CC - Item 4A - Continued Public Hearing on Modificiation 21-01 Friendly Inn Motel - 2146 San Gabriel BoulevardROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER
—
DATE: APRIL 25, 2023
SUBJECT: CONTINUED 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. Since the approval of
Modification 21-01, the City Council has conducted a five-month review and a six-month review
of the conditions of approval. At the six-month review on December 13, 2022, the City Council
determined that due to the reduction in the number of calls for service/responses and the severity
of the crimes, the security conditions should be revised to require one armed security guard to be
stationed within the parking lot from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., the installation of an automatic
license plate reader, and a four-month review shall be conducted on Modification 21-01. As a
result, the four-month review was scheduled 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
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
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Pa¢e 2 of 7
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 No. 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 `B", "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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 2021-37 (with Conditions of
Approval) are attached as Attachments "I", "J", and "K", respectively.
On March 9, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Friendly Inn, requesting the
City Council conduct a public hearing (five-month review) on Modification 21-01 to discuss
Condition of Approval No. 21 relating to the business security, 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.
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Page 3 of 7
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 No. 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 No. 2022-25. The City Council Staff Report, City Council
Meeting Minutes Excerpt, and City Council Resolution No. 2022-25 (with Conditions of
Approval) are attached as Attachments "L", "M", and "N", respectively.
On October 24, 2022, the City Clerk's Office received a letter from the Friendly Inn, requesting
the City Council conduct a public hearing (six-month review) on Modification 21-01 to discuss
Condition of Approval No. 10, specifically, the requirement of two full-time armed security
guards. A copy of the letter is attached as Attachment "O".
On December 13, 2022, the City Council conducted the six-month review of Modification 21-01.
During the meeting, the applicant discussed the financial burden of the two full-time armed
security guards and recommended the installation of an automatic license plate reader (flock
camera). After hearing all public and written testimony, the City Council agreed that based on
the reduction in the number of calls for service/responses and the severity of the crimes at the
Friendly Inn, the following conditions shall be revised or added:
1. Condition of Approval No. 21, relating to the security guards, shall be revised to require
one armed security guard to be stationed within the parking lot from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00
a.m.;
2. Condition of Approval No. 10 shall be revised to require a four-month review be
conducted on Modification 21-01;
3. A condition of approval shall be added (Condition No. 22), requiring the installation of
an automatic license plate reader.
The City Council Staff Report, City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, and City Council
Resolution No. 2022-68 (with Conditions of Approval) are attached as Attachments "P",
and "R", respectively.
The flock camera was installed at the Friendly Inn on January 31, 2023. In early March 2023,
the City's Sheriffs Department Team determined that the location of the flock camera was not
useful for vehicles entering the Friendly Inn parking lot. For this reason, the City's Sheriff's
Department Team recommended that the applicant relocate the flock camera to the carport to
capture the license plates of vehicles that enter the parking lot. On April 13, 2023, the applicant
notified the City that the flock camera was relocated to the location agreed by the City's Sheriff s
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Page 4 of 7
Department Team. The team has confirmed that the location of the flock camera satisfies the
condition.
Sheriff's 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 three months (January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023). As detailed
below, the number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
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
• 2021 (January 1St to May 31St) — 26 calls for service/responses
• 2021-2022 (September 1St to February 28`h) — 33 calls for service/responses
• 2022 (May 1st to October 31St) — 19 calls for service/responses
• 2023 (January 1St to March 31St) — 10 calls for service/responses
The number of calls for service have decreased significantly over the last three months and the
City's Sheriff's Department Team has determined that the incidents are less severe in nature than
the crime summary provided during the previous reviews. In comparison with previous years,
there have been no murders, shootings, or assault with a deadly weapon. During this report,
there were four crimes reported, relating to one arrest for a stolen vehicle, one arrest for an
unlicensed driver, one unoccupied stolen vehicle, and one arrest for a suspended license and
possession of illicit controlled substance.
Based on the City's Sheriffs Department Team's review of the crime summary, there were ten
calls for service/responses, in which four resulted in a crime report. The calls for
service/responses include two see the man calls, one suspicious person call, one battery call, four
deputy observation/possible crime calls, one robbery call, and one illegal handicap parking call.
A summary depicting the significant events from the past three months (January 1, 2023 to
March 31, 2023) 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 January 8, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding a (3) three gang members
by the corner of San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves Avenue waving a handgun in the air.
Deputies
• On January 12, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding a vehicle parked on the
handicap stall not displaying a handicap placard. Deputies contacted the driver of the vehicle,
warned and advised her about illegally parking in a handicap stall.
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Page 5 of 7
• LASD Report No. 923-00616-1431-091: On January 18, 2023, deputies located a stolen
vehicle at the location. They arrested the driver for taking a vehicle without the owner's
consent.
• LASD Report No. 923-01514-0533-255: On February 7, 2023, deputies conducted a traffic
stop at the location. The driver of the vehicle was arrested for being an unlicensed driver.
• LASD Report No. 923-01787-0533-733: On February 13, 2023, deputies located a stolen
vehicle at the location. Deputies recovered the unoccupied stolen vehicle. No arrests were
made related to this incident.
• On February 20, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding a disturbance call for
service. The security guard at the location was involved in a verbal altercation with a hotel
guest. Upon further investigation, deputies determined there was no crime at the location,
verbal dispute only.
• LASD Report No. 923-02275-0533-185: On February 26, 2023, deputies conducted a traffic
stop at the location. The driver of the vehicle was arrested for driving on a suspended license
and being in possession of an illicit controlled substance.
• On March 15, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding guest refusing to check out.
Deputies contacted the guest and advised them to leave. The guest cooperated with deputy
personnel and left without further incident.
• On March 20, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding a robbery call for service.
An unknown male pistol whipped the victim at the location and stole her belongings. The
unknown suspect then stole a U -haul truck from the location. The informant subsequently
called the station and cancelled the call. Deputies were unable to determine if a crime
occurred.
• On March 26, 2023, deputies responded to the location regarding an informant who stated the
manager was refusing him access to his room while his belongings were still inside of the
room. Deputies responded to keep the peace. Parties involved were able to arrange for the
property to be retrieved at a later time without further incident.
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 January 1,
2023 to March 31, 2023) is provided below:
1. Fairfield Inn (705 San Gabriel Boulevard) - There were three calls for service, which
included one indecent exposure call and two transient calls. No crime reports were
generated.
2. Motel V.I.P. (2619 San Gabriel Boulevard) - There were five calls for service/responses,
which included one transient call, one traffic stop, one see the man call, one person acting
suspiciously call, and one hit and run call. There was one crime report generated.
3. Del Mar Motel (1605 Del Mar Avenue - Unincorporated LA County) - There were eight
calls for service/responses at this location, which included one 911 call, one medical call,
two see the woman call, one vehicle theft call, one business disturbance call, one traffic
stop call, and one other call. No crime reports were generated.
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Page 6 of 7
The City's Sheriff's Department Team believes the Friendly Inn has drastically improved their
security. For this reason, the Chief of Police is recommending that the City Council modify the
security guard requirement and require one unarmed security guard in the evening hours from
9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. This will determine whether the calls for service/responses is impacted by
an armed security guard versus an unarmed security guard. The Chief of Police is also
recommending that the security plan be re-evaluated in six months determine if the condition for
security should be altered at that time based on activity at the property. 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct the public hearing and hear all public testimonies and adopt City
Council Resolution No. 2023-21, revising the conditions of approval of Modification 21-01
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.
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-six (46) property owners, publication in the local
newspaper, and postings of the notice at the five (5) public locations.
Prepared by:
*
Lily Valenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
l""^c
Stan Wong, Interim Director of Community Development
City Council Meeting
April 25, 2023
Page 7 of 7
Attachment A: City Council Resolution No. 2023-21
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 No. 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 No. 2022-25 with Conditions of Approval
Attachment O: Applicant's Letter of Request
Attachment P: City Council Staff Report (without attachments), dated December 13, 2022
Attachment Q: City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, dated December 13, 2022
Attachment R: City Council Resolution No. 2022-68 with Conditions of Approval
Attachment A
Resolution No. 2023-21
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-21
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 2 1 -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 2 1 -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, 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 21-01 from the Friendly Inn;
and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was duly noticed for the December 13, 2022 City Council
Meeting; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the City Council conducted the public hearing and
received oral and written testimony relative to Modification 21-01and at the end of the public
hearing, the City Council determined that due to the reduction in the number of calls for
service/responses and the severity of the crimes, the security conditions should be revised to
require one armed security guard to be stationed within the parking lot from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.,
the installation of an automatic license plate reader, and a four-month review shall be conducted
on Modification 2 1 -01 and adopted City Council Resolution No. 2022-68; 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 April 13, 2023, forty-six (46) notices were sent to property owners within
a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the local newspaper on
April 15, 2023, 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 the four-month review of
Modification 21-01; and
WHEREAS, April 25, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and
received oral and written testimony relative to the four-month review of 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
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
3
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 City's
Sheriffs Department Team has conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly
Inn over the last three months (January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023). The number of calls for
service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Temple Station to the Friendly
Inn totals ten, in which four resulted in crime reports. The calls for service/responses include two
see the man calls, one suspicious person call, one battery call, four deputy observation/possible
crime calls, one robbery call, and one illegal handicap parking call. During this report, there were
four crimes reported, relating to one arrest for a stolen vehicle, one arrest for an unlicensed driver,
one unoccupied stolen vehicle, and one arrest for a suspended license and possession of illicit
controlled substance.
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
one armed security stationed in the parking lot from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., the installation of a
comprehensive surveillance camera system which the Sheriff s Department holds direct access to,
and the newly installed automatic license plate reader (flock camera). Based on the decrease in
number of calls for service/responses, severity of the calls, and the City's Sheriffs Department
Team's recommendation, the City Council finds that the requirements within the Conditions of
Approval can be revised to one unarmed security guard in the evening hours from 9:00 p.m. to
5:00 a.m. to be stationed in the parking lot at all times. The security plan be re-evaluated in six
M
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. 2023-21 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2023.
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Exhibit:
A. Conditions of Approval
K
Sean Dang, 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. 2023-21, was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day
of , 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
(City Council Resolution 2023-21)
MODIFICATION 21-01
2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD
(APN: 5283-036-032)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
April 25, 2023
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 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 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.
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. After six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2023-21, 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 2023-21 and whether the
conditions stated in Resolution 2023-21 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.
E
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 151 2na 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 One unarmed security guard in the evening hours from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.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.
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.
L9
22. The automatic license plate reader shall be operable 24 hours per day and be located at
a location approved by the City's Sheriff's Department team. The data from such
automatic license plate reader shall be made accessible to the City's police department.
[to]
Attachment B
Planning Commission Staff Report
(without attachments), 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
,gtJ1Fft
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 Sheriff's
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 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 "I"'). 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 Sheriff's 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 Sheriffs 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 1St 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 88447) 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 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.
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
three years; prohibiting food preparation
security system designed to the satisfaction
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
registration of all guests and keeping records for
equipment in guest rooms; and incorporating a
of the Chief of Police.
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:
-�4
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
fAIvvkp two T - �b
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)
Attachment C
Planning Commission Meeting 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 Berry, Leung, Tang, and Chair Lopez
STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Assistant City Manager Kim,
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 CIN 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.
Ro meed%ml v Commlivw Meeting
Mnutas ofAO5,201
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, 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, various 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 Pkmm Conmum m Meering
MrnufasdAprfl 5, 2021
Page 2 of 13
Chair Lopez asked what the size of each unit will be
Assistant City Manager Kim stated it would depend on the size of the project, but it would be a .typical 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 Fin;
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 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, 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 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.
Rosemead Pramag Cnmmissbn Mmft
Mrnufes ofApnl5, 2021
Page 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 commkskn Meering
Minutes ofApr85, 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 speck 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 C inn issron Meering
Minutes of Apt 5, 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
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 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
track 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?
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 awnnUig Car� Meft
Minutes ofApr35, 2021
Pop 6 of 13
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 fives 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 overseas 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 Own6g Commission Mewing
MusdescfApM5, 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 51h 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 30th 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 4r" via email from Patricia Sona:
To the Rosemead Planning Commission,
Ros nwWPlanft CamMssbn Mwft
Mbx4w ofApn75, 2021
Page 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 Y, via email from Lauraoam19:
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 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
RosemeadPlamkig Common Meeting
Mkwtes of Apol5, 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 condors 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.
RosemeadPlafflmg Commission Meeting
Minutes oraortl5, 2021
Page to of m,
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 Planning Commission Mee ft
Minutes ofApff 5, 2021
Page 11 or 13
Commissioner Tang asked if there is a way to modify the conditions to sic 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 4Ayes 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.
RosemeadPlanNng Commission Meeting
M les afAprg A 2021
Page 12 or 13
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 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 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 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
ngelica F to -Lupo
Commission Secretary
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes ofAprg 6, 2021
Page 13 of 13
Attachment D
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: 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
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 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 Thuya' fanning Com ion Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
4
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.
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.
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.
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 15r 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.
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 E
City Council Staff Report
(with attachments), dated June 22, 2021
ROSEMEAD 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
SUMMARY
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 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, 202, with the City Council.
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.
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
City Council Meeting
June 22, 2021
Page 2 of 14
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 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 fmaled 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 `B," "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 "E"), 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 am. — 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 88-447 (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. As a 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 1C) 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 2021 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
I'M."
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 staff's 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 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 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.
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
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 moms; 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:
"r�Q�
Lil 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, 202 1)
Attachment F: Planning Division Letter of Violation (dated February 17, 2021)
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)
AttachmentK: 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 0: 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
Ordinance No. 604
WSJ •
ORDINANCE NO. 604
AN ORDINANCE OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ADOPTING HOTEL AND HOTEL REGULATIONS,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 9111.1E (24) of Part XI of the Rosemead
Municipal Code is hereby deleted.
Section 2. Section 9111.1E (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 on the
Circulation Element of the General Plan.
(c) Maximum Coverage - The maximum lot coverage of all structures shall
not exceed forty percent (40X) of the total lot area,
(d) Landscaping - A minimum of ten percent (10X) 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 tan (10) feet from property line.
(f) The owner and/or operator of such hotel or motel shall not permit any
person ss.^.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 be rented 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,
and 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.
(a) 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 (30) 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 community as a whole.
(P) Conditions of Approval - A conditional use permit for any hotel/motel
may be authorized 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 sone 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.
0
(d) That the granting of such conditional use permit will not
adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
Section 4. The City Clark 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 ,
City Cl#rk
I•�i✓. '�[.lJLJ
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: Jung 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:
.Z
To the north , south and west is commercial (C-3) and developed
accordingly. -
{N
To the east is low density residential (H.-1) and developed accordingly.
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Isa
9181.1 - Uses permitted in specific zones. The following uses may be
permitted in the zones herein indicated upon the granting of a conditional
Q
use permit:.
a
20. Any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages
Q
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, CRD and M -zonas.
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: a
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
establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use so applied for will
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood thereof, not be detrimental or
injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the
general welfare of the City. ' d
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Q
On the basis of avaluation, this project has been determined to be a class
9 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of CEQA. 44
W!
PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: L
This project was submitted for building permits before Ordinance No. 604 ii
establishing regulations for all hotels and motels was adopted. This ••�
project, therefore, was exempt from obtaining a conditional use permit. ^
They received their final building approval in July of 1987. C
C9
STAFF REPORT
C.U.P. 88-447
Report for 12-9-88 PC Meeting
page 2.
The subject property is located on the south east comer of San Gabriel
Boulevard and Graves Avenue. This existing 50 -unit, three-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 was
established and, therefore, the motel 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 use 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
effect, permit the City to have greater review over these projects and
bring them in conformance. with today's standards.
RECONMENDATION:
The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
Categorical 8xemption for Conditional Use Permit 88-447, make the required
findings set forth in Section 9181.1 of the Rosemead Municipal Godei and
approve Conditional Use Permit 88-447 subject to the conditions of the
attached Exhibit A.
M(HIBIT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447
2146 SAN G.ABRIEL BOULEVARD
TRAVELODGE ROSENEAD SOUTH
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 Coda except fox 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, ate.)
4. The applicant shell 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 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 #F, 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 Hope 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 d4 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.
(MO) 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, et 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 S. 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
CMIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a remolutia
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular
held on the 21st day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
AYBB: Mattern, Lowrey, Young, Ortiz, Clark
NOBS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447
2146 SAN GASRIEL BOULEVARD
TBAVELODGE 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 agreement with the above
listed. conditions and return it within ten days of approval to the City.
SCUP447:3
Attachment E
Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection
Dated January 12, 2021
MAYOR:
SANmA AM>ENTA
MAYOR PRO TEM:
Pour Low
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAAOAAETCw
SEAN DANo
STEVENLY
Subject Property:
Property Owner:
Notice Date:
City of Rpsemead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca.
Friendly Inn Motel
Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen
9433 Garibaldi Ave.
Temple City Ca. 91780
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 11AM- 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.
�1-r�w.lr�l'-y I Z, ��-►
Page 11
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.
Srad'F&6man)7
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: ' \\�\ CiJ O� City !Rvisemad
SANDRA AR A I' \.A
MAYORO TEM:
PGLLY Low
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.0 BOX 399
COUNCILUNCII. MEMBERS:
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
MN GARer Cw
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
SE NDANG
FAX (626) 307-9218
STEwNLY
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 staff's 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
room for more than 30 consecutive calendar days.
Per Ordinance 604, subsections j and k, the ownerand/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 U 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,
*Q
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
Cc: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Director of Community Development
Brad Fliehmann, 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:
SANUM ARKMWA
MAYOR PRO TEM:
Po yLow
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAseAser Cuss
SEAN DAM
Sn: Lr
City of Rpsemead
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 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
receptacle."
Page 11
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 rootrd a re-
occupied until approved by the mg Offi
�acial.
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 wlding 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 roorrbe 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,
Br"rl elzmann
Building Official (Contract)
City of Rosemead
Building and Safety Department
(626) 569-2130
(hWD)
Page 13
Attachment H
Building & Safety Division Notification of Code
Violation Dated February 17, 2021
MAYOR: , City of �semwd
SANDRA ARr.O:errA +
MAY
Low
POLLYCOUNCIL
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD PA BOX 399
MEMBERS:
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
MAROAUT CL w
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
SEAN DANO
FAX (626) 307-9218
STEVEN LY
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 Buildirm 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.
K4 �R� Page I 1 of 16
t Z�
�1�61,�„a e�"l
Room 340 (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 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 12 of 16
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. 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 348 (1/21/21- Inspector D. Hemandez)
Volation 1- Missing wall light fixture.
Volation 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 13of16
Room 349 (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*.
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/ worn- 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 (1/26121- 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 222 (1126121- 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. Fllehmann)
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. Fl)ehmann)
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. Fliefrmann)
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- 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. Fiiehmann)
Violation 1- Room occupied in violation of Inspection Notice, no inspection
performed.
Room status at close of inspection- not changed.
Page 15 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. Fliehmann)
Violation 1-
Window frame damaged/ wom- 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. F(Iehmann)
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. Fllehmann)
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. Fllehmann)
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. F(iehmann)
Violation 1- 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. Fllehmann)
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. Flishmann)
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. Fl(ehmann)
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 18 of 16
Room 213 (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 214 (1/27/21- 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- 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 1/28/21).
Room 108 (1/27/21- Inspector6. Fllehmann)
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- Inspecfor 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. 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 (1/28/21- 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. 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.
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. F/(ehmann)- 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/ worn- 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 N (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/ 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 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- Insoector 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-lnspector D. Hemandez)
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. Hemandez)
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/ 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 114 of 16
Room 217 (1/29/21- Inspector Q. Hernandez)- Re -inspection per Held 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 ACTIONS REQUIRED:
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,
Brad:r1i' mann
Building Official (Contract)
City of Rosemead
Building and Safety Department
(626) 569-2130
(END)
Page 116 of 16
Attachment I
Building & Safety Division Notice of Inspection
Dated February 18, 2021
MAYOR: City of Rpsemead
SAMM ARMEMA
MAYOR PRO TEM:
213
PoLLY Low
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ROBEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
MARGARET CLARK
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
Page 11
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 Properly
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.
Brad:�2 eAm,ann
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:
POLLY Low
MAYOR PRO TEM:
SEAN DANG
COUNCILMEMBERS:
SANDRA ARMENIA
MARGARET CLARK
STEVEN LY
Subject Property:
Property Owner:
City of 4?gsemead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
2146 San Gabriel Blvd. Rosemead, Ca.
Friendly Inn Motel
Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen
9433 Garibaldi Ave.
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
11 AM (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.
Braa'Fdeltmann
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
MAYOR:
Pou.YLow
MAYOR PRO TEM: -
SEAN DA
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA AM wA
MARGARET CLARE
STEYENLY
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.
Case # CE 21-0043 A�etra<c�cv
Violation Date: on or before March 24, 2021
Notice Date: April 1, 2021
Property Owner: Jung Huang Chen & Li Yuan T. Chen
9433 Garibaldi Ave.
Temple City Ca. 91780
�i
Based on inspections of the property listed above on Marc 2 021, 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.
15
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. Hemandez)
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 — (/ wwtor D. Hemandez)
Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection.
Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined.
Room 219 — (Inspector D. Hemandez)
Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection.
Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined.
Room 220— (inspector D. Hemandez)
Volation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection.
Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined.
Room 223— (Inspector B. Fllehmann)
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 —(Inspector B. 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)
Violation 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.
Violation 2- Door number mis-marked (shows room #109)
Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy).
Room 231— (inspector 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 — (Inspector D. Homandez)
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. Fllehmann)
Violation 1- Room occupied- not available for inspection.
Room status at close of inspection- Undetermined.
Room 337— (Inspector B. Flishmann)
Violation 1- Smoke alarm not functioning
Violation 2- Phone not working
Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy).
Room 338— (Inspector 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. F/iehmann)
Violation 1- Multiple deficiencies due to repairs in progress.
Room status at close of inspection- Yellow tag (do not occupy).
Room 344— Onspector B. Fllehmann)
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. Hemandez)
Violation 1- HVAC not functioning and/or unsanitary.
Violation 2- Receptacles loose and/or mis-wired near HVAC.
Volation 3- Light fixtures missing covers.
Violation4- Smoke alarm missing/ not functioning,
Volation 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.
A follow up inspection is scheduled f Ma 2, 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,
Bradr, zk 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
4i,
cae.no.w averm11,11111111110 Howl
Facility Name:
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
'11I
Intpe-11" Data: 1272021
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
CHEN, U YIIAN
Wolation Taxi: Dwellings shall be Iree of vernin Infestatloltharbore0e (I.e., cockroaches, Pies, mosquitoes, mites, fleas, bedbugs,
OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
4vaea`
2148 SANOABRIELBLVD
3630 VALSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 80010 - Phone: (213) 3614288
NMM/.PUSUCHEALTH.LA000NTY.GOV/EH
4i,
cae.no.w averm11,11111111110 Howl
Facility Name:
FRIENDLY INN
WoNtbn: Cockroaches - Unit
Intpe-11" Data: 1272021
OnnxNarrrdtree:
CHEN, U YIIAN
Wolation Taxi: Dwellings shall be Iree of vernin Infestatloltharbore0e (I.e., cockroaches, Pies, mosquitoes, mites, fleas, bedbugs,
Re4nspecibn Dale: NIA
Facl0y Address:
2148 SANOABRIELBLVD
City21p:
ROSEMEAD, CA 81770-361
Observedoockroarhes end all evidence of Wauoarhea In Bre following areas:
Phone S:
E:neBAddraea:
NONE SPECIFIED
2. Room 335- epprodmelaly 3 coolo caches In urdt
ERS:
DIOSDADOVAP
Mdurra Address:
2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD, ROSEMEAD, CA 817703042
5. Room 214 appmImetely 2 cockroaches in uMt
Trealn: 11:00AM
Tlme Out 01:00PM
EH Dma Number.
(213) 2151-02 8 8
Program MMtinum
WA
Service: INSFECTIO/SIINES11GATIOW CARRY OVER
Result: CORRECENEACTION/FOLLOW UP REQUIRED
Action: REINSPECTION REQUIRED
FA: FA0150282
PR: WA
8R: WA
CO: 000284885
PE: 2423
PIC/Osmar Signature
DIOSDADO YAP
EHS Signature
Help u; serve you better try completing a short survey. Waft our website at www.publlchealm.lacounN.00v/eh.
1.1 Page 1 c44
WoNtbn: Cockroaches - Unit
Cockroaches
Wolation Taxi: Dwellings shall be Iree of vernin Infestatloltharbore0e (I.e., cockroaches, Pies, mosquitoes, mites, fleas, bedbugs,
mtslmlce). LACCITItle 11ISection 11.20.140;11.20.160; 11.20.170:11.20.330; 11.30.010; 11.30.050; 11.30.080; 11.30.070; 11.30.080
Correed" Aetbn: Eliminate cockroaches ANd all evidence of cockroachesby safe, legal and effective methods In al unite
Observedoockroarhes end all evidence of Wauoarhea In Bre following areas:
1. Room 334 approdmeley 15 cockroaches OW aid deed) throughout the unit
2. Room 335- epprodmelaly 3 coolo caches In urdt
3. Room 338- approdmately 50 cockroaches throughout the unit with feral spottings co electrical socket next to the sink.
4. Room 213. approximelsiy 2 cockroaches In unit
5. Room 214 appmImetely 2 cockroaches in uMt
S. Room 218-appradmetdy 10 cockmechw In unit
7. Room 219- approxlmataly 5 cockroaches In talk.
8. Room 103 -approximately 10 cockroaches In unit
9. RoDI approximately, 10 cockroaches In unit.
10. Room 100- approAmalsy 10 cockroaches In unit
Walad.nr TankISas&BcwVOtnef- Unit
Tank I Base 1
BoM1l OBtar
WpMdg„ Tull. Dwelling un@s shall have an approved tollet or privy stWCfure 10 good repair. 1120.140;11.20.160;11.20.170;
11.20.180; 11.20.190:11.2D.340
CorrecOw Action: Replace all missing toilets and their oompor ants In all wits.
Observed leeking under the toilet tank (dean water) In Room 214.
Observed Now draining hand sink In Room 105.
Observed unaeoured Wait In Room 218.
Wclsrfon, Appliances- Unit
Appliances
Violation Text Applarlces/Fumkehinge Q.a suppled bedding, fumlture, counters, cabinets, vanillas, shelvings, etc.) shall be
maintained In good condition or repair. 11.20.180; 11.20.170-,11.20.340
Comective Action: Maintain all owner -supplied appliances in good condition w repair.
Observed food, din and other debris encrusted on personal refrigerator Inside and cut In Bre following rooms (105, 334, 335,338, 214,
102).
Observed Inoperable mechanical exhaust vent In restroom in Roane 104 and 102.
PIC/Osmar Signature
DIOSDADO YAP
EHS Signature
Help u; serve you better try completing a short survey. Waft our website at www.publlchealm.lacounN.00v/eh.
1.1 Page 1 c44
&.
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
't�)
I.�OFFICE:
If"W.A.W17%
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ♦ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
phaua:
HOUSING AND INST. • CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
CO: COO284385
3630 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phone: (213) 361.02BS
,"
GMrOb1A1M19
P�61k Nlgllh
Fedllhy Name: FRIENDLY INN
Impecaon Dear: 11272021
Fecley Addreu: 2148 SANGABRIELBLVD
Cky24: ROSEMEAD, CA 21770-3811
phaua:
FA: FA01S0282 PR: WA SR: NIA
CO: COO284385
PE: 2423
Vlolatiow Furniture - Una
Furniture
Violation Tar: AppllancealFumkhings (i.e. supplied bedding, f rnlWre, counters, cabinets, vanillas, shelvirgs, etc.) shall be
maintained in good condition or repair. 11.20.180; 11.20.170; 11.20.340
Corrective Action: Maintain all owner -suppled furnishings in good condition or repair.
Observed cabinets, drawers, tables, chain and other fumllum s with stains, do and other debris accun laton broken and missing
handles and other components, N the fclowing moms (334, 335, 338, 213, 214, 218, 218, 1G2, 1 D3, 105, 106 and 104)
Violation: Counters, Cabinets, Vanillas, Shelving, etc. - Unit
Courter,
Cabinets,
Violation Tame Appllancon/Fumishings 0.9. suppled bedding, "lure, mintera, cabkrots, vanities, sheNings, etc.) shall be
Vealu",maintained
In good condition or repair. 1120.160; 11.20.170; 11.20.340
Shelving, etc.
CorrecOve Action: Maintain all owner -furnished( built-in applanws and furnishings In good condition or repair.
Damagedkrecked nlmer above the sink In Rooms 105 and 216.
Noladon: WaIOCalling/Floor- General - Unit
Weil l Calling 1
Floor-
Violation Tamh Walls/ Callings I Floore shell be maintained In good repair or condtlbn. 11.20.140;11.20.160;11.20.170;11.20.190;
General
11.20.340;
Corrective Action: Repakheplace all damaged, broken, bucked, missing, or deteriorated wellsrtailings. Repairfrepkce all tom,
deteriorated, worn, loose, damaged, or cracked floors or floor coverings.
Observed the 10110Wng violations:
1. Room 334- Damaged wall around the electrical socket near the ate unit
2.1100m 335- Holef pening around the drainline below the hand sink.
3.Rcom 335-a. Damaged wag below the hard sink b. Demaged/oreolkd aide panel In hand sink counter. c. Remove fowl spotting on
wall around the alecViwl socket near the sink
4.Room 219- Damngadlhola In well inside the bathroom.
5.Rcom 102-e. Damaged baso cove fila in" the bathroom b. Hole around the shower One.
B.Room 105- a Damaged well next to the cabinet with cable attach to the hole. b. Clean and maintain carpot floor with din, dust and
other debris accumulation.
7.Room 105a. Damaged note in wall near the toilet paper holder. b. Damaged/dateriereled catling around the mechanical vent. c. Water
damaged telling with black substance In bathroom and outside the bathroom calling.
$.Room 1 D6- Damaged well neer the sink
e.Reom 10". Damaged calling around the mschanked vent In bathroom. b. Damaged carpet flow.
Violation: Windowsl5weens - Unit
Window/
Screens
Wolation Tar: Windows and other openings in the exterior wells of dveNngs shell be provided with approved annealing of at least
16 mesh ast h tight -flung tames. 11.20.1$0; 11,20.170; 11.20.180; 11.20.330; 11.20.340; 11.30.010; 11.30.050
Corrective Acdon: Repair/ replace all damaged, broken, cracked, tom, Inoperable, matunctlonkg, missing, or deteriorated windows,
ortheircompunants.
Observed tom window screen outside Room 334.
PIC/Owner Signature
DIOSDADOYAP
ENS Signature
Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit owwebalts at www.tublich"Ith.lacounw.00weh.
Page 2 d4
�k
raWRwbr Wim
Puhlle Hit lr
FadNly, Name: FRIENDLY INN
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
Fadfly Addrre: 2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
C9y2Ip: ROSEII CA 91770-369
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC HEALTH
FA: FA01fi M PR: WA SR: NIA
C0: CO02e48115
OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. ♦ CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
'F
,ate'
3638 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phone: (213) 381-0288
WWW.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNTY.GQM
�k
raWRwbr Wim
Puhlle Hit lr
FadNly, Name: FRIENDLY INN
Inapec9on Data: 1127=1
Fadfly Addrre: 2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
C9y2Ip: ROSEII CA 91770-369
Phone#:
FA: FA01fi M PR: WA SR: NIA
C0: CO02e48115
PE: 2423
Woletion: Faucet Fbdures- Unit
Faucet
Fixtures
Violation Text: Dwelling units shall have approved sinks, in good rapair, 11.15.050;11.20,140;11.20.160;11.20,17D;11.20.190-,
11.20.340
ComMNe Action: Replace missing or nonopareaonal Wnk faucet fixtures in all units.
Observed leaking bathtub faucet In Rowe 338.
Wo/atkn: Cart-Offe/DebdaWaste - Promises
Cast- Offs /
Debria llNute
Wolarfon Text: Premises shag be mandalned N a dean, sentry condition, fru from accumulations of garbage, rubbish, refuse and
olherwastes at all tim99. Garbage and putresclde matter, whether mixed with rubbish or other matter or nok shall be kept In watertight
mospisclea with clowning lids and with handles or balls. Such receptacles Owl be thoroughly cleaned each time drelr contents are
removed. 11.18.020; 11.16.030; 11.16.050; 11.16.06011.20.140; 11.20.160;11.20.170; 11.20.180, 11.20.19, 11.20.340; 11.30.010;
11.30.050; 11.3D.060; 11.30.070; 11.30.060
Corrective Action: Remove unreasonable collation of castoff materials from wardens.
Observed mattresses, furnitures, headboards, cabinets and other cast off Items in hallway on 3rd flow and 2nd flow and 1st floor.
I OVERALL INSPECTION COMMENTS I
The purpose of this visit Is to provide an addendum inspection due to multiple Complaints from different agencies.
It Is Improper and Illegal for any County officer, employee or inspector to sofiok bribes, gift or gratuities in connection with performing their official duties.
Improper solicitations include requests or anything of value such as cash, free services, paid travel or entertainment or tangible items such as food or
beverages. Any allwW by a County employee to solicit bribes, gtita or gratuities for any reason should be reported Immediately to Wither the County, manager
responsible for supervising the employee or the Fraud HONre, at (800) 544-6861 or wew.lacounNfraud.wo. YOU MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS.
Failure to cored the violations by the compliance data may result in additional feu.
Your signature on this form does not constitute agreement with Its contents. You may diaue this content ofthis report by contacting the supervisor at the
phone number of the Environmental Health office Indicated on front page of this report Until such Ones es a decision is rendered by this department, the
contend of this report shell remain In effecL
By signing belowthe Parson in ChargelOwner undaratarrds the above noted violations and statements.
PIOIOwoer Signature
DIOSDADOYAP
EHS Signature
Help us arms you baNer by completing a short survey. Walt our website at www.oublicheallh.lacmmtyoov/eh.
1.1 Pegs 3 d 4
A &N OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
t I+1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ♦ DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC HEALTH
��• �'r. OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
.t 3530 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 80010 - Phone: (213) 281.0288
a
W WJJ.PUBLICHEALTH.LA0O0NTY.GOV/EH
l'
co,anu,mr.so
PBBNC Knits
Fedllty Nam;
FRIENDLY INN
Inspection Dole:
11172021
Facility Address:
2145 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
CkyMp:
ROSEMFAC. CA 61770-3841
Ph." P.
FA: FA015=
PR: WA
SR:
WA 00:
COD284MS
PE: 2423
ADVISORIES I WARNINGS
Section 17274 and 24438.6 of the Stab Revenue and Taxation code provide, In part, that a taxpayer, who derives rental Income from Musing determined
by the local regulatory agency to be substandard by resson of violation of State or two[ codes dealing with health, safety, or building, cannot deduct from
State personal Income tax and bank and corporation Income tax, deductions for Interest, depredation or taxes attributable to such subatandard abucWre
where the substandard wndigwu aro not convicted within sic (6) months atter 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 Eased of failure to comply with than
code sections.
Pisses be advised that the above WARNING is for purpose of compliance with the State Revenue and Taxation Code oo&. Compliance with Health laws as
noted on the ehachad Inspection Report or Notice of Violation most be made within the time specified on the report or notice.
WARNING: You are hereby advised that corrections ordered by this report/o6klel notice may daturb surfaces that may contain lead-based paint.
Leac •basal paint can be wnlmony found In Musing built prior to 1878.
Prior to making any conectlona ordered and In coNunctton with repairs or rahabllBation, you must determine B lead Is pre int In the dwelling
unit/apartmerNroom. Al comective actions must be conducted in a manner that will protect ocarpante workers, and other from exposure to wntaminstlon
For further Informallon on lad hazards call 1(600) LA -d -LEAD.
OTHER INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Exposure to internal arvirenmanbl elements, such as asbestos, molds, and mildew, dust mites, droppings from cockmeches and rodents, cation
monoxide, formaldehyde, pesticides, and radon also contribute to unhealthy housing atvlronmards. All wrrecdve actions must be =dueled in a manner
that W01 protect occupants, workers, and others from exposure to lineae elements.
PIC/Owner Signature
DIOSDADOYAP
ENS Signature
Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit ourwabslte at www.wblichealth.lewuMy.aov/eh.
LI Page 4of4
'"� OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
,11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICE: HOUSING AND INST. • CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
d q
3690 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 - Phone: (213) 391-0288
.,c WWM.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNTY.GOVIEH
�K
re.n+n,wwem
PY®YO lMIm
Facility Num;
FRIENDLY INN
Woladon: Cockroaches -Unit
Impaction Dats: 1212021
OanMPerMkee:
CHEN. UYUAN
Wolatlon Tei: Dwellings shell be free of vermin InfesfetioNhemorage (I.e., oockmachm, Sim, mosquitoes, mites, fleas, bedbugs,
Radnapactisn We: 2111=1
Facli ty Address;
2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
CIty21p:
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770-764
Observed cockmaches (adult nymph, egg casings and fecal spots) In the follmht; areas:
Phone a:
Emla Address:
NONESPECIFIED
D. Room 341- appmximatdy 10 coduvachm and evidence of Infestation.
ENS:
DIOSDADO YAP
Melling Add.:
21M SAN GABRIEL BLVD, ROSEAEAD, CA 91�2
Wolatlon: SeweDDrein Lines - Unit
mm In: 10.30AM
roma Out• 01:30 PM
EH ORka Number:
(213)351 88
Programldaoffl..
WA
SaMca: COMPLAINTINVESrIGATNIN
CORREGWEAC IDNIFOLIDWUP REQUIRED
A.B.: REINSPECTIONREQUREO
iA: FA0150282
PR: WA
Sm NIA
CD: 000264885
pE; 2423Result:
Violation: Appliances - Unit
PIC/Owner Signature
DIOSDADO YAP
ENS Signature
Help us serve you bear by completing a short survey. Visit our website at www.oublichealth.lawuntv.uovfeh.
Page i of 3
Woladon: Cockroaches -Unit
Cockroaches
Wolatlon Tei: Dwellings shell be free of vermin InfesfetioNhemorage (I.e., oockmachm, Sim, mosquitoes, mites, fleas, bedbugs,
mts/mice). LACC/ Tga 111 Section 11.2D.140; 11.20.180; 11.20.170;1120.330; 11.30.010; 11.30.050; 11.30.000; 11.30.070; 11.30.080
Commit" Action: Elminela cockmadm and all evidence of cockroaches by safe, legal and effective methods In all units.
Observed cockmaches (adult nymph, egg casings and fecal spots) In the follmht; areas:
e. Room 340. approximately 20 cockroaches and evidence of Infestation.
D. Room 341- appmximatdy 10 coduvachm and evidence of Infestation.
e. Room 343- approdmately 5 cockroaches and evidence of Infestation.
d. Room 345- approximately 5 cockroaches and evidence of Infestation.
Wolatlon: SeweDDrein Lines - Unit
Sewed Drain
Lines
Wolerlon Text All plumbing drains and sewer lines shall be water light, free timing, and drain Into a municipal sewer system or Into
an approved onshe wastewater treatment system Sower lines Nall not discharge to the ground surface or to a location other than
Intended. 11.20.140, 11.20.190, 11.38.042, 11.38.810, 11.38.700, 11.38.720, 11.38.820
CornsctiveActlon: Maintain eg seweridfeln lines free from defects and free flowing.
Observed leaking p tree under the sink outside the bathroom In Room 344.
Violation: Appliances - Unit
Appliances
Vloladon Text Appliances/Furn shings (La. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanities, sheivings, etc.) shall be
maintained In good condition w repair. 11.20.160; 11.31.170; 1120.340
Cmrective Argon: Maintain al wooer-supplled appliances in good condition or repair.
Observed personal refrigerator have duet, dirt and other debris accumulated and encrusted in Interior and exterior In Rooms 340, 341
and 345.
Bedding
V1clarson: Bedding - Unit
Vlelaflon Text Appllances/Fumlehitgs (La. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanOles, sheMngs, etc.) shall be
mahllalned In goad condition or repair. 11.20.180; 11.20.170; 11.20.340
Come0ve Action: Maintain ail owrar-supplled bedding In good condition or repair.
Observed dust, food, dirt and other debris accumulated on mattress and box spring and damagedildeterforeted fabric on mamas and
box spring In Roam 340, 341,343,344, 345, 348.
PIC/Owner Signature
DIOSDADO YAP
ENS Signature
Help us serve you bear by completing a short survey. Visit our website at www.oublichealth.lawuntv.uovfeh.
Page i of 3
",*
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Facility Add. 2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
i�
J
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES •
OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET. a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
•�Pvewv'
PE: 2423
7630 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 60010 - Phone: (213) 361.0288
NWM.PUBLICHEALTH.tACOUNTY.GOV/EH
Finlay Name: FRIENDLY INN
Impaction Dalw 112112021
Facility Add. 2146 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
ROSEMEAD. CA 91770-W
Zvi:
Phomas:
FA: FA0190292 PR WA SR: WA Co: C0025085
PE: 2423
VlofeNon: Furniture - Unit
Furniture
Woletion Text: Applkncee/Fumishings 0.9. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanities, ahelvings, etc) shall be
malntelned In good condObn orrepair. 11.20.ieo; 1120.170; 11.20.34D
Corrmmlvs Action: Maintain all owner -suppled furnishings in good ocndgion or repair.
Observed wooden cabinets and drawers with dust dead cockroaches and other debris aocumukallon In Rooms 340, 341, 343, 344,
345,349.
Woladon: Counters, Cabinets, VanlOea, Shelving, etc. - Unit
Counter,
Cabinets,
Wolatton Taxi: Appllancea/Fumishings (L e. supplied bedding, furniture, counters, cabinets, vanitles, shelvings, MG.) shag be
Vanities,
maintained in good condition or repair. 11.20.190; 1120.170; 11.2D.340
Shelving, etc.
Corread" Action: Maintain all owner-fumishedl bugFhl appliances and furnishings in good Condition or repair.
Observed missing cabinet handles In moat of the rooms (340, 341, 343, 344, 345 and 346).
Violation: WalMalling/Foor- General - Unit
Wall/Ceiling/
Floor-
Wolation Text: Wellal Callings/Floors shall be maintained In good repalror condition.11.20.140;11.20.190;11.20.170;1120.190;
General
11.20.340;
Corrective Action: RepalMnsplaoe all damaged, broken, buckled, missing, or deteriorated welts/bellings.
Observed the following:
a, Water damaged caging above the mattress In Room 340.
b. Water damaged calling In the bathroom In Room 344.
e. Damaged door frame at the main entrance In Room 349.
d. Damaged wall along the he0way outside Room 347.
e. Water damaged calling In parking stall next to Room 111.
L Damaged well on 2nd and 3rd 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 fire dept, sheriffs
dept., building and safety, planning from lite city of Rosemead. A multi agency task force was scheduled and coordinated by
Rosemead Public Safety.
PIC/OwnerSkgnature
DIOSDADOYAP
EHS Signature
Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit our website at waw oubl'chealth Iacountvoov/eh.
1.1 Pallas 2 of 3
�k.sk
PWIC NIMM
Foolery Nano:
OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT
4 fieri
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICE: HOUSING AND INET, a CHIEF: PATRICK CHUN
Facility Address:
7530 WILSHIRE BLVD, STE 1110, LOS ANGELES, CA 00010 - Phone: (213) 3S1-0288
qn
1M1MN/.PUBLICHEALTH.LACOUNN GOV/EN
�k.sk
PWIC NIMM
Foolery Nano:
FRIENDLY INN
Inepecrlon Date: InIn21
Facility Address:
2148 8ANGABRIELSLVD
cnyaip:
ROSEMEAD, CA 81770-354
Phone R:
FA: FAOIS 2
PR: NIA
SR:
WA Cir:
COM,R IS PE: 2423
It N Improper and Bspal for any County officer. employee or Inspector to sondt bribes, pits or grdtultles In correction with performing their andel duties.
Improper solldletlqu Include requests for anything of value such as cash, free seMcea, paid travel or entertainment or tangible gems such as food or
beverages. Any attempt by a County employee to solicit bribee, gtte or gratuities for arty reeeon should be reported immedlately to @liber the County manager
responsible for supervaing the employee or the Fraud Hotline at (BDO) 544-6881 or woo cIix;ountvfraud.om. YOU MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS.
Failure to correct the violations by the compliance date may result In additional fees.
Your signature on this form does not constitute agreement with its contents. You may discuss this content of this report by contacting the supervisor at the
phone number of the Environments! Health office Indicated on front page of els report- Until such time as a decision is rendered by this department, the
content of fids report shall remain In effect
By signing below the Person In ChargelOwner understands the above noted violations and statements.
ADVISORIES / WARNINGS
Section 17274 and 24436.5 of the State Revenue and Taxation code provide, In part, that a taxpayer, who derives rental Income from housing determined
by the local regulatory agency to be substandard by reason of violation of State or Beal codes dealing with heelth, safety, or Wilding, cannot deduct from
State personal Income tax and beak and corporation income tax, deductions for interest, depreciation or taxes attributable to such substandard structure
where the substandard conditions are not corrected within six (6) months after notice of vhtatIon by the reguktory agency. THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE
MARKS THE BEGINNING OF THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD. The Department N required by law to notify the Franchise Tax Board of failure to comply with these
coda sections.
Please be advised that tin above WARNING is for purpose of compliance with the Stale Revenue and Taxation Code olily. Compliance with Haab Laws as
noted on the attached Inspection Report or Notice of Violation must be made within the time specified on the report or notice.
LEAD CORRECTION ADVISORY
WARNING: You are hereby advised that corrections ordered by this repraVoBldal notice rosy disturb surfaces that may contain lead-based paint
Laad-hosed paint can be commonly found In housing bunt prior to 1878.
Prior to making any corrections ordered and in conIundon win repairs or rehabilitation, you must determine If lead Is present In the dwelling
unlgapertmenl1room All corrective actions must be conducted In a manner that will protect occupants, ww kers, and other from exposure to contamination
For further Information on Nod hazards =it 1(800) LA -41 -LEAD.
Exposure to Internal environmental elements, such as asbestos, molds, and m0dow, dust mites, droppings from cockroaches and rodents, carbon
monoxide, formaldehyde, pesticides, and radon also contribute to unhealthy housing environments. All corrective actions must be conducted In a manner
thatwill protect ocoupents. workers. and others from exposure to mese slaments.
PIC/Owner Signature
DIOSDADO YAP
ENS Signature
Help us serve you better by completing a short survey. Visit our weballe at www.pubdiohealth.lacounw.cov/eh.
1.1 Perra3d3
Attachment M
CUP 88-447 Conditions of Approval
EMBIT 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 notarized 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:
M
To;
Public Comment
Subject:
Regarding Public Hearing DF the Friendly Nn (Apol 5)
Date:
Sunday, March 20, 20215:51:12 PM
Attachments:
-
Video Cnim
Leak Vid Imov
Leak Vid 1.mov
Leak Vid 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 icc t c•
-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
S\\
%1
� 1
l��y r
��_ `
1�
From: ENS
To: N,bfic Omment
Subject: In Regards W 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: Public Comment
Subject: Case No.: Modifiratlon (MOD) 21-01 Regarding Friendly 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 care of and thank you.
From: IFSSE c_nur,
To: Public mm 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 239:
PPMD
Subject: etter or Brien nn omments
to: oubliccomment&i1yofrosemead.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: iaumam19
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 "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 Meefing
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, Vh, 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 7"). 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 infestationiharborage; 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 6, 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,
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. 018-14902-0533402: 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
Apol 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 ajurisdiction 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 1st, 2nd and V
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 Citys 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 improvementfuse 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 88447 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" (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)
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 Frausto-Lupo, Assistant City Manager Kim,
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuels, Chief of Poke Lieutenant Duong, Building Official Filahmann, 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 ("Zoningl by defining and
establishing standards to allow the construction of homes on small lots with fee -simple ownership in the R-3
("Medium Multiple Residedar) zone. The Small Lot Ordinance creates incentives for infill residential development
in area zoned for multi -family to spur more fee -simple lousing 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 LOTAREA 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
17.136.030A 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 tesUmony; and
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 21-04 with findings, a resolution recommending that Our City Council ADOPT Ordinance
No. 998 for the approval of MCA 21-01.
RoMMOPInft CanxMasicn USAV
h(hibt ofAprlr X2f
Pope f of O
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, various 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 w0alned 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 LWson Huang repfied no public comment was received for this item.
City Attorney Thuyen confimred 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 Wally on the Housing Development Subcommittee and attended the first meeting, and subsequently, he attended the
second meefing. He added that when they walked through the small lot subdivision presentation at the Homing 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 Gabdel 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 We 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 fine between the Individual units and physically, I would be dNOcuft to distinguish a smog lot
subdivision versus a traditional townhome project.
Commissioner Berry inquired If there are any special amenities like a traditional townhome project, or ff 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 townhorne,
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 rat well. The lot itself is traditionally small with a standard sized home.
RosemeadPkTft Mwftgb, Aba0ng
MhundAPdA2021
Pap 2d13
Chair Lopez asked what the size of each unit will be.
Assistant City Manager Kim stated it would depend on the size of the project, but it would be atypical townhome size,
ranging from 1,200 sq It to 1,800 sq ft.
ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Barry, 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 (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 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, subject to the 21 conditions.
Commissioner Tang asked how many rooms are available ff the motel is at a hundred percent capacity and what is the
definition of motel use in our Municipal Code.
Planning 8 Economo Development Manager Vaiermrela 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 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.
ftmrAw Pkxft0%m Mef
n+aulwdAWe,M
pepe3orr3
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 vlolations 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
RosemeadP1Wft Commiesran 6&8 ft
Own K 2021
Pepe 4 of 13
making time 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?
L
City Attomey 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 Commissloner 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 managers occupancy."
Commissioner Tang thanked Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela for the clarification.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valeozuela provided the definition of a motel. She read; "Motel means one or
more brrikfings containing guest rooms without kitchen facilities, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading
directy, 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 ManagerValenzuela.
There being no public comment, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Hearing.
Representative Mr. Andrew Chen spoke on behalf of his mother, Mrs. Lh 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
R0SW1 dPlBMhg CmMWW Meegng
ofa0Ifs 2021
Pogo 5 of 13
arm to Install no more than 7 cameras for each floor. He spoke with Planning & Economic Development Manager
Valenzeala 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 $1,20O.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 dally 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 will do whatever it takes
to comply with these modifications. He requested that time 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
track of all the vehicles and wiA 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? `
Mr. Chan replied they do not have any criminal records or information on probation or parole. He stated ft 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 Tarp questioned employee miss.
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'd a guest comes in at midnight, they can stiA 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 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 time 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
RWWW dPbMM9c MWft
ONAn dMO2021
Peoeears
guests, and they are trying their bast 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 crbne activites 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 ghat there
have been multiple other shootings and ff those victims died, it would have been six murders to date. 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 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 sic employees and what Is his role in the business.
Mr. Chen responded that his mother overseas 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 FraustAupo read the public comments:
1. Public Comment received on March 28e via email from Eric Wu:
Hello, we he 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 wells and leaking through into the dirt on our side which also causes some
sewer like smell coming from there. It is shown in the ploturesWaos below, This is an ongoing Issue over many
yang
-People living in the inn and tossing trash down from the balcony onto the gran (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 cones 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
ROWMWdP1Wft Coft aUWft
18ureaaM1u5, 2021
Page7 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 tD 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 times every single year. Thank you.
Second email received on April 51h from Eric Wu:
Hello, this Is Ede 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 301h 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 ham 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 lighten the elders we have at home. More importantly, 'd
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 kilted. If it becomes a shootout between the pollee and those who fire in the motel. Too many
people would get affected and this neighborhood would be dragged through the dirt for having so marry 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 And] 411, via email from Patricia Sono:
To the Rosemead Planning Commission,
RomRWft C
Wn dw orA05, 2021
Pope 6W13
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 ADdl 511, via email from Lauracam19:
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
wen.
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 Irving 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 shaft 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 fallow 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 ft away from the business Is Rice Elementary School
and if the school was in full operation, you can see there are kids and famgles that comes through Graves Avenue and San
ftWM ad PW* Camrdaskn U&9bK
Ukx4x orAPr/4 2021
pwoofm
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 Idds 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 penult.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valerzuela 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-amied security guards were rot 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 penult.
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'd 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 tura murders and the Chief of Police has not encountered a business that
has two murders on site. He added; he does not believe tura-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.
Ra MWW PfWft Comnfsabn MWft
M6edesafgodf5, 2021
Pape 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 promise 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 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 him pause that many records are not upkepf; 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 sic (6)
months of the approval date.
Ro n2WPMMrp CwnmissMUWft
U%Ww orApM s, 2021
Penn 11 o113
Commissioner Tang asked if there is a way to modify the conditions to six months of the approval date, and subsequently
annually.
Planning S Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded if the Commission Wsly s.
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.
RoeerneadP/mmtrp AleeOnp
AQXft o/Ap9A 2021
Pae 120M
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 toted of ten 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 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 Hem and thinks H is great
the City is taking action. Another Item he wanted to address was the "Rosemead" sign at Rosemead Place Slopping 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 H 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 6:49 p.m.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers.
L
ATTEST: Daniel Lopez
Chair
ngelica F sto•Lupo
Commission Secretary
RosemmdPbvft Com fton Meeting
A&WwofA MA2021
Pae 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 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;
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 classed 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
17.166.040(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
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Th a fanning om ion 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.
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(o) 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 18t 2n' 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.
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
Attachment F
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
dated June 22, 2021
MAYOR:
PoLLY LOW
MAYOR PRO TEM:
SEANDANG
COUNCEL MEMBERS:
SANGR AR NTA
MARGARET CLARK
JOHN TANG
City of 9?psemeud
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.0 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 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,
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 attorney, 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 Moro
• 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:
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
Attachment G
City Council Staff Report
(without attachments), dated July 13, 2021
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER,.lam . N\ .
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 Inn"). 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:
49,
Lily" alenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
Angelica Fra -Lupo, Director of Community Development
Attachment A: City Council Staff Report with Attachments (dated June 22, 202 1)
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
Attachment H
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
dated July 13, 2021
MAYOR:
PoLLY Low
MAYOR PRO TEM:
SEAN DANG
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA ARMENIA
MARGARET CLARK
JoF TANG
City of 9?9semead
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
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
A] Ford City designated counsel, stated the City had no further comments other than the closing
presentation that was done at the .Tune 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.
Larry 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 Armenia 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 Armenia 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
Sheriffs.
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 11th 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
Attachment I
City Council Staff Report
(without attachments), dated July 27, 2021
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER,. t P
DATE: JULY 27, 2021
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-37 - MODIFICATION 21-01
FRIENDLY INN APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING
2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD
u�il'lij 4:\: 4
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.
Prep ( ed by
l��
Lily V' enzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted by/
Angelica Frausto-Lupo
Attachment A: Resolution No. 2021-37
AGENDA ITEM 6.A
Attachment J
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
dated July 27, 2021
MAYOR:
Pony Low
MAYOR PRO TEM:
SEAT DANG
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA ARA WA
MARGARET CLARK
Jow TANG
City of 4?9semead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD P.O BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
41161a "4%W*TW1j1j11
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
!Woll]►6yoleo _MOM 11 D1►117:\ 11
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 Armenta 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 2 1 -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
Attachment K
City Council Resolution No. 2021-37 with
Conditions of Approval
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 he
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,� il, 1-171ofm —
Rac el Richman, City Attorney
Exhibit:
A. Conditions of Approval
4
Polly Lo , 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
6
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 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.
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 2021-37, 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.
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. 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.
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 ls` 2"d 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.
Attachment L
City Council Staff Report
(without attachments), dated April 26, 2022
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGERyl�
DATE: APRIL 26, 2022
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATION 21-01
FRIENDLY INN MOTEL — 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD
ulu : 1,N
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 "U', 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
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 Council Resolution 2021-37 (with Conditions of Approval) are attached as
Attachments "H", "P', 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 Derember.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 Sheriffs Department Temple Station to
the Friendly Inn remains significant as compared to the past few years.
• 2019 — 26 calls for service/responses
• 2020 — 95 calls for service/responses
• 2021 (Jan Ito May 31)-26 calls for servicetresponses
• 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 party 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
Apri126,2022
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 Sheriff's 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 EMPACT
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:
1*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
Attachment M
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
dated April 26, 2022
MAYOR:
SEAN DANO
MAYOR PRO TEM:
STEVEN LY
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA ARMENIA
MA Ga TCLA
POLLY Low
City of 9?9semead
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 Sheriffs 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 11
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 Byme 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 1 l 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 11 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 Armenta 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 I l
Council Member Armenia 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 Armenia 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 I1
Attachment N
City Council Resolution No. 2022-25 with
Conditions of Approval
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
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 Sheriff's 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 10th day of May, 2022.
Pol w, or
APPROVED AS TO LLFORM:
1.
�aA/__�
,kachel Richman, City Attorney
Exhibit:
A. Conditions of Approval
4
ATTEST:
60)__7�
Ericka Hernandez, effy 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 101 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
5
EXHIBIT "A"
(City Council Resolution 2022-25)
MODIFICATION 21-01
2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD
(APN: 5283-036-032)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
May 10, 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.
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.
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 2022-25, 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.
7
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 151, 2"d, 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.
Attachment O
Applicant's Letter of Request
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: ehernandez(&citvofrosemead.ora
SUBJECT: Resolution 2022-25 of Modification of CUP 88-447 / 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 friend(yjpn91770 gmail.com if there are any issues.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
)44r--�4 aU ,
Andrew Chen
Friendly Inn
:_ W1.11r-WrI11
City Council Staff Report
(without attachments), dated December 13, 2022
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER_5Z�_-�
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 Citv 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 4.13
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.
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", "0" 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 staffs 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
Sherifr 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 Sheriff's 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 1 to February 28) — 33 calls for service/responses
• 2022 (May Ito October 31)— 19 calls for service/responses
The number of calls for service have decreased over the last five months and the City's Sheriff's
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
Pace 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 21-01 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:
14k
Lily Valenzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted cby:
"'hl�'.
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 0: Applicant's Letter of Request
Attachment Q
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
dated December 13, 2022
MAYOR:
SEAN DANG
MAYOR PRO TEM:
STEVEN LY
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA ARMENTA
MARGARETCLARK
POLLY Low
City of 1psemead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
SUMMARY EXCERPT
CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
December 13, 2022
The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council
held on December 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located
at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
Present: Mayor Dang, Mayor Pro Tem Ly, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Planning and Economic Development
Manager Valenzuela, and City Clerk Hernandez
4. PUBLIC HEARING
B. 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. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No.
2022-25 and whether the conditions stated in Resolution No. 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.
Page 1 of 9
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Conduct the public hearing and hear all public testimonies;
2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-68, entitled:
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; and
3. Find that Modification 21-01 is classified as Class
Exemptions, pursuant to
Environmental Quality Act.
Sections 15301 and
I and Class 9 Categorical
15309 of the California
City Attorney Richman asserted that Scott Porter, Special Attorney, will be
advising the City Council on this item.
Planning and Economic DevelopmentManager Valenzuela reported that 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. On April 26, 2022, the City
Council conducted a five' -month review on Modification 21-01 to determine
whether to add, revise, remove, or.C9ntinue conditions of approval based upon
the operations of the motel. Duringil a 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. The City Council agreed the security
plan can be reevaluated in 6 months; therefore, it is being presented to the City
Council tonight. 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 from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to be stationed in the
parking lot at all times.
Mayor Dang opened the Public Comment period
City Clerk Hernandez stated the City Clerk's Office received the following
comments via email from Nelson Gonzalez on behalf of the following individuals
in support of the Friendly Inn Motel:
1. Ruben Renteria 4. Virginia Aranda
2. Marytheresa Durazo 5. Daryl Jackson
3. Rosie Gutierrez 6. Shelly Foote
City Clerk Hernandez asserted that the City Clerk's Office also received separate
email comments in support of the Friendly Inn Motel from May Lee, Dandan
Page 2 of 9
Zhang, Adrian Moncayo and Frank Quach. All comments address the positive
feedback on the motel management team, security, service and property
improvements of the Friendly Inn Motel. Noted comments received via email have
been made available to the City Council and the public, also included in the record.
City Attorney Richman advised Council to hear testimony from the property
owners first, then Council can ask staff or the Sheriffs any questions they have.
Andrew Chen, son of motel owner Mrs. Chen, thanked the Council for holding this
meeting so they can reevaluate the security conditions at the motel. During the last
hearing, calls of service were a concern for Council, which has decreased in the
past five months. Stated one of the questions was if guests come to the security
first before contacting the Sheriffs; indicated that typically if the guests are in their
room, they will call the Sheriff s Office directly. Asserted that the security guards
are not able to deal with the 19 incidents that occurred in the past five months
because only law enforcement can take care of such matters. Provided the example
if there is a crime or domestic violence occurring, the security guards can intervene,
but if there is violence involved, it is better if that is handled by the Sheriffs
Department.
Mr. Chen emphasized that the number of calls for service has decreased over the
last five months and the City's Sheriffs Department Team has determined that
the incidents are less severe in nattthan the crime summary provided during the
five-month review. Noting there was nr► average of four calls per month in the past
5 months; then in the in the last 3 months, we had one in August, one in September
and two in October. Stated there were 19 calls up until October 31s`; indicated of
those 19 calls, the Deputies came and determined that no crime occurred or
evidence of a crime for six of those calls; asserted that they were not able to
make contact with the calf finformant-or possible victim for five of those calls and
for three calls, the incident reported did not actually occur on our property. Shared
that one guest was responsible for at least four of the calls regarding elder abuse —
two coworkers decided to live together to save money on rent, one of them has
Alzheimer so she thought people have been taking her things when she was moving
the items herself and did not remember doing so. Mr. Chen stated unfortunately,
we had to ask that guest to leave because we were afraid that her calling the
Sheriff's Department for service so many times within that short of a timespan
would reflect poorly on us, especially it being right after the last public hearing.
Mr. Chen shared crime stats provided at the Community Area Watch meeting held
in November, ascertained that crime is up in Rosemead and statewide; pointed out
that burglaries are a big issue. We have tried very hard to keep our crime down, by
working with security and monitoring it. If you compare our service calls to the
other hotels, I don't think it is too far off; they range from 4-15 and some of their
incidents are severe as well and are not being asked to hire security guards. We are
asking for consideration with what we are dealing with, especially our financial
burdens. Expressed that ever since the beginning of 2021, we have spent a lot of
money on renovating our rooms and parking lot, we invested $14,000 on upgrading
our surveillance equipment, noting maintenance is standard cost with this type of
Page 3 of 9
business. However, our biggest issue is that we have spent $363,182 on security
guards. Even though we have spent this much, the city still thinks we have not
satisfied the city's requirements. I'm not sure spending that much more on security
guards will benefit us further. Mr. Chen indicated that he broke down what it will
cost us for 180 days — one armed security guard for eight hours and one unarmed
security guard for sixteen hours, which will cost us almost $100,000; shared in
speaking with the President of the Hotel Association, he learned that whatever
issues we are dealing the other local hotels are also dealing with. Opined there could
be better ways to spend this money to make guests feel safer but also help reduce
crime in the city. Suggested the following alternative measures: Local patrol, flock
camera systems that can serve as automatic license plate readers in your driveway;
the cameras are able to determine the type of car, color, and record how often
they see this vehicle. The system is only $3,000 annually. The data can be directly
transmitted to law enforcement, so if they get an alert, they can address the
situation. If there are guests that are banned, we will get alerted when their vehicles
pull into the hotel parking lot. We want to find the most efficient way to fight crime
that won't be a financial burden. Thanked Council for their consideration.
Council Member Clark asked for clarification on the reference to guests being
blacklisted.
Mr. Chen responded we have a blacklist book of guests who cause trouble such as
if they destroy a room, or if law enforcement comes and does an investigation
because they are involved in something, serious. Based on prior experience with
them. If we don't accept them, then they will go to another nearby hotel.
Council Member Clark asked how long you were okay with paying for unarmed
security guards. What are the timeframes for most of these calls?
Mr. Chen responded 12 hours for an unarmed security guard because during the
daytime we have several people on site such as housekeeping and maintenance that
can report any issues. Asserted that unfortunately, he does not have the timeframes
of these calls, however, we make a note every time the sheriffs come, even for just
a routine patrol, but the times vary.
Council Member Armenta asked regarding other hotels, do you foresee that there
is more or the same number of calls at other hotels?
Mrs. Valenzuela replied that the City's Sheriffs team pulled the following numbers
of calls for service/responses (time period of May 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022)
within the vicinity to compare: 1) Fairfield Inn — There were 15 calls; 2) Motel
V.I.P. — There were four calls; and 3) Del Mar Motel — There were eight calls.
Mr. Chen responded there were some overlap between the six calls of no evidence
of crime.
Council Member Armenta opined that it appears consistent with what other hotels
are experiencing.
Page 4 of 9
Sergeant Marquez explained that when you mention "no crimes occurred or no
evidence of a crime", the individuals might have left before the Deputies got there
because they don't want to incriminate themselves, so the needed information could
not be obtained in those situations. Opined I wouldn't put too much stock into that
because it doesn't take away the fact that a crime might have occurred.
Council Member Armenta stated we have to make sound decisions with the data
before us. When we first became involved with MOD 21-01, we gave the Friendly
Inn stipulations to improve their situation. Asked city staff if they have seen a real
attempt made to rectify the ongoing issues in their business.
Mrs. Valenzuela affirmed Friendly Inn hasmadethe attempt; staff has conducted
inspections and from day one things were a lot different to what they are today.
They have installed a security system approved the sheriffs, which they also have
access to. In addition, staff from thlanning Division goes out there once every
two to three weeks to verify that security guards are present. There are some
instances where security guardshave shift changes or were sick and they
immediately try to fill that position.
Council Member Armetrtanphasized we don't want to be that city that targets and
gives stipulations to only one'business; we need to be fair across the board. We also
told them to fix these issues and theyltave made major progress.
Council Member Low opined she does see Friendly Inn has made an effort to
address the issues and that theirovetall public safety has improved. The questions
I have are regarding the recommendation — having 8 -hour armed security and
16 hour for unarmed security, it seems reasonable to me, but the owner wants
those hours reduced? My first instinct is to go with the Sheriff s recommendation
but I would like to hear my colleagues'` thoughts on that.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he is glad that my colleagues and staff are being
reasonable about this; concurred with Council Member Low. When this first came
up, there was a real need to increase security at the business as the Sheriffs were
activated for a lot of those calls, which is unfair And that the Rosemead taxpayers
weren't paying a: disproportionate amount for that locations. Proud of the business
owners making significant progress because of their genuine desire to improve that
situation. In regard to security guards — During the day if the guys are armed, they
are just an extra body. The business owner has a point that he has other staff present
throughout the day. My concern is at night, there is a need for armed security guards
because that will deter someone if they see a security guard with a weapon. No
objections with eliminating the daytime unarmed security guard with the caveat
that though you might have various personnel during the day, they are not trained
to respond to agitated guests on the premise. Suggested training personnel with
drills on how to respond to help alleviate the situation.
Mayor Dang asked if there were any additional Public Comment.
Page 5 of 9
City Clerk Hernandez affirmed there were no additional Public Comment.
Mayor Dang thanked the owner for preparing and presenting a testimony as we
know it was difficult. Reiterated we are here to help and we want to see if we can
meet you midway. Concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Ly to keep the nighttime armed
security guard; also stated he is comfortable with proposed suggestion in lieu of a
daytime twelve hour unarmed guard, we reduce it to eight hours. Inquired if the
maintenance and housekeeping personnel have radios to ensure there is a
mechanism to report any issues to the front office. Noticed in the exhibit with the
aerial photo that the flock cameras are pointing inward to the parking.
Mr. Chen stated personnel uses their cell phone to call the front office if need be.
My original thought process was to face the cameras to the street so we could get
any incoming guests, as well as any vehicles passing by. When we were getting the
quote, the agent said it was best to get vehicles from the backside, so if a vehicle is
staying in we can capture the car identification.
Mayor Dang stated he shared the same thought process to have the cameras face
the street; suggested having two flock cameras for both driveways.
Mr. Chen explained guests only use the entrance on San Gabriel Boulevard as the
driveway on Graves Avenue. is always locked unless the main entrance is not
accessible.
Council Member Armenta reiterated :that in the beginning of this process our goal
was to protect the residents; opinedbusiness has done everything we have asked
them to and are doing their due diligence to rectify the situation; proposed three
months of unarmed security at night, then come back to the Council to see if that is
enough to deter crime. Ascertained whether the security guards are armed or
unarmed, these service calls are still coming in. Pointed out it is the owners' efforts
that are ensuring guests are safe. We have to be mindful of the stipulations placed
on one business. Are we not going to the other hotels that have the same number of
calls and have them address their issues as well?
Mr. Chen affirmed that is correct. I was basing my data off the staff report, it's hard
to understand because each call is not black and white. Indicated in order to make
any modifications to the security guard contract, we have to give them 30 days'
notice. So even if the Council approves the three-month reevaluation, we still have
to wait 30 days since we have not contacted the security guard with that
modification.
Council Member Armenia replied that is good to know and for us to take into
consideration.
Mayor Dang clarified Council Member Armenta is proposing no security guards
during the daytime and only an unarmed security guard for eight hours nighttime.
Council Member Armenta confirmed that is correct.
Page 6 of 9
Council Member Clark suggested a shorter timeframe — proposed doing a four-
month review period, so that way the first month they can continue how they
currently are to give them the time to make the modification with the security guard
company. Eight hours for one armed security guard at night and potentially none
for the daytime.
Council Member Low opined we are helping the business build a reputation that
this hotel does not welcome crimes. She is okay with not having security guards
during the daytime but does want them to continue with armed security guards
during the nighttime.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated that he concurs with his colleagues; however, wanted
to point out that we are taking a risk by changing the conditions that staff and the
Sheriffs recommended. At the same time acknowledged this is a business that has
earned some rights to faith as they have made some serious improvements.
Mayor Dang inquired what is considered nighttime.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly responded staff recommended 10 p.m. to 6 a.m
Mr. Chen commented the eight hours of when to when does not really matter, but
activity slows down around 5 a.m.#o 6 a.m.; pointed out that activity is still high
around 9 pm. to 10 p.m. but would leave that up to Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that would be up to the Sheriffs if they are amenable to
that.
Special Attorney Porter asked if the Sheriffs could respond so that the hours for the
nighttime could be reflected correctly in the conditions of the approval.
Sergeant Marquez asserted that changing it an hour earlier would not be an issue;
confirmed 9 p.m. to 5 a.m, is okay with them.
Mayor, Dang recapped that Council is proposing to have eight hours of armed
security guard for the nighttime from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., no daytime security
presence; -.with the inclusion of a flock camera located at the driveway entrance of
San Gabriel Boulevard.
Council Member Clark asked if Mayor Dang wanted two flock cameras installed.
City Manager Kim clarified it would only be one flock camera as the other
driveway is closed; added the recommendation would be to have the flock camera
installed at the location approved by the Sheriffs Department.
Mayor Dang affirmed that is fine.
Special Attorney Porter read the following draft language:
Page 7 of 9
I . The Condition of Approval would instead state one armed security guard in the
evening hours from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., to be stationed in the parking lot
at all times.
2. Add a Condition of Approval that would state: There shall be installed at a
manner which meets the approval of the Sheriff s Department an automatic
license plate reader. Such license plate reader shall be operable 24 hours per
day, data from such license plate reader/reading system shall be made
accessible to the City's Police Department.
City Attorney Richman noted that there three- or four -months' timeframe was
discussed, so staff would like direction on that as well.
Mayor Dang stated the consensus is to proceed with the four-month reevaluation.
Council Member Armenta inquired what happens if during the timeframe we give
them, their service calls lower, would it be appropriate to say after so many months
that we should revisit the stipulations again.
Special Attorney Porter responded that Conditions of Approval No. 10 currently
states you will be returning in six months,atwhich point you can determine whether
to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the
facility during the period. So Council can change the timeframe to four months.
Council Member Low stated her initial thought was to keep it at six months, but if
the rest.of Council wants to proceed with four months, then I am okay with that.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly concurred with Council Member Low to keep it at six months
because it is a better rule of thumb`to have more accurate data instead of a short-
Trend.
Council Member Armenta explained the reason she suggested three months is
because if they were to make drastic changes that weren't working, you don't
want to spend too much tinte on them. Indicated she is fine with what the Council's
wishes are.
City Attorney Richman noted currently the condition states the applicant would
have to ask for review after 6 months, but if we want, we can set it after four months
after the effective date of Resolution or about that time depending on the Council
agenda, then Special Attorney Porter can amend that.
Special Attorney Porter confirmed the reevaluation timeframe will be changed to
reflect four months.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low and seconded by Council Member
Clark to take the following action:
Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2022-68, with the aforementioned changes
to the Condition of Approval, entitled:
Page 8 of 9
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;
2. Find 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.
Motion was carried out by the following vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang,
Low, Ly ABSENT: None
End of drop vummary minute excerpt
Page 9 of 9
Attachment R
City Council Resolution No. 2022-68 with
Conditions of Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 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 No. 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, 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 No. 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
No. 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 No. 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 pemmit 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 21-01 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
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 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 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.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney
Exhibit:
A. Conditions of Approval
Sean
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. 2022-68, was duly adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on
the 13th day of December, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW, LY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Ericka Hernandez, tity Clerk
51
EXHIBIT "A"
(City Council Resolution No. 2022-68)
MODIFICATION 21-01
2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD
(APN: 5283-036-032)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
December 13, 2022
1. The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted H-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 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.
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 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. After four 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 (Modified by the City Council on
December 13, 2022).
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 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 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 am. to
be stationed in the parking lot at all times (Modified by the City Council on
December 13, 2022).
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.
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.
22. There shall be installed in a manner which meets the approval of the Sheriffs
Department an automatic license plate reader. Such license plate reader shall be
operable 24 hours per day. The data from such license plate reader shall be made
accessible to the City's police department (Added by the City Council on December
l3, 2022).
10