Loading...
CC - Item 5D - Resolution No. 2022-25 - Modification 21-01 Friendly Inn Appeal Public Hearing 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard. �� 0 1 MEM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 10, 2022 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-25 - MODIFICATION 21-01 FRIENDLY INN APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD SUMMARY On April 26, 2022, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on Modification 21- 01, to review the conditions of approval for the motel establishment located at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard, as requested by the business and property owners of the 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-25, amending the conditions of approval. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Pr are by: Lily alenzuela Planning and Economic Development Manager Attachment A: Resolution No. 2022-25 AGENDA ITEM 5.1) Attachment A Resolution No. 2022-25 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 pant, 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 Enviromiuental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Findings Regarding Conditions. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 21-01, in accordance with Section 17.168.040(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which provides the findings to modify a Conditional Use Permit by the review authority that originally approved the permit, if the review authority first makes any one of the following findings: A. Circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been changed by the applicant to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made, and the public health, safety, and welfare require the modification or revocation; B. The permit or other approval was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a fraud, misrepresentation, or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the permit or approval; C. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated and/or the permit is in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; D. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or E. The improvement/use allowed by the permit or approval has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a nuisance; FINDING: The City Council finds that facts do justify "Findings A, C, and E". The Chief of Police conducted a comprehensive review of the crimes at the Friendly Inn over the last six months (September 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022). The number of calls for service/responses by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Temple Station to the Friendly Inn remains significantly high at 33 calls for service/responses, in which two resulted in crime reports. The 3 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 10`x' day of May 2022. ATTEST: Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED TO FORM: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Rachel Richman, City Attorney Exhibit: A. Conditions of Approval 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 10°i day of May 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" (City Council Resolution 2022-25) MODIFICATION 21-01 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD (APN: 5283-036-032) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL May 10, 2022 1. The property is maintained according to the site plan submitted 11-2-88, marked Exhibit B (original condition of Conditional Use Permit 88-447). Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Modification 21-01 is a modification to the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 to impose updated and new conditions for the motel use. The conditions of approval of Modification 21-01 shall supersede the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447. 3. The operator of the motel must obtain and maintain a valid City of Rosemead business license. The motel shall be operated in compliance with the operational standards and requirements provided in Chapter 5.42 (Motels and Hotels) and Section 17.30.130 (Hotels/Motels) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 4. Starting on the 11th day after the City Council approved Resolution 2021-24, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of all of the conditions of approval as set forth in this list of conditions. 5. Project is granted or approved by the City, and its Planning Commission and City Council, retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 6. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use, including the requirements of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement Division, Los Angeles County 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 six months from the effective date of City Council Resolution 2022-25, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise, or remove conditions of approval based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council Resolution 2022-25 and whether the conditions stated in Resolution 2022-25 will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the subject property on a going - forward basis. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director, or his/her designee, prior to installation. 12. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. 13. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times and the doors shall be self-closing and self - latching. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 14. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved, and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 15. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. 16. All dilapidated awnings shall be removed and replaced. 17. All exterior light fixtures onsite shall be repaired and maintained. 18. Adequate lighting shall be maintained within the motel and adjacent parking areas. 19. No exterior vending machines shall be permitted. 20. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Chief of Police Conditions of Approval 21. The security system shall be designed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police. The following security measures shall be incorporated into the motel: Security Cameras o Ten (10) surveillance cameras placed on each floor. o Eight (8) surveillance cameras placed in parking lot. o Four (4) surveillance cameras placed on perimeter of the building. o Two (2) surveillance cameras placed in the lobby. o One (1) surveillance camera in elevator. o One (1) surveillance camera in each stairwell covering 1", 2°d, and Yd 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.