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Planning Commission Meeting Aprll5, 2021 Page 11 of 20 Security Guards o Two -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times. o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. To date, the business owner of the Friendly Inn has been working with City staff, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Los Angeles County Public Health Department on addressing some of the violations. In addition, they will install a new security system as recommended by the Chief of Police. Furthermore, the business owner has indicated to staff that they would also like to comply with the current RMC requirements as they relate to the operation and maintenance of a motel use. Written Comments Received The City has received two written public comments. On March 28, 2021, the City's Clerk's Office received an email from a neighboring resident (Eric Wu). The neighboring resident informed the City that there are drainage issues that are spilling from the Friendly Inn onto his property to the east. In addition, he expressed his concerns on patrons of the hotel littering; bullet casings found in the public right-of-way; and homeless, alcohol, and drug issues. The details of his concerns are attached as Exhibit "J" and will be read at the Planning Commission Meeting. On March 30, 2021, the City's Clerk's Office received a second email from a neighboring resident (Anthony Tran). The neighboring resident expressed his concerns regarding the security of the neighborhood and incidents that have occurred with patrons residing at the Friendly Inn. The details of his concerns are attached as Exhibit "K" and will be read at the Planning Commission Meeting. The City's Building Official is currently reviewing the drainage issues that were raised by resident Eric Wu. Staff anticipates that the approval of Modification 21-01 and working closely with the business owner will assist in mitigating the safety, maintenance, and operational concerns raised by both residents. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 12 of 20 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS The underlying CUP (CUP 881147) continues to satisfy RMC Section 17.132.040 (B) through (E) and will remain unchanged as part of this modification. The proposed modifications are consistent with RMC Section 17.132.040(A). Per RMC Section 17.168.030, the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessaryto ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. RMC Section 17.168.040(A)(1) provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvementluse allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 with limited conditions of approval. Due to the public safety concerns raised by the Chief of Police and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and violations with the Building and Safety, Planning, and Code Enforcement Divisions and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the motel operation is creating conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and creating a nuisance. Modification 21-01 will update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in RMC Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in- Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 2021 Page 13 of 20 room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to (47) properly owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on March 25, 2021, and postings of the notice at five (5) public locations. Prepared by: -�4 Lily Valenzuela Planning& Economic Development Manager Submitted by: Angelica Frausto-Lupo Director of Community Development EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 21-02 with Attachment "A" B. Ordinance 604 C. Planning Commission Staff Report (dated February 6, 1989) D. Planning Commission Minutes (dated February 6, 1989) E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-11 F. Planning Division CUP Violation Letter G. Building Division Notice of Violation H. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Inspection I. CUP 88-447 Conditions of Approval J. Public Comment (dated March 28, 2021) K. Public Comment (dated March 30, 2021) (Conditions of Approval) Reports (APN: 8577-009-026) Attachment P Planning Commission Minutes Dated April 5, 2021 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 5, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:25 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Tang INVOCATION — Commissioner Leung ROLL CALL — Commissioners Bony, Leung, Tang, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausfo-Lupo, Assistant City Manager Kim, Planning S Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong, Building Official Fliehmann, and Commisslon Liaison Hung EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Aitomey Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal this of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Lopez opened and dosed the Public Comment period. 3. ' PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (MCA) 2141 — The proposed Residential Small Lot Ordinance (°Small Lot Ordinarnce7 amends various sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code Title 17 ('Zoning') by defining and establishing standards to allow the oonstmction of homes on small lots with fee -simple ownership in the R-3 ("Medium Multiple Residential) zone. The Small Lot Ordinance creates incentives for infill residential development in areas zoned for mult4amily to spur more fee -simple hosing production and will not increase the allowed density permitted in the R-3 zone. The goal is to create now homeownership opportunities compared to that of traditional single-family homes or condominiums. PC RESOLUTION 21-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 998 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21.01, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING DEFINITION FOR SMALL LOT AND AMENDING THE DEFINITION FOR LOT AREA TO SECTION 17.04.050; AMENDING SECTION 17.12.010.0 TO INCLUDE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.020 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.020.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.030 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.030.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; ADDING SECTION 17.12.030.B.2.g FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING SECTION 17.138.030A TO ADD SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. RoaerraWPknft CoemYsece Ala ft Mhft ofApr 4 2021 Page 1 of 13 Assistant City Manager Kim presented the Staff Report. He recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony, end ADOPT Resolution No. 21.04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Commissioner Bony asked what other cities are Implementing this, and what are the benefits other than owning a part of the land. Assistant City Manager dim replied the City of Los Angeles started this Small Lot Subdivision, which was adopted in 2005. Subsequently after that, various other cities such as Westminster, Santa Ana, Costa Masa, Burbank have adopted a similar type of ordinance, and cities such as Orange and Pomona are also in the process for review. He explained that traditionally, condominiums would mandate a property owner to join a Homeowner Association (HOA). It could be costly for homeowners as there are fees required to be part of a HOA, in addition to their mortgage. This Implementation will help save each homeowner a fee into the HOA itself. Chair Lopez asked If we received any public comments. Commission Liaison Huang replied no public comment was received for this item. City Attorney Thuyen confirmed that there are no members of the public on the phone who would like to speak on this item There being no pubic comment, Chair Lopez dosed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tang welcomed and thanked Assistant City Manager Kim for the staff report He stated, Commissioner Vuong was initially on the Housing Development Subcommittee and attended the first meeting, and subsequently, he attended the second meeting. He added that when they walked through the small lot subdivision presentation at the Horsing Development Subcommittee meeting, he thought this was a nice tool to encourage development and build homes for residents to live in Rosemead. He expressed that this is the innovative and creative thinking needed to address the (rousing and development needs in our community, and if successful, he heves other cities in the San Gabriel Valley would also follow. Commissioner Berry asked if this is specifically for the small lot sizes with a few units. Assistant City Manager Kim replied if you were to physically view the project itself, you would not be able to see the difference between a small lot subdivision and a traditional two- or three-story ownhome project as they both look and function very sanilady. He added, the only difference is that there is a little gap between each unlit, and each individual unit sits on its own foundation and there is no attachment between the units themselves. He also added, the physical gap establishes a property line between the Individual units and physically, it would be difficult o distinguish a small lot subdivision versus a traditional ownhome project. Commissioner Berry inquired If there are any special amenities like a traditionmal ownhome project, or if it is simply a driveway and a couple of small frames, where they can own the land underneath as well. Assistant City Manager Kim concurred, owning the land will provide fee ownership of the property, and If a homeowner was looking at creating value to their purchase, there are substantial benefits of owning the lard versus going into a townhome, where you own the building but do not own the property in fee. He said, in title, the homeowner owns the property in fee versus traditional condominiums. Commissioner Tang stated that it does not have to be small frames on the lot, it can be one- or two-story traditional ownhones. Assistant City Manager Kim clarified that the home Is not small. The lot itself is traditionally small with a standard sized hone. RoaemeeOW4 rx� Mewing M6edeeorAP 2021 Pege 2 0119 Chair Lopez asked what the size of each unit will be. Assistant City Manager Win stated it would depend on the size of the project, but it would be a .typical townhome size, ranging from 1,200 sq 1t to 1,800 sq it. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bony, to: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01. Vote resulted In: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent None Roll call vote resulted In 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. MODIFICATION (MOD) 21.01- On February 6,1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 88-447 (CUP 88447), which permitted a transfer of ownership for a motel use, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, in a Medium Commercial (C3) zone. Due to recent activity and violations with the City's Public Safety Department (Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement Division), Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, and Los Angeles County Fire Department the City is initialing a modification to CUP 88.447 by modifying the conditions of approval to include operational conditions and a security system for the motel (Friendly inn). PC RESOLUTION 21-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-01, A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88447 TO IMPOSE UPDATED AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR THE MOTEL USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE (APN: 5283-036-032) STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented the Staff Report She recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and approve MOD 21-01, subjeotto Bre 21 cordltiorns. Commissioner Tang asked law many roans are available ff the motel is at a hundred percent capacity and what Is the definffbn of motel use in our Municipal Code. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valemwela replied 50 rooms would be occupied at a hundred percent rapacity. She added the requirements for a motel use Is listed in Section 17.30.130, which defines the minimum numbers of rooms, and the minimum requirements that a motel should have; anything under 50 rooms would typically be considered a motel. Commissioner Tang asked 9 there is a limit to the duration of stay, and how is it different from a short-term rental or a hotel use. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied according to our Code, it is 30 days. Short-term rental is not permitted in the City, and a hotel use must submit transient occupancy tax. Rommeed Premdp cow, Waft mWes of Apd A2021 PW30f13 Commissioner Tang asked if there Is transient occupancy tax for motel use and asked if the City conducts an audit on their tax or transient occupancy tax. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, there is a transient occupancy tax and believes the City does collect from them. Commissioner Tang mentioned the Staff Report stated that the owners do not maintain records of guests that stay and suggested the City address this by conducting an annual audit to ensure their records are maintained. Commissioner Tang asked If a guest maximized their allowed 30 -day stay, could they leave for a day, and come back to stay for an additional 30 days. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the Code does have requirements for extended days; the applicant (busliness owner) must apply for an extended stay in their CUP If they want guests to stay more than 30 consecutive days. Commissioner Tang asked If they stay for 30 consecutive days, leave, and come back, would that restart it to 30 consecutive days again? He indicated that this could be a loophole. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela asked to address the nexd question while she reviews the transient occupancy tax and 30 -day occupancy requirements. Commissioner Berry asked if them are any issues with similar hotels or motels in disrepair, not keeping -up to code, etc., and what are we doing about those. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered we did not encounter any issues in terms of planning and zoning requirements with the other hotels. She added the Chief of Police is on the line to address any crime issues. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong stated as far as he is aware, there are no other motels or hotels in the City with anything near the crime activities that the Friendly Inn has had. Chair Lopez asked if they are still in operation. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela answered yes, the Friendly Inn is open, but is not operating with fug capacity. Chair Lopez asked even with the modification, how will Friendly Inn get things straightened out. He indicated that they have not followed the rules for years, what is our plans with them to get thNs straightened out Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that the Chief of Police recommended several security measures, and with these security measures, it would help alleviate the crime activities. Regarding the violation from the Planning, Building and Safety and the Code Enforcement Division, they are working closely with the business owner to ensure all violations are corrected. In the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP), they did not have many operational conditions of approval. She added the City initiated the modification with these conditions to correct these issues. Chair Lopez asked if the business owner is willing to make these changes. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela indicated that the business owner is on the line to speak. Chair Lopez noted he would like to hear from the business owner and said there is still violence going on even with a few of the rooms closed. He added that he understands the owner is trying to make some changes, but how will the City go about Ro W*W PW" CaruMssla7 Maeaq Mkxm aAW 2021 Pepe 4of13 making these changes? City Attorney Thuyen provided a background that this motel was operated awhile back before there were some extensive regulations and there was a CUP Issued. That CUP did not have a lot of operational conditions and a part of the purpose here is to have a more specific expectation and standards for this motel use to operate in the manner that is safer and more organized. He said it would be the first step which gives the City some remedies in terms of enforcing CUP or impose citation If there are additional violations. He added there are more specific standards, and hopefully with the condition of approval, some of the health and public safety Issues that were presented from the previous operation would be addressed. He also added staff is suggesting first to do a modification for the CUP, so we can have more specificity as to what the expectations are for motel operation. He continued that hf there are violations, more standards can be enforced again. Chair Lopez asked if the modification passes, will the business close their operation to make these changes, or will it be an ongoing process which they will clean up as people are still staying there? City Attorney Thuyen suggested deferring to staff. He added that these things do not happen ovemight and takes a little time to get everything worked out, but this is a start and there will be some more specific regulations that can help reach our and goal. Chair Lopez answered very good. Referring to Commissioner Tangs question about the transient occupancy tax, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela referred to Municipal Code Section 5.42030 — °Letting rooms in excess of thirty days prohibited'. She read, "No rooms shall be rented to persons whose occupancy exceeds thirty (30) consecutive days or exceeds thirty (30) days in any sixty (60) consecutive day period, unless such extended occupancy is authorized pursuant to a conditional use permit as provided in Section 17.112.030. This provision shall not apply to a maximum of one unit per motel or hotel complex designated for a manager's occupancy." Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela for the clarification. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela provided the definition of a motel. She read; 'Motel means one or more buildings containing guest rooms without kitchen facilities, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building designed and used as rental for temporary or overnight accommodations for guests and are offered primarily to automobile tourists or transients, with garages or parking spaces conveniently located to each room or unit' Chair Lopez and Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela. There being no public comment, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Hearing Representative Mr. Andrew Chen spoke on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Li Yuen Chen, who is the business owner of Friendly Inn and presented his statement. He stated the motel has been a part of his family for over 30 years, and ownership was transferred to his rather 23 years ago. He expressed how his family has operated and maintained this business relatively smoothly for a few decades. However, recent events have led to certain issues they are eager to address. He along with his mother, reviewed the Staff Report for Modification (MOD) 21-01 and went through all the conditions listed and stated they do not have issues complying with the majority of the conditions. However, there are a few requirements he would like to discuss. He addressed Ordinance No. 604, Item N, which stated rooms are not allowed refrigerators. Mr. Chen stated they would like to comply with the latest Municipal Code Section 5.42.140, which allows a small refrigerator for drinks. He added, a few of the modifications requested by the Chief of Police are not financially feasible. He expressed that installing a new surveillance system would be beneficial to the business and the community, however, adding ten (10) cameras on each floor is excessive. He indicated the first floor has much fewer moms than the upper two quarters, and even than, he does not see RWMW dPkmhp CarcMselan Meeltnp Mkufes of AW 5, 2021 Pegs 5 of 13 areas to Install no more than 7 cameras for each floor. He spoke with Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela to request the Chief of Police stop by the motel, so he can help determine which location makes sense to install the cameras. Other than that, had no other any Issues with the other camera requirements from the Chief of Police. The second issue he addressed was the requirement of armed security guards. He understands the Chief of Police's concern to have armad security guards on site, however, he stated it is not financially feasible to maintain two -armed security guards 24 hours a day. He was quoted for $25 per hour for each armed security guard, which adds up to $1,200.per day. In their current state, they have rooms which are yellowed tagged and are currently in the process of doing a large-scale renovation, so daily Income Is less than $600. He stated at full,capacity, it would bring in $3,250 per day. Mr. Chan emphasized as a small business, allocating over a third of their total Income is not financially feasible, which leaves their business with no profit margin. He said they are eager to find a solution that works for the business, the City, and the community. They are currently remodeling all the rooms and have eliminated and blacklisted undesirable guests. He added their goal is to improve their standing in the community and rebuild a good relationship with neighbors and expressed they A do whatever it takes to comply with these modifications. He requested that the feasibility of these mandates is taken Into cwnsideretlon. Commissioner Leung asked wrist the business Is going to do differently to make sure record keeping is accurate and present compared to the past. Mr. Chen replied they train their employees to take down all guests' card and license information. They are trying to keep track of all the vehicles and will have employees check the customers' license plate Information and all the things required by the Cly. Commissioner Leung asked when the business blacklists someone, is it based on their legal California ID and database for reference? How do you blacklist a person? , Mr. Chan replied they do not have any criminal records or information on probation or parole. He stated it is based on previous experience whether they destroyed a room or are not a good guest They created a list which staff references. Commissioner Tang questioned how marry employees are employed. Mr. Chen replied six employees. Commissioner Tang questioned employee roles. Mr. Chen stated four at the front desk staff and two housekeepers. Commissioner Tang questioned the business hours? .Mr. Chen stated the business is open 24 -hours and they always have someone at the front desk. Commissioner Tang questioned If a guest stops by at midnight, would you check the guest in? Mr. Chan stated that if a guest comes in at midnight, they can still be checked in. Commissioner Tang notsd he is aware that the business wants to make Improvements on the property, and added we only have criminal records for the past three years and mentioned how Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzusla reported there has been 237 calls to your location. He questioned If the Sheriffs comes to the motel 79 times per year, if that raises any concern to address these issues. Mr. Chen explained how some of the calls were incidents that happened outside the motel, such as occurrences that happened around the intersection. He added, he is aware that there is a lot of calls but not all calls were related•to their Rosemead Pbv*g Qumice m Afn ft Apeus o(Apr35 201 PapeW13 guests, and they are trying their best to make it abetter place Commissioner Tang mentioned he is aware that Mere are activities that occur outside their property boundaries. He mentioned how he lives very close to the Friendly Inn and notices crmre activities are rampant in this area - discarded alcoholic containers, cigarette buds, and people riding bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night He added that a lot of the patrons go through the residential streets to go to the Friendly Inn. He also added, these occurrences are not included on the statistics listed on the Staff Report and stated their business impacts the neighborhood. Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong how many incidents were associate with guests of the motel. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong responded based on the crime report listed in the Staff Report, none of those Involved Incidents that occurred somewhere else (where someone walks to the Friendly Inn to report the crime). He said all the incidents outlined In the Staff Report are Incidents that occurred directly at Friendly Inn and involves the guests or their Mends that are staying with them. Chief of Police Lleutenard Duong emphasized that two murders have occurred at this single location. He added that he was assigned to Temple Station since December of 2013, and during the past 7 years, there has not been a single location in the City of Rosemead that has had two murders occur. He also pointed out that there have been multiple other shootings and if arose victims died, it would have been six murders to data. He added, aside from what is listed In the alma report, he recently had a conversation with a mother who lives right down the street She had communicated with him that due to the clientele that this establishment has brought to the City, she cannot walk her children down the shat. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized that this area has gotten bad and urges the recommendations he put forth to help make the City a bit safer. Commissioner Berry asked Mr. Chen who oversees the sic employees and what is his role in the business. Mr. Chen responded that his mother oversees the six employees. He assists with the maintenance at the establishment, and he works somewhere else. Chair Lopez opened the public commend period. Commission Liaison Huang stated four public comments were received. Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo read the public comments: 1. Public Comment received on March 28e via email from Eric Wu: Hello, we live next to the Friendly Inn on Graves Ave. We have had marry probes with the inn already regarding their maintenance and safety issues. Attached to this email are some pictures and videos of the problems. The issues: -We have seen leaks coming down the walls and leaking through into the dirt on our side which also causes some sewer like smell coming from there. It is shown in the plctures/videos below. This is an ongoing issue over many )^ears. -People living in the inn and tossing trash down from the balcony onto the grass (including beer bottles that end up shattering upon impact on the street). Some pictures of that are also attached (a few of countless instances of trash being littered everywhere). This seemed to happen for months since the street sweeping vehicle comes by every Friday to dean up. But we kept seeing the glass in dt(ferent places everywhere. We have called the inn many times to resolve this Issue, but they did riot ftMrAWFZW 6g WW&SkO M9OMq Wan ofAW A 2021 Pepe 7 W13 -Bullet casings found about 4 different times on the street or sidewalk between my house and the inn. There are no bullet casings found elsewhere, so the issue arises with the people staying at the inn that are a danger to the neighborhood. -Homeless, drunks, drug addicts. In the pictures, there is a grassy area that will often have homeless people trying to pitch a tent, drunks sleeping in the area, or drug addicts roaming this area causing a commotion, or very suspicious kinking loiterers. This is right nred to my Crouse. We have had to call the police MULTIPLE Imes EVERY year because this Inn attracts all sorts of bad people to the area. We cannot leave our house or even go out into our W when this happens because we do not feel safe with two types of people around especially with older people in the house. -There have been inn customers that toss their cigarettes, bongs, and drug needles into our backyard from the balcony windows behind the inn (where the laundry is). -There are also some people that have been selling dogs over multiple years since we would see cars that would pull up in front of our house, mostly at night They would park in front of my house, get out of the car and head in the direction of the Inn for about 30 seconds to a minute, then come right back to their car with a pack in their hands. There is no reason to be in my neighborhood this We at night and heading to the direction of the Inn since the entrance is on San Gabriel Blvd and not Graves Ave. 1 All of these Issues happen many times, not just once, but over the span of many years. Which is why we have to call the police many Imes every single year. Thank you. nd email received on Aoril 51h from Eric Wu: Hello, this Is Eric again, text door to the Friendly Inn. I forgot to add in my previous email that there is also possible prostitution that had been happening in the inn too. I was reminded of that while talking to the neighbors. So there is the !saw of drugs, viderroe, gangs, and prosttuton with this inn due to being so cheap, that it attracts all sorts of unwanted people. This only brings mote problems to our neighborhood. Thank you. 2. Public Comment received on March 30s via email from Anthony Tran: Hello, I am writing this later regarding the motel (Friendly Inn) on 2146 San Gabriel Blvd. I have many concems regarding the security of our neighborhood due to this motel. We have many incidents in which people residing in the motel would trespass many homes around us. i have seen some people jumping out of the Friendly Inn's windows. They were always being chased by cops and many times when they run, they would jump into our yard and run all around to try to get away. it is a safety concern because it would frighten the elders vie have at home. More importantly, if the people who live in the motel have weapons, it would riot just result In us being frightened but also us possible getting injured or kited. If it becomes a shootout between the police and those who live in the motel. Too many people would get affected and this neighborhood would be dragged through the dirt for having so many bad reviews. We are concerned for our lives and for everyone's IN around us. We appreciate t if this mater can be taken care of and thank you. 3. Public Comment received on April 41h via email from Patricia Sono: To the Rosemead Planning Commission, rsoWnWmwWdftc�n oraPas eau Pope a W 13 We would like to provide inputs and public comments for the Friendly Inn public hearing but are unable to attend the meeting. Our comments are as follow: As long-time neighbors of Friendly Inn, we would like to provide our comments regarding the recent activities and events that have taken place at Friendly Inn. The recent public safety issues surrounding Friendly Inn and those staying there are of great concern to the neighborhood. We hope that the city can help the owners of the property develop a safer environment at the Inn and in the neighboring area. We have, in the past year, experienced burglaries, porch -pirating, and trespassers in the area. We hope to be able to work together with the City and Friendly Inn in improving public safety and quality of life in the area, However, we also believe it is important to note that we value the presence of Friendly Inn and do not support any plans that would involve modifying or changing the property into higher -density housing. While we understand the need to address any housing supply and demand Issues, we are strongly against any plan that may affect the housing values and already affected quality of life in the neighborhood. We believe modifying the safety and security requirements and developing a sustainable and concrete facility improvement plan can help resolve the existing public safety issues at Friendly Inn. Thank you. 4. Public Comment received on April 52, via emall from Laura=19: We are residents of Rosemead, CA and we received a Notice of Public Hearing on Case No.: MODIFICATION (MOD) 21-01. We live here for many years and things have changed a great deal since the operations going on at Friendly Inn. There have been numerous Firemen calls and ambulances at the said property and not very long ego even death in front of the motel. It is known that there are drug dealings and most likely sex trafficking going on in that facility as we notice suspicious loitering of people around the vicinity at dusk and even during the day and late at nights. There is a public Elementary School down the road on Graves Avenue and these illegal activities are not safe for the children living in this community. We see some kids walling home alone without adult supervision and passing through the motel. it is not safe for the kids to be walking by themselves, or even playing on the streets surrounding this motel due to this illegal activities going on. It is not a healthy environment anymore because of transients coming and going in that motel. There have been incidents of houses broken into in this community as well. Because of these problems we are witnessing and happening in our community, we sincerely request that this Friendly Inn (motel) be shut down due to illegal activities going on and it is not safe for the children and everyone else living in this community. We believe that this is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. We pray that the City of Rosemead shall keep our community safe and clean and would only permit business establishments who operate under the CEQA guidelines and all establishments be subject for regular Inspections relating to their activities for the safety of our community. Respectfully, Residents of Rosemead Chau Lopez closed public comments period. Commissioner Tang shared his comments and stated how this topic is very close to home, and shared similar experiences along with his fellow neighbors in the neighborhood. He said in full disclosure, he lives within the community, about 1,500 ft away from the establishment Just down the street, less then a 1,000 ft away from the business is Rice Elementary School and if the school was in full operation, you can see there are kids and families that comes through Graves Avenue and San RosemeadPlanrtbg CWM bn Meeting Wxftofgal6 2021 page 9 of 13 Gabriel Boulevard all the time. He expressed his stance in supporting businesses In Rosemead and wants to see them thrive, but unfortunately, we come across a case where businesses along major corridors abut residential communities. If I synchronizes well, the business and the residential community can live symbiotically, but there are fires where there are certain negative impacts that a business can have in its surrounding neighborhood. In this case, this business has had a tremendous negative Impact on the surround community. Based on the Staff Report, there are 237 calls and two murders; the ultimate crime that can happen in a community and that is not including the number of crimes In and around that community. He added, from an anecdotal perspective, that he has had his car broken dnlo twice; on two occasions and both ovemlght As he walks his kids around the neighborhood, he often discovers discarded alcoholic beverage containers, and numerous amounts of cigarette buds. He refers to an incident where his neighbor across the street was yelling at someone at 2:00 a.m. that hopped over their fence to look in his house from the back yard. He expresses his fears and concern for this matter as he also has two daughters and a family that he fives with. The police were called, and the suspect was apprehended, and that case would not show up in the Staff Report as one of the many Incidents that occurred. From an anecdotal perspective, this could happen in any community but what he has seen is that Friendly Inn has drawn those kinds of people Into the community, and they would often be the ones who commit these crimes. He also added, there are people who ride their bikes and skateboards in the middle of the night which is alarming. Commissioner Tang questioned the consequences of a business that is in violation of a CUP or a business permit Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded the City has a revocation process for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and Indicated that the City can revoke a CUP If necessary. Commissioner Tang expressed how the business is fortunate to operate this long without any revocation of their CUP. He added, as he reviews the Staff Report, he thought that two -armed security guards were not sufficient; there should be one per floor, one in the parking lot, and maybe are in the frond to check in the guests. Commissioner Tang recommended going above the suggested proposal and requiring two additional armed security guards to be stationed in the lot, ti the Commissioners are willing to adopt these proposed amendments or even propose to revoke their business permit Chair Lopez referred the question to City Attorney Thuyen. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Commissioners that for this item, there is a recommendation from staff to modify the CUP to ensure a list of requirements for the business to operate to address the health and safety issues heard from the public and through public comments. He said, for the first portion, that would be considered a business license Issue and that is separate from the item discussed tonight and advised the Commission not to engage in further discussion. He added, the second part of whether to revoke is a part of the reason staff has suggested the modification because the existing conditions in the CUP are baring. He also added this new set of modified conditions provides a lot more operational standards that are intended to address some of the public safety Issues that staff has presented In the Staff Report and heard of in the public comments. Furthermore, he said adding additional conditions is permissible If that is the will of the Commission, but the only requirement would be the land use permit, which we would have to demonstrate a nexus between the public safety impact Issues Identified by this land use and connect it with the conditions we wanted to add. He stated, if we do have those, he asked staff to comment on whether those additional conditions would help assist the public safety Issues and other land use related irnpact identified in the Staff Report for the record. He concluded that the Commission could articulate additional conditions and draw a connection between the impact of the land use and the additional conditions we want to impose, then vie can add it as part of this modification. Commissioner Tang stated his rational behind the proposal. He said that if you are seeing this level of criminal activity and you want to put armed security guards, you need to make it dear to someone that wants to come to this place of business and wants to conduct criminal activities, that there are four -armed security guards, and this is not a place where they can do something like that He points out, there has been two murders and the Chief of Police has not encountered a business that has two murders on site. He added; he does not believe two -armed security guards would be sufficient; they have 50 rooms, three levels, plus a large parking lot which is not enough coverage territory for two -armed guards to cover at full capacity. RMmvWPWYAv C=rAft 6ree0og WmAn ofApM 5, 2021 Page 10 of 13, Commissioner Berry asked Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong to comment whetter they should require the extra security guards. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong elaborated on his initial proposal. He believed that having two -armed security guards to be stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week would be the absolute bare minimum and pointed out it would have to be in pairs. He added it is safer to have two additional security guards roam the motel as perimeter security or roving security type, it would be extremely beneficial. He noted that in the Staff Report, the motel Is confirmed to be a haven for local gang members and criminals and when criminals that want to hide from law enforcement, there are no better place than the Friendly Inn Motel. Referring to the Staff Report, he said, they had people wanted for robbery from Orange County, people who committed a murder in the City of Covina, and armed cadacking occur in the City of Santa Monica who were suspects hiding at the Friendly Inn. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong emphasized it was reasonable and prudent to require an additional Iwo -armed security guards. Commissioner Tang asked the Commissioners to evaluate if this business establishment is a recognized haven for gang members and criminals and questioned if the Commission wanted to be known as the City that has a motel that harbors these types of activities. He highlighted some of the criminal activities: possession of controlled sustains and paraphernalia, stolen vehicle on premise or brought to the premise or stolen from the premise, domestic violence, and loaded firearms. He then added, this is a rap sheet for any business that has gone through more than a few strikes. Chair Lopez asked staff for their intake on this item and If we should move or wait to seed this is possible. He believes this is a good idea. Cay Attorney Thuyen recapped and stated If the Planning Commission's will be to modify the conditions of approval, based on testimonies and evidence presented, if four -armed security guards at this location would better address the public health and safety impact, the Planning Commission can go ahead and suggest that as part of the motion. Chair Lopez said he thinks it is a good idea based on everything that has occurred and asked staff If the addition of two security guards is possible. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuda replied yes, a motion is needed to add and update the change to Condition No. 21. Chair Lopez asked the Commissioners If anyone would like to make a motion. Commissioner Tang motioned and made it dear to the business owner that any business that has 237 police activity calls Including two murders, he is not even sure why the City would allow this type of business to operate with that number of criminal activities in the last three years alone. He added as a Commission, they want to work with all businesses; adding modifications and these amendments to the Conditional Use Permit and hopes that the business can still operate, but in a way that will bring a positive community. Commissioner Berry seconded the motion and concurred and stated a dear message needs to be sent to the business owner and people who frequent this business establishment that the City will not stand for this kind of behavior. He expressed that this gives lam pause that many records are not upkept; without proper records of people staying there, who knows what Is going on. Commissioner Tang asked If it is possible to insert language to allow an annual review of this site. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded that a condition was added. She said Condition of Approval No. 10 allows the Planning Commission shag conduct a six-month review of Modification 21-01 within six (6) months of the approval data. RMflN dP&Vft Co=b&trn Mee&g OWN nfAPINA2021 Pw 11 of 13 Commissioner Tang asked ff there is a way to modify the conditions to six months of the approval date, and subsequently annually. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Berry questioned if this can be done at the six-month mark. At six months, ,Commissioners can see how things progress and change modification or make other changes along the way. City Attomey Thuyen concurred and asserted this can be added in as an item If the Issues have not been addressed by the six-month mark. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-02 with findings, and APPROVE MOD 21-01, subject to the 21 conditions, with AMENDED conditions to add two additional amhad security guard. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: Nate Abstain: None Absent: Nate Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo explained the 10-dayappeal process. Commissioner Tang asked if staff could respond to residents that submitted comments and informed them of the actions taken at this meeting. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo replied yes, staff can reach out to the residents that provided public comment 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 03-01-21 Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Leung, to approve PC Minutes 03-01-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent Nate Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5, MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Fraustc-Lupo reminded Commissioners the next Planning Commission Meeting Is scheduled for April 19, 2021. Aftft GfApBvv 2W Pme 12 of r3 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR Commissioner Berry inquired about the status of other hotels and motels, such as staying clean, maintaining good repairs, and following CtiWs ordinances. He added, for reference he noticed that Bokai Garden Hotel has a lot of rubbish outside and appears to be in disrepair. He asked, what about other planes like that in the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that the City occasionally receives complaints, and staff would input the request on a CRM (Citizen Request Management) and Code Enforcement would conduct a site inspection and work with Planning staff to ensure that the hotels or motels meet the conditions of approval. If a business is in violation, staff world write a letter notifying the business of the violations. Commissioner Berry asked what the City is doing to proactively ensure other businesses meet the conditions of approval. Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong addressed his question and talked about the Rosemead Special Assignment Team. He said there are a total of tan deputies, and they work closely with Code Enforcement on all issues throughout the City. He added, he will ensure to address and Inspect other motels in the City and work with Code Enforcement on that issue. Commissioner Berry asked if the City proactively goes out to keep an eye out on things. Chief of Police Lieutenant During explained how its common practice for Code Enforcement Officers and Community service Officers (CSO) to patrol the parking lots and make notes of any violation or anything relating to ordinance that needs attention. He said they usually brief us on that subject at least once a week ff not more. He added, there has not been any motels in the City that has risen to this level. Commissioner Tang thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work on this item and thinks it is great the City is taking action. Another item he wanted to address was the 'Rosemead' sign at Rosemead Place Shopping Center. He said some of the letters are not lit He asked if staff could work with the property owner to fix this Issue. He added, thousands of people see that sign as they drive on the freeway, and if some of the letters are off, it sends a bad branding massage about the City. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, staff can contact the property manager to address this Issue. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez thanked staff and Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong for their hard work and adjourned the meeting at 8A9 p.m. The text regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, ATTEST: Daniel Lopez Chair "Angelica F sllo•Lupo Commission Secretary RosWWWPh0 ft CormnkUon AWft h1h4N ofAPM6,, 2021 PW 13 of 13 Attachment Q Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02 PC RESOLUTION 21-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 21-01, A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 TO IMPOSE UPDATED AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR THE MOTEL USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE (APN: 6283- 036.032). WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021, the City of Rosemead initiated a Modification application to amend Conditional Use Permit 88-447, by modifying all the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard is located in a Medium Commercial (C- 3) Zone; WHEREAS, Section 17.168.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allows the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, may include conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval. WHEREAS, Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; WHEREAS, on March 25, 2021, forty-seven (47) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader on March 25, 2021, and notices were posted in five (5) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 21-01; WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21- 01; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-01 is classed as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and a Class 9 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-01, in accordance with Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.168.040(A)(1) provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: 1. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; 2. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; 3. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; 4. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or 5. The improvementluse allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. FINDING: CUP 88-447 was approved in 1989 with limited conditions of approval. Due to the public safety concerns raised by the Chief of Police and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and violations with the Building and Safety, Planning, and Code Enforcement Divisions and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the motel operation is creating conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and creating a nuisance. Modification 21-01 will update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Modification 21- 01, a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION S. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE SECTION 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5'" day of April, 2021. Daniel Lopez, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 5'^ day of April, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Th a fanning C-orrimfes6on Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 21-02) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-038-032) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APRIL 5, 2021 The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. 3. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 4. Approval of Modification 21-01 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ('City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 7. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Health Department. 8. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 9. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Safety Department shall have access to the project site at any time to conduct inspections. 10. The Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of Modification 21-01 within six (6) months of the approval date. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self -latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 16' 2n' and 3b floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor, o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Security Guards o Four -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times (ModfHed by the Planning Commission on April 5, 2021). o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I. D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. Attachment R Appeal Letter from Law Office of Frank A. Weiser MAYOR: PGLLY LGN MAYOR PRO TEM: SEANDANG COUNCIL MEMBERS: SANDRA AR nA MARGARET CLARK JGHN TANG City of Wpsemead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 SUMMARY EXCERPT CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NNE 22, 2021 The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on June 22, 2021 at 7:00 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Tang Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager Molleda, City Attorney Richman, and City Clerk Hernandez 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Appeal of Modification 21-01 On April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing of a City Initiated Modification 21-01 to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). The Planning Commission approved Modification 21-01 containing staff s recommended conditions as well as the addition of an amended Condition of Approval to No. 21 by adding two additional armed security guards for a total of four -armed security guards. On April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. As a result, the public hearing for the appeal was scheduled for June 22, 2021, with the City Council. Recommendation: That the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings denying this appeal and supporting Modification 21-01 and present this to the Council for adoption at its July 13, 2021, City Council Meeting. Scott Porter, with the law firm of Jones & Mayer, served as special legal counsel to the City Council for this matter. He explained his position on the matter was a neutral and only to provide assistance to the City Council on the impartial decision- making process. Introduced Mr. Al Ford, City Attorney to City staff to advocate to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Introduced Mr. Frank Weiser, Page 1 of 3 the attorney who appealed the decision on behalf of his clients, the owners of the Friendly Inn. On April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. At the City Council appeal public hearing, the appellant's attorney, Mr. Weiser, requested that the City Council continue the public hearing as a result of potential due process violations. Mr. Weiser argued that there are tenants, who he also represents, living at the Friendly Inn for more than 30 days who were never given notice of the public hearings. He stated that they have independent due process rights and quoted a few case laws. Mr. Weiser also argued that he had not received any police reports. He asserted that without the police reports, he was unable to defend his case and, therefore, a violation of due process. Furthermore, Mr. Weiser argued that a Conditional Use Permit is a property interest and protected by due process and the due process was not adhered to without full evidence. For those reasons, he requested the City Council to continue the public hearing. Mr. Ford argued that police records are not public records, and the Public Records Act is clear about the exemption. In addition, he added that certain information is disclosable, such as the calls for service, which were incorporated into the staff reports that both the Planning Commission and City Council received. He added that the Rosemead Municipal Code is clear and prohibits renters to stay in excess of 30 consecutive days, unless authorized by the conditional use permit. Conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 also prohibits motel occupancy in excess of 30 consecutive days. The Affidavit, which accepted the conditions of approval was signed and submitted by the appellant on March 11, 2021. Furthermore, he added that the due process violations brought up at the meeting by Mr. Weiser were never brought in the past. Additionally, Mr. Ford emphasized that Mr. Weiser had not previously stated that he represented both the appellant and the motel occupants that have stayed in excess of 30 days. After hearing all arguments, the City Council proceeded with presentations by City Attorney Ford and the appellant's attomey, Mr. Weiser. Mr. Ford's presentation included interviews with the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and the former Chief of Police. The questions were related to the history of the Conditional Use Permit, building inspections, and public safety concerns. Mr. Weiser reiterated his arguments from his appeal letter, the establishment of permanent residency for motel occupants who have stayed in excess of 30 days, the City's request to review registration cards as unconstitutional, and expressed the appellant's financial burden to provide four armed security guards. The following public testimonies were taken for the record: Spoke against the Friendly Inn • Velia Navarro spoke against the motel. Page 2 of 3 Spoke in support of the Friendly Inn • Eric (neighbor) • Zhan Chiu • Andrew Chen • Julian Teller • Jennifer Muro • Robert Lucero • Nelson Gonzalez • Maoson Young, Chairman for Greater Los Angeles Hotel/Motel Association The City Council expressed their support for all businesses to thrive in the City. The City Council also expressed that they would like to work with the appellant to find a solution for the security guard requirement. Mr. Weiser expressed that as an alternative, the appellant would prefer hiring a private security to patrol the motel at certain hours, instead of hiring four armed security guards. At the end of the public hearing, the City Council continued the public hearing and requested additional discussion to be made on the health and safety issues discussed in the City Council Staff Report. They also requested that the appellant's attorney, Mr. Weiser, provide the following: 1. Distribute the City's notice to the motel occupants that have stayed in excess of 30 days of the continued public hearing. The notice will provide them with the ability to express their testimony at the meeting. 2. Provide cost estimates of private patrol vs. dedicated armed security guards. 3. Provide proof of laws that establish permanent residency for motel occupants that have stayed in excess of 30 days. The City Council continued the public hearing for July 13, 2021 End of draft summary minute excerpt I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, California, do herby certify the following draft minute excerpt is a summary of the discussion taken during the "Public Hearing on Appeal of Modification 21-01", was presented before the Rosemead City Council on June 22, 2021. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Page 3 of 3 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER, DATE: JULY 13, 2021 SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING OF MODIFICATION 21-01 On June 22, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01, a City initiated modification to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Ind'). The Hearing was conducted and continued to July 13, 2021. The June 22, 2021, City Council Staff Report is included with this report as Attachment "A." Prior to the motion at the City Council Meeting on June 22, 2021, the City Council requested that the Friendly Inn (appellant), through its attorney, provide notice of the continued public hearing to motel occupants that the appellant stated were entitled to have notice. The City Council also requested that the Friendly Inn provide further information and cost estimates on private patrol service versus dedicated armed security guards. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process Prepared by: Lily alenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted by: Angelica Frac -Lupo, Director of Community Development Attachment A: City Council Staff Report with Attachments (dated June 22, 2021) AGENDA ITEM 4.11 MAYOR: POLLY Low MAYOR PRO TEM: SEAN DANG COUNCIL MEMBERS: SAmRAARwwA MARGARET CLARK JOHN TANG City of Wgsemwd 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD PC BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 SUMMARY EXCERPT CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 2021 The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on July 13, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Tang Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager Molleda, City Attorney Richman, and City Clerk Hernandez 1. PUBLIC HEARING A. Continuation of Appeal Public Hearing of Modification 21-01 On June 22, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01, a City initiated modification to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). The Hearing was conducted and continued to July 13, 2021. Prior to the motion at the City Council Meeting on June 22, 2021, the City Council requested that the Friendly Inn (appellant), through its attorney, provide notice of the continued public hearing to motel occupants that the appellant stated were entitled to have notice. The City Council also requested that the Friendly Inn provide further information and cost estimates on private patrol service versus dedicated armed security guards. Recommendation: That the City Council continue the Public Hearing of Appeal of Modification 21-01. Mayor Low reiterated the public hearing was continued from June 22, 2021, and asked for City staff and appellant to provide comments during the continued public comment period. Page 1 of 9 Al Ford, City designated counsel, stated the City had no further comments other than the closing presentation that was done at the June 22, 2021, meeting. However, the City Council requested to hear from the security service that the appellant's counsel is recommending. Mr. Frank Weiser, legal Counsel for Appellant, introduced Michael Callaway and his associates that are proposed to provide the security services to mitigating the alleged issues that have been raised. He stated he provided documents to the City Clerk indicating how Mr. Calloway will implement his services in the motel voluntary by the appellants. The documents have house rules that must be abide by motel guest or result in enforcement up to eviction. Guests will set rules where guest will sign disclaimers, signed and date on what is allowed and not allowed on the property. Guest will sign registration cards agreeing that illegal activity prostitution, drug activity or any other criminal activity is absolutely prohibited and will be subject to eviction and subject to further legal law enforcement if necessary. Mr. Weiser noted Mr. Calloway, was a former Police Officer and well known in the Los Angeles area. Michael Callaway, Chief of James Glass Security formerly known as Callaway Security, spoke about the services his company do to clean up and improve operations of motels. He explained they operate with a proactive philosophy and focus on preventing problems before contacting law enforcement. He reiterated that some house rule would change to ensure that if guests who do break any of the rules will be verbally warned, cited or even arrested. Installation of addition lighting throughout the property. Signage will be placed for no parking, meaning no sitting in cars, specially on for non -guests. Guests that have guests will be required to register with the cashier before allowed to be in the property. Concentration will focus during the nighttime when crime is more active. Also noted that he does work with the City Attorney, Lead Officers and or City staff to ensure proper documentation of crime activities are recorded for use during court hearings. All his officers do wear body cams to records and are reviewable upon request from any entity. Mr. Calloway spoke about the proposed four security guards, which will cost for the requested amount of security guards approximately $67,680 a month. He opined the manpower was excessive for a motel of its size and during COVID-19, its very difficult for hire. He stated that his patrol services are proactive in doing random patrol checks at the motel. His employees wear a uniform and are in mark vehicles, having a presence at the motel. Lam Holmes Jr., Associate of James Glass Security Services introduced himself having over 30 years of security services throughout the Los Angeles Area. He noted the security company is equipped with proper equipment and technology to provide their services. Noted they work with the motel owner closely and address their concerns to improve the operations of their motels. Mr. Holmes Jr. also stated they work closely with police agencies and local authorities. He opined that increasing the lights on the property will also ensure crime is deterred. Mr. Calloway reiterated his company is a proactive service and achieve results. He noted that during the initial clean-up phase there will be an increase of police call during the first 30 to 45 days from people who do not want to comply with the rules. Mr. Ford asked Mr. Calloway if a staff is onsite all 24 -hours Page 2 of 9 Mr. Calloway replied no, his staff conducts random patrol throughout the day and monitor the video feeds. Mr. Ford asked if he had reviewed the number of police call to the motel on the last two and a half years. Mr. Calloway replied he did not review the police calls but was aware of the homicides that tool place. Mr. Ford stated there had been 170 police calls from assault to drugs to murder. Asked if his security staff was armed. Mr. Calloway Yes. All patrol officers are armed. Mr. Alford asked if he had discussed with the motel owner about the amount of security guards that will be at the motel property at any given time. Mr. Calloway explained with the current COVID-19 situation, there will be two or three random patrols at the property throughout the day. Mr. Ford inquired about the night shifts the security guards would be present at the property. Mr. Calloway stated the amount of patrolling is also depended on the activity in the property. Mr. Alford asked that in addition to patrols, are any of the security guards also going to be getting out of the car and controlling inside the motel? Mr. Calloway replied yes, dispatch will provide the security officers with information about an activity and request law enforcement if needed. Mayor Low stated both sides have made their comments and closed the public comment period and moved for City Council discussion. Mr. Weiser asked Mr. Callaway how many motels had he serviced as a security patrol in his career, their locations and the highest amount of police calls received. Mr. Calloway replied three to four -hundred motels that are near Figueroa in Los Angeles, to El Segundo, to Santa Monica, Culver City, Inglewood, Long Beach, La Puente, Rosemead, and County of Orange. He stated that the highest calls were 250 for a month prior to his services being implemented at a motel. Mr. Weiser in quired about the cost for Mr. Calloway's security service. Mr. Calloway replied his cost is approximately $1,500 to $2,000. Page 3 of 9 Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Calloway on how he was to patrol the motel if he has difficulty hiring staff during the pandemic. Mr. Calloway replied that his prices is economically, and he is also out in the field. Council Member Armenta asked what the typical route of his patrol services is if they are patrolling other motels and how fast can they get to the Friendly Inn motels when called. Mr. Calloway explained it was hard to know, since there are multiple vehicles patrolling the motels at different locations. Depending on which officer is takes the call and the distance where they are driving from. Council Member Armenta asked what the closets motel is to the Friendly Inn that he patrols. Mr. Calloway replied that a motel in the City of Downey. Council Member Armenia expressed concern that knowing the distance and time from another motel to the Friendly Inn was a critical fact the City Council needs to know to make an informed decision on the matter. Mr. Calloway reiterated that his security officers deal with minor nuisance, and not felony crimes happening. For bigger crimes, law enforcement is called. Council Member Armenta asked who would be calling law enforcement when something happens in the property. Mr. Calloway replied that his dispatch or cashier would call law enforcement. Although his officers are the first line in defense, when they are not on the property, dispatch or the cashier may call the police. Council Member Armenta expressed concern there will not be an officer present at all times on the property and patrol vehicles will be driving back and forth to other areas. Mr. Calloway assured City Council that his officers would be patrolling once they arrive, walk the property, talk to the manager, and checking with dispatch. Council Member Clark asked about the security cameras and who is monitoring 24/7. Mr. Calloway explained that his officers can monitor remotely, as well as their dispatch at random times. He noted that his staff does not look at the cameras 24/7, but they all have access 24/7. Council Member Clark asked when will the dispatch look at the camera and call either law enforcement or security officers. Mr. Calloway replied at random times Page 4 of 9 Council Member Clark stated she would be more comfortable if there was dedicated personnel looking at the cameras 24/7. If the cashier is multitasking, you are not paying attention to other people where an activity may be occurring. Mr. Calloway stated that during his experience, suggesting someone monitor a camara for 24/7 is expensive. Also, there will still be instances where the staff may walk away for any reason and miss something in the cameras during that time. Council Member Clark asked what was suggested in the Condition of Approvals. Mr. Ford explained there were multiple suggestion based on the crime levels seen at the motel. In respect to security cameras, 48, with zoom capability are being requested. The hire of four security cameras, and additional signage around the property. Council Member Clark clarified that the motel is not meeting the proposal request in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ford affirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked Mr. Callaway how many employees are hired, number of contracts managing, and patrolling vehicles. Mr. Calloway replied he employs 12 staff and manages 18 contracts during the pandemic. Usually manages about 25-30 contracts. He clarified there are four staff patrolling at a given time. Mayor Pro Tem asked in the event of a crime, on-site security personnel are armed Mr. Calloway affirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that his patrol service equates to roughly about one patrol every two hours the nighttime. Asked what the morning hours of the patrol would be. Mr. Calloway affirmed yes. The patrols hours may vary from three to four hours. He clarified that much of the patrol takes place during the nigh time when there is more activity. Mayor Pro Tem Dang inquired about the dispatch monitoring the cameras and phones. Mr. Calloway stated that dispatch staff does a little bit of everything including monitor cameras. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that the main services being provided from the company are patrolling and felt they have the capacity to clean out bad motels. Mr. Calloway agreed they do more patrolling, but also are active in handling many situations before contacting law enforcement. Mayor Pro Tem Dang inquired about the 30 to 45 days, being a critical transition period. Page 5 of 9 Mr. Calloway stated that during the transition period increase call are happening because there will be people who will not want to comply with the rules or evictions. Mayor Pro Tem asked if he recommended two or four security guards at a minimum. Mr. Calloway replied he will be using two officers at night that can do the job. Mr. Ford clariid to Mayor Pro Tem that the sheriff recommendation was originally two security guards, but the Planning Commission asked for four. Mayor Low ask if the original recommendation is two guards at 24/7. Mr. Ford replied yes, with two -armed security guards 24/7. Council Member Ly stated that the City Council should be deliberating on a plan that is agreeable. Mr. Ly read for the record, a message he received from resident John Tang, "This statement is that this is not an issue about a business. It's an issue that of a community affected by this business. With the City values, improving public safety, we need to address it with businesses like friendly Inn, a well-known safe haven for criminals and criminal activity. This is as much a public safety issue as it is about adding conditions for business. Our Chief of Police recommended onsite security 24 -hours a day. It is unusual condition. It is it is not unusual condition to place on a business 24-hour security. It is also not unusual for businesses to have, but it is also unusual for businesses to have so many law enforcement, including two homicides. No other businesses in the City have had two homicides in one property, and one business. This one business has been consuming the city's resources and they have contributed to the quality of life and what have they contribute to the quality life of the City. Please support the Chief and the Planning Commission's recommendation to help local residents improve their community". Council Member Ly stated he calculated the cost of a law enforcement deputy if about $45 an hour, which is twice more than a security guard. Each police call takes about four hours, followed by paperwork, investigations, etcetera. 170 calls at the Friendly Inn have incurred approximately $193,000 for the year, in city resources and taxpayer money. One business is taking $193,000 of taxpayers' money to enforce a problem that they have cased. Therefore, supported Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Low opined that it was important to have some law enforcement or security presence. She expressed concerns Mr. Calloway's staff will not always be present and the motel owner will have to continue to call the sheriffs for illegal activity happening. Stated she was amendable to having two security guards at the property instead of four. Council Member Armenta agreed that it was concerning that the patrolling service and the administrator will not be able to monitor the cameras 24/7. Council Member Clark stated the Planning Commission recommended six-month mark to revisit the matter. She reiterated she agreed with the Planning Commission's conditions. Page 6 of 9 Mayor Low interjected that she would like to give the property owner a year instead of six -months because it takes time tom clean up the motel. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated he respected the Planning Commission's decision but felt that posing something that will drain the motel owner's livelihood was concerning. State that if the property of the motel operated at 40% during COVID and two security guards was reasonable. Mr. Ford reminded the Council there were still the other conditions on signage and cameras they have to consider. Mayor Low stated that a consensus would be needed for the two security guards instead of four Council Member Ly stated he would compromise and have two security guards but asked that the amendment also indicate the motel owner must come back in 12 -month time before the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Alford explained that staff clarified the Condition No. 10 was on page six, which states the Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of the modification within six months of the approval date. Council Member Ly confirmed that an amending to that condition would be to 12 -months instead of six. Mayor Low reiterated there was consensus for support for two security guards for 12 -months. Council Member Clark disagreed and suggested they keep the six-month time as the Planning Commission suggested. Mayor Low acknowledge Council Member Clark's disagreement and stated the majority of Council agreed to two security guards and 12 -months. Mr. Ford explained the next item is the amount of security cameras being requested by the Sheriff s. Chief of Police Lt. Duong stated the motel has 16 operating cameras on the property. Mr. Ford explained the proposal from the Sheriff s Department was for a total of 48 cameras places through the building and property. Mayor Low asked how much do cameras cost. She noted the Sheriffs are asking for 48 cameras, and the motel owner has 16 cameras, which would leave the motel owner to purchase 32 additional cameras. Mr. Calloway stated that the proposal also called from high HD quality cameras, which could cost approximately $900 to $1500. Then you have to factor in the cost of internet access to handle the feeds from all the 48 cameras. Page 7 of 9 Mayor Low asked if the motel owner would have to upgrade the current 16 cameras Mr. Calloway replied if the proposal is requesting for high HD, then yes. Mayor Low asked Chief of Police Lt. Duong if the Sheriffs would compromise on the number of cameras being requested. Council Member Ly stated he was okay with the total amount of cameras proposed. He noted, it's a onetime cost. Once they have cameras in place, it benefits both the property owner and business, as well as the residents grow exponentially. Even though the onetime costs are expensive, the overall benefit to the community is much greater. Mayor Pro Tem Dang suggested that there are inexpensive cameras at Costco. Mr. Ford also noted that the Sheriff s Department was also requesting to have access to the camera feeds. Chief of Police Lt. Duong affirmed they were asking for access to the camera feed to monitor the motel activities remotely. Council Member Ly stated it was not the role of the City Council to discuss in detail what type of cameras the motel owner should purchase. Asked the Council if they agreed with the recommended from the Chief of Police to request 48 cameras. Chief of Police Lt. Duong indicated the proposal stated the minimum that he believed would help keep the location safe. Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Ly and reminded the Council that two homicides have occurred at that location. Dang - So Madam Mayor, I agree with the assessment. I think our role as a Council is to just decide on a number and there's specification of it. I think it's just up to the owner and chief Duong and press Mr. Calloway. Okay. Mayor Low reiterated that the majority of the Council would like the 48 -camera recommendation to remain. Mr. Ford stated the last item to discuss was about signage to be installed throughout the property such as no loitering, location is monitored by surveillance and law enforcement. Mayor Low reiterated the City Council's wish that out of all the conditions, having the motel owner agreed to have two security guards and 12 -months they would have to come back. City Council also choose to have 48 cameras, as suggested by the Sheriffs Department, and recommended signage. Called for a motion. Page 8 of 9 Mr. Porter suggested to make two amendments revising the Conditions of Approval No. 4 to state, "For starting on the 11 th day after the City Council approved the resolution modifying conditional use permit, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead, A notarized affidavit stating that he is aware of and accepts all of the Conditions of Approval as set forth in this list of conditions". The second amendment suggested language would be Conditions of Approval No. 10, amending the six-month review be before the Planning Commission that has the authority to make revisions. Mr. Ford reiterated that the City Council was proposing to amend the six-month review to twelve- month review. Mr. Porter stated he understood the general direction from the City Council and stated that a resolution would need to be brought back for approval. Mr. Weiser interjected and stated his clients would like to see the resolution so they know their position on the matter, should they decide to file an appeal. Mr. Porter stated to the City Council they could hear comments by the appellant on the proposed revisions to the conditions. Mr. Weiser stated he would prefer to see the resolution in writing and at that time make comments. City Attorney Richman clarified that the City Council would need to direct Mr. Porter to draft the resolution with the amended conditions and bring back to the subsequent meeting for approval. ACTION — Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Dang seconded by Council Member Ly to direct the City Attorney to bring back a resolution with the amendments for approval at the next City Council meeting. Motion was carried out by the following roll call vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, and Ly NOES: None Absent: None Abstain: None End of minute excerpt I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, California, do herby certify the following Draft Minute Excerpt is a summary of the discussion, approval, and action taken during the "Continuation of Appeal Public Hearing of Modification 21-01, at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, was presented before the Rosemead City Council on July 13, 2021. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Page 9 of 9 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER "tt.,/t DATE: JULY 27, 2021 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-37 - MODIFICATION 21-01 FRIENDLY INN APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD C91W&VIA•1 On July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01, a City initiated modification to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). After hearing all public testimony, the City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2021-37 denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21-02 with amended conditions of approval. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by; Lily Va- enzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted by/ Angelica Frausto-Lupo Attachment A: Resolution No. 2021-37 AGENDA ITEM 6.A MAYOR: F City Of wpsmwd Pou.v Low ' MAYOR PRO TEM: r' SEAN DANo 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 COUNCIL MEMBERS: a ♦ ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 SANDRA AR ENTA �+_ TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 MARGARET CLARK 4010'O"'^"FAX (626) 307-9218 JOHN TANG SUMMARY EXCERPT CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 27, 2021 The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on July 27, 2021 at 7:06 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Clark, and Armenta Absent: Council Member Ly Staff Present: City Manager Molleda, Assistant City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, and City Clerk Hernandez 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution No. 2021-37 of Modification 21-01 — Friendly Inn Appeal Public Hearing at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard On July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01, a City initiated modification to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). After hearing all public testimony, the City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council meeting. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2021-37, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-01 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THEREBY AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 FOR THE MOTEL AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD ("THE FRIENDLY INN") Mayor Low asked Mr. Porter to explain the process and recommendations to the City Council. Page 1 of 6 Mr. Porter, with the law firm of Jones & Mayer, serving as special legal counsel to the City Council, requested a minor amendment to the proposed resolution. He suggested to delete two words in the Resolution 2021-37, in the Condition of Approval No. 4, third line currently states "he, she is aware of and accepts the recommendation", asked to delete the words "and accepts". In addition, in speaking with the applicant's counsel, Mr. Weiser would accept the conditions of approval, provided certain revisions were made. Frank Weiser, Counsel to Applicant owner for motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"), stated he delivered a fourteen -page letter to the City Clerk for Council's review. He clarified there was a typo on page 12, where he referred to the operation of the hotel for 20 years, should state for 33 years. Mr. Weiser stated that his client would like to propose to the City a rehearing in three months and a tolling agreement in order to avoid any litigation in court. If after three months, the City Council felt that the conditions have to be in place again, for the time period, his client would not waive their legal rights. He reiterated his client, does not contemplate, or intend to go to court. They would agree to put two security guards, request a rehearing in three months, and see what happens after that point. Mr. Weiser suggested that his client still include a security patrol on their own, not as a condition, and try to get the matter resolved. Noted the amendment to the resolution is the three months instead of twelve months for a rehearing, and that his client was tolling any statute of limitation for purposes of having to appeal or litigate. Mr. Weiser noted that under 42 United States Code section 93, that's a two-year statute of limitations. His concerns were under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 and 1094.6 which an appeal of an administrative decision by the City or local bodies is 90 -days. Mayor Low agreed, the City would prefer not to go to court and wants to work with his clients in resolving the matter. Asked how the Council would decide after three months. Mr. Weiser stated the City Council would have their independent right to exercise their discretion, the discussions within legal bounds; however, the Council would have the right to see the evidence and assess if there is any improvement. The Council could say two security guards is not needed and one is sufficient. Maybe have another tolling until the alleged problem is resolved to the city's satisfaction and see where there can be a permanent solution. Mayor Low expressed concerns with the requested for a rehearing in three -months, felt it was too short of a time to see any significant improvements. Mr. Weiser affirmed its up to the City Council's discretion, as long as his client was not waiving their rights, and there's a tolling on the right to appeal the resolution itself within the 90 -day period. Clarified for the record that his client, Mrs. Chen and her son Andrew Chen gave Mr. Weiser authority to make an offer on their behalf. He noted he did not want any misconstrues between his client and the City. Andrew Chen, son of motel owner Mrs. Chen, stated that on behalf of his mother Mrs. Chen and himself, gave Mr. Weiser full authority to act on their behalf regarding this matter. Mayor Low recited the resolution stated there will be two guards 24/7 and instead of a rehearing at twelve -months, it will be at three -months. Page 2 of 6 Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Weiser to clarify what he meant in his opening statement about the three -months. Mr. Weiser explained he did not mean to limit the City's authority, he was stating that after three months, when the rehearing occurs, the City Council could determine if there has been improvements, based on the evidence shown or decide on other actions. Mr. Weiser clarified his concern was not to waive his clients' legal rights to an appeal or the resolution. Council Member Armenia asked what criteria is going to be used in measuring whether or not the motel conditions have improved or not. Mr. Porter explained that in Condition of Approval No. 10, Mr. Weiser had informed him that he was comfortable with the language as drafted. Reiterated, that the twelve -months, and dependent on Mr. Weiser's proposal, the number "12" would be changed to three -months. Also opined if the City Council preferred to have the rehearing directly with the City Council instead of the Planning Commission as currently stated in the resolution, it was an appropriate change. The resolution currently stated that in three -months, the Planning Commission shall conduct a Public Hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise or remove Conditions of Approval, based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council resolution, and whether the conditions stated in Resolution No. 2021-37, will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of substance of the subject property on an ongoing basis. Such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with procedures of Chapter 17.1 60, as it may be amended from time to time. Council Member Armenta clarified that the amendment to the resolution was to be from twelve to three months. She explained she wanted to make sure it was on the record to ensure there is no switching on either side. City Attorney Richman asked if there was a City staffs perspective on how they envision the tolling agreement. Mr. Porter suggested to the City Council that if they agreed to the tolling agreement, that they direct the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement that the City Attorney would find acceptable. Mayor Low asked for clarification about the tolling agreement. Mr. Porter explained a tolling agreement is an agreement that says the other party agrees not to sue the City for 90 -days, and the City agrees that the motel owners do not lose their rights to sue the City once the 90 -day period is over. Normally, they would only have 90 -days to sue the City, where the clock is ticking. Under the tolling agreement the timing is not ticking for the motel owner. City Attorney Richman inquired if the rehearing would be before the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 6 Mr. Porter replied the current resolution was drafted to be before the Planning Commission, but that's up to the City Council, if they want it to go to the Planning Commission directly or to the City Council. Mayor Low stated she was okay with going to the Planning Commission, Council Member Clark interjected that the rehearing should come before the City Council instead of the Planning Commission, because the City Council was making the decisions at this point. The Planning Commission came up with the conditions; however, the City Council is the body making the decisions like whether to enter a litigation. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Porter if there were any liability concerns if the rehearing was to first go to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. She expressed if a delay may be of concern for the City. Mr. Porter explained the resolution did not specify 30 days or 90 days, only that it will take place shortly after. Essentially the next meeting, or in a month, or at a reasonable time frame. Council Member Armenta inquired if there was an appeal by the motel owner, then the item would come back to the City Council. Mr. Porter affirmed the current resolution as drafted can be changed so the matter goes to the City Council and not the Planning Commission. If the City Council prefers to skip the middleman, in case there is an appeal in any event, it was appropriate. Council Member Armenta asked if there is an appeal, which was highly probable, usually it goes to the Planning Commission that serves at the advisory board to the City Council. Expressed it was better to have the matter go directly to the City Council. Mr. Weiser stated his client's preference was to have the City Council do the hearing because of the information already discussed. The Planning Commission had not been part of the discussions. He noted that his client was agreeable to 180 days which would provide the City with time to prepare for the hearings. Mayor Low agreed with Council Member Clark that the matter should continue with the City Council because of the decisions being made. Asked Mr. Porter to reiterate the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Resolution 2021-37. Mr. Porter also suggested that in the second line of Condition of Approval No. 10, to strike the word "Planning Commission" replace that with "City Council". Additionally, the final sentence would be deleted, because the City Council would not have the ability to appeal the decision. So you delete, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with procedures of chapter 17.160 as it may be omitted from time to time". Additionally, the revision from "twelve- months" to "three -months". Council Member Armenta asked where the 180 days would be added. Page 4 of 6 Mr. Porter replied that a separate motion would be appropriate to authorize the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement for a period not to exceed 180 days. Mayor Pro Tem Dang suggested Condition of Approval No. 10 to be six -months instead of twelve- months, which was about 180 days, which would line up with the tolling agreement. Mr. Porter replied that was acceptable. However, the applicant had indicated they were willing to agree to this on the condition that it only be a three-month and the tolling agreement. Mr. Weiser — the tolling agreement is only to prevent litigation during that period and proposed a four month as a compromised to the six -months proposal. Council Member Armenta agreed that six -months was a better option to allow the motel owner to show any improvements. The City wants to be good partners with them but both sides have to agree and each entity has to also make sure that whatever is being said is happening. Mayor Pro Tem Dang explained to Mr. Weiser, the reason he mentioned six -months was because Mr. Callahan stated during his testimony the first few months, there's was going to be a lot of police activity in the process of kicking people out and cleaning the neighborhood. If that data was brought to the City Council, then it would not be to the motel owner's advantage. Mr. Weiser consulted with his client and compromised for five -months. Mayor Low stated Council wants to give the motel owner enough time to make progress. Andrew Chen replied the five months would work. Mayor Low asked Mr. Porter to reiterate the amendments to the Condition of Approval and Resolution No. 2021-37 for the record. Mr. Porter asked Mr. Weiser to confirm his clients agreed to the changes. Mr. Weiser stated his clients did accept the change to the five-month period, they will keep the conditions that of the resolution. Reiterated that the if eventually the matter is not resolved, it was understood that his clients have their full rights to appeal, the initial resolution. Mr. Porter reiterate the Council's motion to revise and approve the resolution on Condition No. 4 and Condition No. 10. To be a five-month period and delete the last sentence. The second portion of that motion would be to direct the city attorney to enter into the tolling agreement not to exceed 180 days. Council Member Armenta asked if everything else in the resolution and conditions would remain the same. Mr. Porter affirmed the resolution and conditions would not be revised in any other manner Page 5 of 6 Mr. Porter clarified Condition of Approval No. 4, would be revised slightly to delete the words "and accepts". Otherwise, the condition would remain the same. Also, Condition of Approval No. 10, the first sentence would be revised to instead, "provide if requested in writing by the applicant at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of Council Resolution No. 2021-37. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing" everything else would continue to be the same, except that the last sentence would be struck. In that last sentence and states, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with the procedures in chapter 17.1 60 as it may be amended from time to time". ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Armenta to approve Resolution No. 2021-37, as amended to a five-month period, and amend Condition No. 4, "provide if requested in writing by the applicant at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of Council Resolution No. 2021-37. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing; and delete the sentence in Condition No. 10, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with the procedures in chapter 17.1 60 as it may be amended from time to time". Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, and Low NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ly Mayor Low asked for a motion on the tolling agreement. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Clark to authorize the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement with the motel owner for a period not to exceed 180 days. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, and Low NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Ly End of minute excerpt I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, California, do herby certify the following Draft Minute Excerpt is a summary of the discussion, approval, and action taken during the "Resolution No. 2021-37 of Modification 21-01 — Friendly Inn Appeal Public Hearing at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, was presented before the Rosemead City Council on July 27, 2021. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-01 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THEREBY AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88447 FOR THE MOTEL AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD ("THE FRIENDLY INN") WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02, approving Modification 21-01 with the amendment to Condition of Approval No. 21 by adding two additional armed security guards; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn; and WHEREAS, Section 17.160.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for filing and processing of appeals; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allows the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, and allows conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, forty-seven (47) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader on June 10, 2021, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to the appeal of Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Weiser requested that the City Council continue the public hearing, and that if the Council continued the public hearing that he would provide written notice to all inhabitants of the subject property and notify them of their opportunity to comment on the proposed modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to July 13, 2021; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing and allowed additional testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony and all other information presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15309 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Finding of Nuisance. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts exist to justify the Planning Commission's decision to approve Modification 21-01, in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.168.040(A)(1)(e). The City Council finds as follows: The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance. The City Council makes this finding for multiple independent reasons. First, the property has been the nexus for number of crimes in recent years. For example, the sheriff reported 178 calls for service between January 1, 2019 through May 31, 2021. During that time, crimes associated with the use of the property included two murders, three shootings, six aggravated assaults, twelve stolen/recovered vehicles, six narcotics related arrests, in addition to other crimes. Second, not only are such crimes detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the people that utilize the property, but the use has also created a nuisance to neighboring properties. For example, not only are the neighbors impacted by the crime occurring on the property, but the motel property has caused spillover effects onto neighboring properties. Neighbors have complained of motel visitors dumping their trash on neighboring properties, causing excessive noise. The crimes occurring on the property rightfully have caused members of the public who live nearby to rightfully fear for their safety. Third, the motel property itself is a danger to the public health, safety and welfare and constitutes a nuisance because its rooms have been operating in violation of laws, in particular, those relating to public health, safety and welfare. As evidenced by myriad building permit applications, and subsequent visits by the building official consistent with those permit applications, the property itself has been operated in a substandard manner, and without all legally required fire/life safety devices including missing smoke detectors and with hazardous ungrounded or mis-wired electrical receptacles. Various rooms have been operated without required smoke alarms, and/or excessive storage. Fourth, in addition to the violations of applicable health and safety standards, the property has been operated in violation of multiple other laws, including those applicable to the limitations on hotel tenancies. SECTION 3. Findings Regarding Conditions. The City Council also finds that Modification 21-01, with the conditions as revised by the City Council, will update and add new conditions to ensure the motel meets the operational code standards listed in Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 5.42 (Business License and Regulations - Motels/Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Standards for Specific Land Uses - Hotels/Motels). This includes limiting the duration of stay to thirty days for all motel guests; requiring onsite management to be available 24 -hours a day; providing housekeeping services; providing in -room telephone service; obtaining detailed registration of all guests and keeping records for three years; prohibiting food preparation equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a security system designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The City Council also finds that the proposed conditions are related in scope and nature to the impacts of the property's use as a motel. The Council specifically finds that the requirements within Condition 21 are necessary and appropriate to cause the property to not be determinantal to the public health, safety, or welfare and to cause the manner of operation to not operate as a nuisance. The council recognizes that compliance with this condition will cost money, but concludes that these requirements are reasonable, proportionate, and in no way excessive given: (a) the severity and the number of crimes occurring at the subject property, (b) these crimes have occurred over a multiple years and are therefore have not constituted a temporary phenomenon is likely to immediately dissipate; (c) the cost of the time and effort of police, code enforcement, city administration, and public health response to the property has been substantial and serves as a good barometer of the public costs imposed by the property on the public; and (d) the value of human life, public safety and welfare is sacrosanct and should be protected if at all possible. The Council also recognizes that the need for all such conditions might reduce over time, and that a minimum one-year period is the appropriate amount of time to determine whether the conditions imposed have been sufficient to adequately protect the public, and whether such conditions should be amended or possibly even reduced to lessen the cost on the applicant. SECTION 4. Approving Modification 21-01. The City Council HEREBY UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision to approve Modification 21-01 based on the reasoning in this Resolution, except that the conditions of approval are revised to instead read as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2021. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Q I Rac el Richman, City Attorney Exhibit: A. Conditions of Approval 4 Polly L01111, ay ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2021-37, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of July, 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW NOES: NONE ABSENT: LY ABSTAIN: NONE 6qs�-- Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk 5 ATTACHMENT "A" (City Council Resolution 2021-37) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-036-032) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July 27, 2021 The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted I 1-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 2 1 -01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 4. Starting on the 11th day after the City Council approved Resolution 2021-37, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of all of the conditions of approval as set forth in this list of conditions. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 7. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Health Department. 8. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 9. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Safety Department shall have access to the project site at any time to conduct inspections. 10. If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after 5 months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2021-37, and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2021-37 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going - forward basis. ] L The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self - latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering ]s` 2nd and 3`d floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Security Guards o Two -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times. o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGER V�� DATE: APRIL 26, 2022 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATION 21-01 FRIENDLY INN MOTEL — 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SUNIMARY On July 27, 2021, the City Council approved Modification 21-01 and adopted Resolution No. 2021-37, which revised the conditions of approval to thereby amend Conditional Use Permit 88- 447 for the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. Per Condition of Approval No. 10, "If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after 5 months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2021-37, and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2021-37 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going forward basis. " On March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01. As a result, the public hearing was scheduled for April 12, 2022 to be heard by City Council. At the request of the applicant's representative, on April 12, 2022, the City Council continued the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of April 26, 2022. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. In addition, Class 9 of Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as AGENDA ITEM 3.A City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. In 2021, the City initiated Modification 21-01 to the Friendly Inn's Conditional Use Permit (CUP 88-447) to modify and update the conditions of approval relative to the operational standards and security measures, due to the significant public safety concerns and violations raised by the City's Public Safety Department, Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. The significant public safety concerns from January 1, 2019 thru May 31, 2021 included 178 calls for service/responses, which involves two murders, three shootings, six aggravated assaults, 12 stolen/recovered vehicles, 16 narcotics related arrests, and other crimes. The Planning Commission originally approved Modification 21-01 on April 5, 2021. The project was then appealed to the City Council by the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn Motel. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution 21-02 are included in this report as Attachments "A", `B", and "C", respectively. On June 22, 2021, the City Council conducted the appeal public hearing of Modification 21-01 and after hearing all arguments and public testimony, continued the public hearing to the July 13, 2021 City Council Meeting to allow Friendly Inn provide further information and cost estimates on private patrol service versus dedicated armed security guards. The City Council Staff Reports and City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt are attached as Attachments "D", "E", "F" and "G", respectively. All exhibits are specifically made a part of this staff report and public hearing. On July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01. After hearing all public testimony, the City Council agreed that due to the significant public safety concerns that were raised in staffs report and based on the testimony during the public hearing, including the Chief of Police's testmony that proper security conditions of approval were necessary, including the requirement to have two -armed security guards stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week. However, the City Council expressed that the City is supportive of the business and its ability to operate in a safe mannner and that the measures to mitigate the public safety concerns be reviewed in the future. As a result, the City Council and the applicant agreed to modify Condition of Approval No. 10 to allow the applicant to request a review of the conditions of approval shortly after five months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37. Consequently, the City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council meeting. On July 27, 2021, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution 2021-37, denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21- 02 with amended conditions of approval. The City Council Staff Report, City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, and Council Resolution 2021-37 (with Conditions of Approval) are attached as Attachments "H", "I", and"J", respectively. City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Since the adoption of Resolution 2021-37, the applicant notified staff that the two full-time armed security guards were officially stationed at the business on September 17, 2021. In addition, on November 1, 2021, staff from the City's Public Safety Department (Rosemead Sheriff's Team and Code Enforcement), Building and Safety Division, and Planning Division conducted a scheduled inspection of the Friendly Inn to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. Based on the inspections, several conditions of approval were not in compliance. A copy of the violation letter that was issued to the applicant is attached as Attachment "K". Staff conducted reinspection on November 22, 2021 and December 13, 2021. A copy of the violation letter from November 22, 2021 is attached as Attachment "L". The Rosemead Sheriff's Department Team determined that Condition of Approval No. 21, which relates to the security system, was deemed complete on December 13, 2021. To date, the applicant has complied with all building code violation and only one condition of approval is outstanding. Condition of Approval No. 14, which is related to the parking lot maintenance is still outstanding. The applicant and their contractor have been working with the Building and Safety Division to enure the parking lot meets American with Disability Act requirements. On April 11, 2022, the applicant's contractor was issued building permits for the parking lot improvements. The improvements are expected to be completed within the next few weeks. On March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to discuss the condition of approval related to the security at the business, specifically the requirement to have two full-time armed security guards. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment "M". Chief of Police Analysis and Recommendation The Chief of Police has conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly Inn over the last six months (September 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022). As detailed below, the number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Temple Station to the Friendly Inn remain significant as compared to the past few years. • 2019 —26 calls for service/responses • 2020 — 95 calls for service/responses • 2021 (Jan 1 to May 31) — 26 calls for service/responses • 2021-2022 (Sep 1 to Feb 28) — 33 calls for service/responses Although the amount of calls have increased over the last six months, the incidents that have occurred are less severe in nature than the crime summary provided in 2021. In comparison with previous years, there have been no murders, shootings, or stolen/recovered vehicles from the location. In addition, there was one assault with a deadly weapon as compared to six in the years City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 4 of 7 prior. Furthermore, there were three narcotic related overdoses and one call of shots heard in the area. Lastly, there were no firearms recovered from the location. Based on the Chief of Police's review of the crime summary, there were 33 calls for service/responses, in which two resulted in crime reports. The calls for service/responses include nine calls involving suspicious persons or activity, seven calls involving fights, seven calls involving medical emergencies (three of those for overdoses), three calls involved assisting Code Enforcement regarding inspections, one call involving an assault with a deadly weapon (bottle), one call involving a narcotics arrest, one call for shots fired, one call for property retrieval, one call for possible vehicle theft, one call for patrol check, and one call for assisting the LA County Probation with a probation compliance check. A summary depicting the significant events from the past six months (September 1, 2022, to February 28, 2022) is provided below. Please note that the list entails all calls for services/responses and may not be documented as an incident with a full report, but is still an indication of the required law enforcement monitoring required at the site. • On September 1, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding an employee at the motel arguing with a tenant over the check-out time. No crime at the location. • LASD Report No. 021-09742-0532-057: On September 17, 2021 deputies responded to the location regarding a person throwing glass bottles from the third floor and persons with multiple injuries. They arrested a suspect for assault with a deadly weapon. • On September 21, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a person not returning a borrowed vehicle. The informant chose to wait longer for the return of the vehicle before making a report. • On September 25, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding multiple persons arguing and fighting in the rooms and the fire alarm going off. A suspect was arrested regarding outstanding warrants. • On October 17, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a possible domestic violence call. The disturbing parties were gone prior to the deputy's arrival. Security at the location stated it was quiet all morning. • On October 25, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a heroine overdose and CPR in progress. The patient was transported by LACFD to Garfield Medical Center. • On October 25, 2021, deputies again responded to the location regarding a dispute over a vehicle. Security at the location stated the disturbing party is known to carry weapons. No evidence of a crime at the location. • On November 2, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding shots fired in the area. No evidence of gunshots was located. City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 5 of 7 • On November 11, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a male and female arguing at the location. Deputies were unable to locate the disturbing parties. • On November 11, 2021, deputies again responded to the location regarding assisting a female retrieve belongings from her verbally aggressive boyfriend. • On November 11, 2021, deputies again responded to the location regarding a male taking the informants keys and sending unsolicited nude pictures. This call was related to the previous call. • LASD Report No. 921-11760-0533-185: On November 15, 2021, a suspect was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. • On November 16, 2021, deputies responded to the location to assist LA County Probation on a probation compliance check. The probationer was not located or staying at the location. • On December 13, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a person having liver pain. • On December 14, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a dispute between the landlord and tenant over checking out. • On December 16, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a patrol check for suspicious activity. No suspicious activity seen at the location. • On December 16, 2021, deputies again responded to the location regarding a male stating he was assaulted by a female who was on methamphetamine. The disturbing parties were gone prior to the deputies arrival. • On December 18, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a person possibly under the influence. The disturbing parry was gone prior to the deputies arrival. • On December 19, 2021, deputies received a call to the location to assist LACFD with an uncooperative person complaining of cirrhosis of the liver. The call was cancelled by Fire. • On December 22, 2021, deputies responded to the location regarding a person stating paperwork was stolen from her room. No evidence of crime at location. • On January 1, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a person overdosing and CPR in progress. Narcan was deployed by the deputies. • On January 4, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a person stating someone was trying to open her door and she did not feel safe. No evidence of crime at the location. City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 6 of 7 • On January 11, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding security reporting a firearm inside a vehicle. Toy gun only. No crime at the location. • On January 26, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a female stating she was punched in the face. A check of the security video showed no battery had occurred. • On February 1, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a possible overdose and person not breathing. • On February 12, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a domestic violence call. No evidence of any domestic violence. • On February 17, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a possible rape call. The informant stated she overreacted, and a rape did not occur. • On February 20, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a transient casing the carport area. The disturbing party was gone prior to the deputies arrival. • On February 22, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a child screaming. No evidence of a crime at the location. • On February 24, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding an irate male yelling and banging on the glass at the front desk. No evidence of crime at the location. • On February 28, 2022, deputies responded to the location regarding a transient living in her car and throwing trash on the street. Disturbing party was waiting on a mechanic for parts. The Chief of Police believes the decrease in severity of the calls for service/responses is due to the City's modification of the motel's security system, which includes two armed security stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week and the installation of a comprehensive surveillance camera system which the Sheriffs Department holds direct access to. Based on the Chief of Police's review, burden of calls, and to ensure the prior public safety issues do not reoccur, it is recommended that the City continues to require at least one armed security guard 24/7 and maintains the security improvements that have already been implemented. In addition, the Chief of Police does not recommend a roving private security or response team at this time, due to the high volume of calls for service/responses. The Chief of Police also recommends that the security plan be re-evaluated in six months upon request of the applicant to determine if the condition for security should be altered at that time based activity at the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at its May 10, 2022 City Council Meeting. City Council Meeting April 26, 2022 Page 7 of 7 FISCAL IMPACT None. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Modification 21-01 is consistent with the City's 2030 Strategic Plan as the objective of Goal A: Safety is, "Rosemead will enhance public safety in our City by providing safe access to public facilities, expand neighborhood safety programs, and improve quality of life, which will include assisting homeless residents in our community." PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to forty-seven (47) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on March 31, 2022, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations. Prepared and Submitted by: *4" Lily alenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 5, 2021 Attachment B: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 5, 2021 Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02 Attachment D: City Council Staff Report (with attachments), dated June 22, 2021 Attachment E: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated June 22, 2021 Attachment F: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated July 13, 2021 Attachment G: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated July 13, 2021 Attachment H: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated July 27, 2021 Attachment I: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated July 27, 2021 Attachment J: City Council Resolution 2021-37 with Conditions of Approval Attachment K: Inspection Letter, dated November 4, 2021 Attachment L: Inspection Letter, dated November 23, 2021 Attachment M: Letter from Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser MAYOR: SEAN DANG MAYOR PRO TEM: STEVEN LY COUNCIL MEMBERS: SANDRA AWE. A MARGARET CLARK PoLLY Low M F Y-ty of gZpse wd V \, V I e 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 SUMMARY EXCERPT CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 26, 2022 The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on April 26, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Tang Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, and City Clerk Hernandez 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Modification 21-01 Friendly Inn Motel — 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard On July 27, 2021, the City Council approved Modification 21-01 and adopted Resolution No. 2021-37, which revised the conditions of approval to thereby amend Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for the Friendly Inn, located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. Per Condition of Approval No. 10, "If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after 5 months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2021-37, and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2021-37 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going -forward basis." On March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn, requesting the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01. As a result, the public hearing was scheduled for April 12, 2022, to be heard by City Council. At the request of the applicant's representative, on April 12, 2022, the City Council continued the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of April 26, 2022. Page 1 of 11 Recommendation: That the City Council conduct the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at its May 10, 2022, City Council Meeting. City Attorney Richman explained the following legal counsels were present Attorney Scott Porter was present to advise the City Council on the matter. On behalf of City staff, Attorney Ariel Byrne, and on behalf of the Friendly Inn clients, was Attorney Frank Weiser. Additionally, explained the procedures to the City Council and noted that Mr. Weiser submitted documents to the City Clerk and City Council right before the meeting. Attorney Scott Porter stated the City Council previously authorized and amended Conditional Use Permit. One of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit essentially allowed the applicant to request a revised Conditional Use Permit. The Public Hearing held was concerning the Condition of Approval and its Conditioning no. 21, which relates to the amount of security on site. Explained the City and Friendly Inn owners were present, and the City Council would then determine how they wish to proceed. Attorney Frank Weiser stated that at the previous public hearing meeting, there was an agreement between the City and the Friendly Inn property owners of a Tolling Agreement. Mr. Weiser requested to continue with the tolling agreement between the two parties. He stated his clients agreed to return before the City Council for a review of the conditions and expressed his clients have met all conditions. Noted he submitted a binder with documents for the record before the meeting to show that each condition was met. They have two security guards, as imposed by the City Council at the last hearing. Indicated the security guard contract is very costly and monthly payments were approximately $35,000. The Friendly Inn was making at most 50,000 a month. They stated that they were in the red on top of the expenses to run the motel. Mr. Weiser stated that Chief of Police had recommended at least one security guard. However, his clients felt that a security patrol would be sufficient. He noted that video cameras were installed and connected to the police department. Therefore, an unarmed security guard could provide the same security function. He stated that the Chief of Police indicated that service calls were not severe, therefore a security patrol would have been just as good. There should be an alternative way to reduce the costs of security. Attorney Ariel Byrne stated that although guards were brought to the property under the modification, evidence still indicated the number of calls was still high compared to other properties in the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs Department. The Chief of Police recommended reducing the number to one armed guard instead of keeping two because of the costs. Based on the number of calls that are still coming out of the property, the Chief of Police would prefer to keep two armed guards. While the severity of calls has reduced, the number of calls still indicates a need for assistance and security on the property. City staff was recommending another review in six months to allow the property owners to keep working with the City Page 2 of 11 and to eventually see if keeping an armed guard will continue to have the severity and the number of calls reduced. Andrew Chen, the property owner of Friendly Inn, stated their security cost was very high and that an armed security guard would be an additional $18,000 a month. State it's been difficult keeping up with expenses. The current security company increased their costs since they are making a call and handling some of the issues at the property. Mr. Chen noted that security does call the police more than necessary sometimes. Sometimes, the dispatch will ask if deputies are needed to come out. He indicated their security is not able to handle the domestic issues. Mr. Chen reiterated guests are not afraid of security since they know they do not have the power to arrest them. In addition, with armed security, some guests are more willing to challenge security. He stated the security company had recommended security with tasers and pepper spray to be sufficient until cops arrived. He pleaded with the City Council to reconsider security requirements to help them with costs since they have ongoing expenses and repairs. He clarified that some calls were medical -related, but there has been an improvement in the number of calls. Attorney Weiser stated the Tolling Agreement worked well before and requested to enter into a tolling agreement again to give both parties time to resolve the issues. Council Member Tang asked for clarification of the Tolling Agreement. Attorney Porter explained that Mr. Weiser was requesting a new Tolling Agreement and noted that the City Council was acceptable to the recommendation. The Tolling Agreement meant the City would not sue, while the applicant, the Friendly Inn, preserved their right to sue the City in the future. Attorney Byrne called on Chief of Police Lieutenant Shigo and asked if he was familiar with the Friendly Inn property and the data from the property in the last six months, beginning on September 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied he was familiar with the property and the data involving the property. Attorney Byrne asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo what he could tell from reviewing the data collected the type of calls. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo stated that during that period, there were approximately 33 calls for service or responses from the Sheriff s Department to that property. He noted the calls ranged from assault with a deadly weapon all the way to a heroin overdose. Attorney Byrne asked if the calls were higher or lower before the six months. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied that prior to the six months, the calls were higher Attorney Byrne asked what the severity of the calls was in the last six months. Page 3 of I 1 Chief of Police Lt. Shigo stated the severity of the calls was not as severe as the ones before the six months calls. He opined that the security guards on the property made a difference. However, the cost of the service calls was still more than before. Attorney Byrne asked if there were other hotels or motels in the jurisdiction that compared to the Friendly Inn. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo stated he compared three other motels in the general area with service calls. For that period, the Fairfield Inn had 13 calls. The Motel VIP had 11 calls, and the Del Mar Inn had 16 calls. The Friendly Inn still had twice as many calls for services as the other motels. Attorney Byrne inquired if any other calls after February 28, 2022, were not included in the current report. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied there were 11 additional calls for service after February 28, 2022, until up to the last week. Attorney Byrne asked what the property's current conditions were, as it relates to the armed security guards and the calls still coming in. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo stated the severity of the calls had reduced because the security officers were on site. Expressed that if the security guards are removed, the severity of the calls and situations could come back. Attorney Byrne asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo what he thought about the security at the property. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied ideally keeping two -armed security guards 24/7 was ideal. However, he understood that the cost was a burden on the property owner and could recommend reducing it to one armed security and revisiting the review in six months. He also added that Deputies went to the property to speak to the clerk and were told that since the end of March, there had not been security guards 24/7 on the property but from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Attorney Weiser referred to page four from the documents he provided right before the meeting to the City Council. He referenced all the calls made from September 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. Mr. Weiser asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo if any of those calls were crime -related or police reports taken. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo responded that many of the service calls from September 1, 2021, to February 2022, were not crime -related calls. Calls included domestic issue calls, Suspicious activity calls, probationary -related calls, and medical -related calls. Attorney Weiser asked if Chief of Police Lt. Shigo had the report of the 1 I calls he previously mentioned. Page 4 of 11 Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied he did not have the report at that moment. Attorney Weiser reiterated that Chief of Police Lt. Shigo had now recommended one security guard instead of two. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo responded affirmatively. However, he suggested the City have another review in six months to review the number of calls and crimes during the next six months. Attorney Weiser asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo to confirm there had been a drop in crime calls at the property. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo confirmed a drop in crime calls at the property. Attorney Weiser asked Lt. Shigo where the other motels he mentioned were located. Although they may have lower calls, did they have more crime calls compared to his client. Asked if he had a report on those calls. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied that Motel VIP is located at 2619 San Gabriel and Fairfield Inn is located at 705 South San Gabriel. He stated he was not sure what the distance from each motel was to the Friendly Inn, and he did not have a printed report for the calls of other motels. Attorney Byrne asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo to explain how a Deputy decides, when responding to a call, how to determine whether to create a report or not. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo explained if a Deputy decides to create a crime report and incident report, they have determined there has been an actual crime. Attorney Byrne asked what does it tell you about the number of calls still coming in at the motel. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied that although there are two security guards at the property, it has not stopped the volume of calls. Attorney Byrne asked what he could tell by looking at the number of calls from the other motels. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied that the number of calls at the other motels is generally half the number of calls they get from the Friendly Inn. Attorney Weiser asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo why he chose the two motels he previously mentioned to get call data on and not citywide. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo responded that the motels he had data on were in the vicinity; there was no other specific reason why he chose those motels. Attorney Weiser clarified that crimes have gone down at the Friendly Inn Page 5 of 11 Chief of Police Lt. Shigo confirmed that crime had gone down at the Friendly Inn. There being no further cross-examination by either Counsel, Mayor Low requested closing remarks. Attorney Weiser stated the evidence demonstrated that the crime had gone down, and the calls for service were not properly reflective of what was really happening at the motel. There has been a substantial decrease in crime. He asked the City Council to reconsider a security patrol, with the video linked and allowing the police to verify the information, that would be in lieu of having full-time security. He noted that his client believes an unarmed security guard would have the same effect as an armed security guard. He asked the City Council if they would reconsider the modification and allow his client to hire a security patrol. Attorney Byrne stated the main importance here is the safety of the tenants, the guests, and the City at large. Even though the calls are higher, the City is happy to see that the severity is reducing. The fact is that the calls are still more than double those of other hotels in the area. Just looking at the number of the calls, there is cause for concern as to why this property is producing calls higher than other hotels in the vicinity. The City is aware of the financial strain. It's recommended in the staff report that a reduction of the current conditions, the City is okay with recommending the one armed guard for 24/7 patrol to see how that goes over the next six months. Then come back and allow this property to show that with the condition, if the City Council decides that reducing it to one armed guard is appropriate, then move towards reducing the number and severity of calls even further. Mayor Low opened the floor for City Council questions. Council Member Armenta asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo about the 24-hour security he mentioned was not present at the property. She noted that she had received complaints from residents stating that they did not see the security guard at the property. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo stated when he spoke to motel staff, indicated that they had not had security there for the past month, only from 9 pm to 5 am, and it was unclear whether it was two or one. Council Member Armenia stated it was very concerning because this was stipulated and put on record that this is what was going to be required from the property owners. Mr. Weiser explained that the property owner was transitioning to another security service. They had their issues with the security service, but they have been paying for two security guards. He noted the documents he submitted to the City Council had evidence in the package of cash checks that showed they were paying for two security guards. Page 6 of 11 Council Member Armenta stated the motel owner is supposed to have two 24-hour armed guards. Mr. Weiser stated that his client agreed and still had the right to appeal the decision. Suggested Mr. Chen explain for the record what was happening with the security service. Mr. Chen explained that they asked for security service for five months or so in their initial contract. They needed to hire at least eight guards to cover all the shifts. They started having issues supplying enough guards at the end of February or the beginning of March. Mr. Chen stated they decided they wanted to change companies and were hoping to have this meeting as soon as possible to figure out what the City wants and if any changes could be made before they sign a new contract. Council Member Armenta thanked Mr. Chen for the clarification. Knowing there was a lapse in 24-hour security, asked Mr. Chen how come they had not reached the City before. Council Member Tang asked Chief of Police Lt. Shigo to elaborate on how the business violated the 24-hour term of the condition. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied he asked Mr. Chen if there had been a 24/7 security guards and was told no. Council Member Tang noted that it contradicted their counsel's statement that indicated that the motel was supplying 24-hour security throughout the entire time. Also asked that no matter what type of service call is made, Deputies still go on- site to inspect. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied yes. If you call the sheriffs station with a complaint, they go no matter what it is and determine what's happening. Council Member Tang stated that initially, the City Attorney had presented and said providing on-site security with one or two on-site armed security guards would be preferred. He asked for the Chief of Police's opinion in recommending one armed security guard. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo responded that with at least with one or two armed security guards. Council Member Tang wanted the record to show that the Chief of Police Lt. Shigo was recommending at least one armed security guard and not just one armed security guard. Mayor Pro Tem Dang indicated to Chief of Police Lt. Shigo that Mr. Weiser asked about specific service call incidents which did not result in crime reports. He asked Page 7 of 11 for clarification if the operator taking the calls is trained to determine if there is a crime committed before sending out a Deputy. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo replied the operator could not determine if the call is a crime or not. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked, upon arriving at the site, whether deputies approached the hotel office and talked to the hotel operator or manager on site. Chief of Police Lt Shigo replied yes, and it also depends on the call. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that a call was placed, and it originated from somewhere on the premise that the hotel operator would at least notify their private security first, and if their private security cannot handle the situation, then they would at least attempt to reach out to Temple Sheriff Station. He stated what is the point of having security if they're not going to help with the situation. Council Member Clark asked for clarification of the conditions to have two armed security guards 24/7, and those conditions were not met full-time. Chief of Police Lt. Shigo affirmed it was correct. Council Member Clark expressed concern that the City Council wants to ensure things are safe and help the business thrive. However, if they do not comply with the conditions, it's difficult to move forward. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked for clarification on the condition of the two armed security guards. After looking at the package the motel counsel submitted before the meeting, the invoices seemed sporadic because there were invoices for armed security and unarmed security. Mayor Low opened the Public Hearing for Public Comments. Velia Navarro, a resident, expressed concerns with the Friendly Inn motel. She stated seeing the frequency of Temple Sheriff Station at the motel did not make people safe in her neighborhood. Children walk by the motel to go to school, and she had not seen any new businesses around the area. Questioned if Mr. Rex Johnson lived near the motel if he stated that he felt safe walking in the area. City Clerk Hernandez read Rex Johnson's comment received via email expressing support for the improvements on the motel. He reiterated that he felt safe walking in the area and the motel would bring in more business. Council Member Tang requested the record include the public comments received at the initial meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council also be entered into the record because the comments from neighbors specified concerns with the business. Page 8 of 11 Attorney Porter affirmed the public comments previously made at other meetings were already part of the record. Mayor Low asked the City Council to deliberate on the matter. Understood the business owner is asking to reduce the requirement for the two guards because there is a cost factor. However, heard from residents that having two armed guards at the site has helped the environment there. Reiterated that the City also wants the business to be successful. Council Member Tang stated that when the item first went to the Planning Commission, the service calls were about 237 over the course of three years. In those three years, 36 months, that comes out to about 6.6 calls for service per month. The staff report indicates 33 calls over six months, although admittedly, the severity is lower or not as severe. The average of those calls was about 5.5 calls per month. Looking at the average, it has gone down, but not significantly. It could be the increase in calls for law enforcement as a result of having that on-site security. Encourage the City Council to make their decision based on the data provided. He also noted that the motel operator violated their conditions. One out of six months, they needed to comply with all the conditions, particularly the one requiring security guards, which is probably the most important one in addition to installing cameras. At that time, previous Chief of Police Lieutenant Duong informed the City Council that the motel was confirmed to be a haven for local gang members and criminals. And when criminals want to hide from law enforcement, there is no better place than the Friendly Inn motel. If this is the reputation of the Friendly Inn motel, not just in the Rosemead community but outside of Rosemead, six months is hard to reverse an establishment's reputation. Mr. Tang reiterated his comments about the Chief of Police suggesting at least one armed security guard; he was concerned with suggesting one security guard and the rise in crime. He felt two security guards addressed the level of crime that the motel was generating. Given the number of calls, he recommended continuing to keep the two security guards for further review. In addition, he stated that he wanted the record to indicate the Public Comments the neighbors previously made in case they did not have the opportunity to submit comments to express their concerns. Council Member Armenta expressed concerns about the motel operator not complying with the code violations that Building and Safety Division investigated. Stated the City was there to help and work with the motel operator. Stated the City council would not help them if they were unwilling to help themselves. Questioned how the motel operator is renting their rooms and vetting their guests. Concluded that the motel operator needs to work with the City to improve the motel's operations and reevaluate in six months. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked for clarification if the original request was for eight security guards. Attorney Byrne responded the request was four security guards. Page 9 of 11 Mayor Pro Tem Dang reiterated the request was for four security guards, and after deliberations from the City Council, they required only two security guards. Attorney Porter explained the Planning Commission recommended four security guards, and when the item went before the City Council, it was reduced to two security guards. Mayor Pro Tem Dang reiterated that although the business operator has made significant improvements to the property by adding cameras and handicap ramps, there still needs to progress in the number of service calls placed and needs to decrease. He noted that he would like to continue to keep the two security guards as part of the conditions. Mayor Low stated that she recognizes the motel operator is trying to improve the quality of their business. Having two armed security guards has improved the area, but not enough to reduce the number of security guards at the site. She noted that based on the comments from the City Council, continuing to keep the two security guards and revisit the matter in another six months. Council Member Tang reiterated that the business was not meeting the threshold. When the item first came to the city's attention, there had been 237 calls over a period of three years. The City Council was asked to make an assessment based on six months of data versus the three years of data that prompted this item to come before the Council. Having two armed guards as a condition and then evaluating it over an additional six months will give us a better mirror of the three years of the issues that had preexisted before implementing the conditions. Attorney Porter reiterated that the City Council had two recommendations. First, that staff return with a future resolution at the subsequent meeting, a resolution of denial of the request, but with the understanding that the applicant would be able to return in six months for a subsequent hearing to see whether conditions will be changed. Secondly, would be to authorize the City Attorney to enter into a Tolling Agreement saying the City agrees not to sue. Council Member Armenta suggested to the business operator that if something happens to the security company, the motel operator should notify the city in order to work together. Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Armenta and encouraged the motel operator to communicate with the City if there are problems in order to meet the conditions. Mayor Low called for a motion. Page 10 of 11 ACTION: Moved by Council member Tang, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to direct City staff to return with a resolution denying the request of the Friendly Inn Motel, but with the understanding that the applicant would be able to return in six months for a subsequent hearing to see whether conditions will be changed. Also, authorize the City Attorney to enter into a Tolling Agreement with the Friendly Inn Motel. Motion was carried out by the following roll call vote: AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW AND TANG; NOES: NONE End of draft summary minute excerpt I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, California, do herby certify the following draft minute excerpt is a summary of the discussion taken during the "Public Hearing on Modification 2 1 -01 Friendly Inn Motel — 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard", was presented before the Rosemead City Council on April 26, 2022. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Page 11 of 11 RESOLUTION 2022-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-01 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THEREBY AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 FOR THE MOTEL AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD ("THE FRIENDLY INN") WHEREAS, on April 5, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-02, approving Modification 21-01 with the amendment to Condition of Approval No. 21 by adding two additional armed security guards; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of appeal from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to the appeal of Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, Mr. Weiser requested that the City Council continue the public hearing, and that if the Council continued the public hearing that he would provide written notice to all inhabitants of the subject property and notify them of their opportunity to comment on the proposed modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing to July 13, 2021; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing and allowed additional testimony and at the end of the public hearing, directed staff to bring back a resolution denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21-01 with amended conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2021- 37, denying the appeal and supporting the approval of Modification 21-01- with amended conditions of approval. WHEREAS, Section 17.160.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for filing and processing of appeals; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, allows the City's action to modify a permit or approval, instead of revocation, and allows conditioning any operational aspect of the project, including buffers, duration of the permit or entitlement, hours of operation, landscaping and maintenance, lighting, parking, performance guarantees, property maintenance, signs, surfacing, traffic circulation, or any other aspect/condition determined to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the permit or approval is operated in a manner consistent with the original findings for approval; and WHEREAS, Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; WHEREAS, Condition of Approval No. 10 allowed the applicant to request in writing that the City Council conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2021-37; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter of request for the City Council to review the conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 from the Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, representing the business and property owners of the Friendly Inn; and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, forty-seven (47) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader on March 31, 2022, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for the appeal of Modification 21-01; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, Mr. Weiser requested that the public hearing be continued to the April 26, 2022 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the City Council continued the duly noticed public hearing to the April 26, 2022 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received oral and written testimony relative to the appeal of Modification 21-01; and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony and all other information presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 21-01 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and as a Class 9 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15309 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Section 15309 exempts projects consisting of activities limited entirely to inspections, to check for the performance of an operation, or the quality, health, or safety of a project, including related activities such as inspection for possible mislabeling, misrepresentation, or adulteration of products. Accordingly, Modification 21-01 is classified as Class 1 and Class 9 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15309 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Findings Regarding Conditions. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-01, in accordance with Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; FINDING: The City Council finds that facts do justify "Findings A, C, and E". The Chief of Police conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly Inn over the last six months (September 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022). The number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Temple Station to the Friendly Inn remains significantly high at 33 calls for service/responses, in which two resulted in crime reports. The calls for service/responses include nine calls involving suspicious persons or activity, seven calls involving fights, seven calls involving medical emergencies (three of those for overdoses), three calls involved assisting Code Enforcement regarding inspections, one call involving an assault with a deadly weapon (bottle), one call involving a narcotics arrest, one call for shots fired, one call for property retrieval, one call for possible vehicle theft, one call for patrol check, and one call for assisting the LA County Probation with a probation compliance check. Due to the number of calls for service/responses, the City Council finds that the requirements within Condition of Approval No. 21 continue to be deemed necessary and appropriate to cause the property to not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare and to cause the manner of operation to not operate as a nuisance, as the number of calls for response/services are still significantly high. Furthermore, one or more of the conditions of the Modification 21-01 has not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated, as the applicant failed to retain two -armed security guards stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week, since the approval of Modification 21-01. The City Council also recognizes that based on the Chief of Police's review, burden of calls, and to ensure the prior public safety issues do not reoccur, the City should continue to require two -armed security guards stationed in the parking lot 24 -hours a day, seven days a week and maintain the security improvements that have already been implemented. The City Council may in six months, re-evaluate whether the conditions imposed have been sufficient to adequately protect the public, and whether such conditions should be amended or possibly even reduced to lessen the cost on the applicant. SECTION 3. Approving Modification 21-01. The City Council adopts City Council Resolution No. 2022-25 to amend Condition of Approval No. 10 as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this W day of May, 2022. Poilow&or APP OVED AS TO uF'OY:: 'R / �-4 achel Richman, City Attorney Exhibit: A. Conditions of Approval 4 ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, tiry Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2022-25, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the l0"' day of May 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW, TANG NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk E EXHIBIT 1°A" (City Council Resolution 2022-25) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-036-032) IONS OF APPROVAL May 10, 2022 1. The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. 3. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 4. Starting on the 11th day after the City Council approved Resolution 2021-24, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of all of the conditions of approval as set forth in this list of conditions. 5. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Health Department. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 9. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Public Safety Department shall have access to the project site at any time to conduct inspections. 10. If requested in writing by the applicant, at a date shortly after six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-25, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2022-25 and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2022-25 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going - forward basis. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self - latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 1" 2"a and 3rd floors. Cameras shall monitor a person walking the stairwell from first floor all the way up to third floor. o Surveillance cameras must be able to zoom in and provide clear images. o Surveillance cameras must capture license plates and facial images of all guests arriving and departing location. o Surveillance footage must be stored for 90 days and made immediately available to law enforcement or code enforcement. o Remote access to surveillance must be given to law enforcement. Security Guards o Two -armed security guards must be stationed in the parking lot at all times. o The security guards will be responsible for ensuring only registered motel occupants and their registered guests with a valid government issued I.D. be allowed on the premises. o The security guards will check in and check out every vehicle arriving and leaving the motel. Signage o Install signs throughout the property indicating the location is monitored by surveillance and/or law enforcement. o Install signs at each entrance, exit, and throughout the property, indicating that only registered motel occupants and their registered guests are allowed on property. o Install no loitering and no trespassing signs. Friendly Inn 2146 San Gabriel Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 Telephone: (626) 975-1008 Email: friendlyinn91770@gmail.com October 24, 2022 By Personal Delivery and Email Ericka Hernandez City Clerk City of Rosemead 8838 E Valley Blvd Rosemead, CA 91770 Email: ehernandezCa)citvofrosemead. oro SUBJECT. Resolution 2022-25 of Modification of CUP 88-471 Friendly Inn Dear Ms. Hernandez, My family ("We") owns and operates the property commonly known as Friendly Inn located at 2146 San Gabriel Blvd, Rosemead, CA 91770 and I am writing this on their behalf. On May 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-25 modifying the conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-447 ("CUP 88-447"). At the hearing on April 26, 2022, and pursuant to the Resolution 2022-25, the City Council agreed to conduct a hearing shortly after six (6) months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-25. We have and are still complying with the conditions of CUP 88-447, and in particular have contracted with Instaguard Inc for two (2) armed security guards 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All the conditions have been met and can easily be sustained but the financial burden of having 2 full time armed security guards is prohibitive, costing upwards of $8,200 a week. We respectfully request a meeting with the City Council to modify the CUP and try to work out an arrangement that is financially feasible while still keeping in line with the City's goals. Please contact me at (626) 975-1008 or friendlyinn91770aamail.com if there are any issues. Thank you. Sinccer�,elly, JT" Andrew Chen Friendly Inn