FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Item No. 3
Development project no. 2022-00007
Location: 837 south Beach Boulevard
Request: a city-initiated request that the planning
Commission consider the revocation or modification of
conditional use permit no. 2237 for an existing motel
(Anaheim Lodge).
Environmental determination: the planning Commission
will consider whether class 1 (existing facilities) and class 21 (enforcement actions by regulatory agencies)
categorical exemptions are the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California
environmental quality act.
.
Resolution no. Pc2022-047
(Meeks/Heywood)
Approved with a modification to
condition no. 11:
The property owner shall not
“knowingly” rent motel rooms to
persons previously arrested on
or adjacent to the motel
premises for any reason.
Vote: 6-0
Chair Meeks and Commissioners
Heywood, Perez, Vadodaria,
Wolfgramm and White voted yes.
Commissioner Kring was absent
Project planner:
Nick Taylor
[email protected]
Nick Taylor, senior planner explained item three is a city-initiated request for revocation or modification of a conditional use permit for the Anaheim Lodge. With me this evening is director Ted White, Sergeant Paqua from the Anaheim Police department, Sandra Lozeau and Oscar Ochoa from Code Enforcement, and Nikki Wetzel from the planning department.
Staff conducted the rebuild beach workshop for the planning Commission at the February 14th meeting. With the support of city council, the multi-departmental rebuild beach effort was launched in 2021 to improve the Beach Boulevard corridor and improve the quality of life for surrounding west Anaheim neighborhoods.
The criminal activity along Beach Boulevard primarily originates from problematic motels where privacy and anonymity, afforded by the abundance of cheap rooms create an environment for drug dealers, illegal gambling halls known as slap houses, and prostitution.
These criminal activities lead to assaults, shootings, drug overdose, deaths, human trafficking, and property crimes that plague Beach Boulevard.
As part of this rebuild beach effort, staff has identified two motels which were approved by conditional use permit that are priority candidates for revocation or modification: the Anaheim Lodge and Travel Inn.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
The Travel Inn will be a public hearing on tonight's agenda, immediately following this hearing.
Anaheim Lodge is located at 837 south Beach Boulevard, north of Ball Road and consists of 45 rooms. The motel was originally approved in 1981 with only two conditions of approval and has been operating since 1984. It was selected as a priority site in the Rebuild Beach effort because of poor property maintenance and significant amount of criminal activity that has proven to be harmful to the public health and safety.
The original conditions are related to a zoning reclassification which was processed concurrently with the 1981 CUP and also limiting kitchen efficiency units in 25% of the rooms; however, there were no operational or maintenance conditions that were included in the original approval.
There has been a dramatic increase in arrests and calls for service at the Anaheim Lodge in recent years. Of the 18 motels on the boulevard, the Anaheim Lodge had the second highest calls for service in 2021; arrests at the property jumped 473% between 2020 and 2021. Police statistics show that between 2017 and 2021 the Anaheim Lodge accounts for 18% of all arrests occurring at Beach Boulevard motels. Criminal activities include assault, battery, drug use, firearms possession, and a homicide that occurred in April 2020.
The photos shown were taken on June 4th and September 3rd, 2021. They show the gang units serving drug sales warrants on the property. Recent Code Enforcement records include complaints related to the lack of property maintenance, including broken windows, landscaping, general trash, and debris. This photo is indicative of the types of maintenance issues that have been observed.
City of Anaheim Fire and Rescue personnel generally respond to fires and medical emergencies and since 2019, Anaheim Fire and Rescue has responded to 35 calls for service for various medical emergencies. The number of calls in 20 and 21 more than doubled from previous years. Specifically, there are calls related to drug overdoses and poisoning, seizures, mental emotional or psychological issues, unconscious or unresponsive individuals, cardiac arrests and even the fatal shooting in 2020 that was previously referenced.
Fire and Rescue notes that a significant number of resources are spent on Beach Boulevard, including at the Anaheim Lodge which limits the availability of resources to other parts of the city.
Mr. Taylor briefly turned the presentation over to Sergeant Paqua to address the Commission and share some of the Police Department’s perspectives on the issue.
Sergeant Paqua stated: I speak to you not only as the West District Community Policing Sergeant, but as somebody who is on the ground there every day on Beach Boulevard. I see the crime that has been plaguing the city for way too long. Think of it of as a sink that FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
is overflowing, and the water is seeping in the ground and all we've done is mop up the water. This time, we want to turn off the spigot. We want to stop what's causing all the crime and blight that is happening out there. It’s been happening way too long, and we'd like to get the businesses, Commission, and city’s help to finally fix this problem.
It appears that there are way too many motel rooms and not enough people to occupy these rooms in this small area. The intention for which these motels were built is not being served, so in order to fill their rooms and make their business successful, some of these hotels and motels have lowered their standards on who they let stay there because there are just too many. It is a simple supply chain and economics problem if you ask me.
I've been working out there for about 20 years and lived in west Anaheim. I’ve seen everything at these hotels from simple drug possession, armed robberies, shootings, and stabbings. As we speak right now, the human trafficking task force is out on Beach Boulevard dealing with a victim and a pimp. It is a daily occurrence and I have my officers out there constantly. I am responsible for the entire west end of Anaheim, and it seems that my officers are funneled into working every day on Beach Boulevard between Ball and Orange. I ask for help on this because we are not going to arrest our way out of this, this is a problem we need to fix at this level; I’m hoping we can get that done.
In this process we have identified several hotels that are using more of our resources, and I have been compiling a list of which hotels have calls for service since December when we had our first meeting.
There are a few hotels that only have two, three or five calls for service and they are generated by employees about parking and music. There are a few motels that literally have hundreds of calls since December. Yes, there are some employees who are trying to make their business better and are calling about parking, but overwhelmingly they are narcotics related, domestic assault, and disturbances. As we begin this process, we are going to take the motels that have the most calls for service, and the Anaheim Lodge is one of those.
I've been dealing with the Anaheim Lodge for many, many years and as you know fentanyl is rampant right now and people throughout all the prisons, the county and the state know that if you want fentanyl, want to find a prostitute, or want to buy a gun, you go to Beach and Ball. The best place to find it is the Anaheim Lodge.
We recently had information that an employee was telling suspects that there were undercover Police in the parking lot. That is how cops get executed. It is intolerable and I hope that it doesn't happen anymore.
I would love to see the Anaheim Lodge conform to these very easy standards. We just need a set of rules that we can all play by and I’m hoping that they conform to those. We are not asking for anything drastic, and we are not picking on the Anaheim Lodge or the Travel Inn, we are just starting with them. We want everybody to be successful and I want my citizens FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
to have a quality of life that they all enjoy and hopefully we can start with that tonight. I am available for questions.
Nick Taylor stated that the municipal code provides seven findings that are related to either revocation or modification of a CUP and if the Planning Commission finds that one or more of those findings apply, it may revoke or modify that CUP. Staff believes that the motel has been operating in a manner detrimental to the public health or safety, so as to constitute a nuisance and that the imposition of additional conditions is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare.
Accordingly, staff believes that three of the findings apply and that the motel operation has been in violation of various statutes, ordinances, laws, or regulations. It has been detrimental to public safety and constitutes a nuisance and adding conditions is reasonably necessary to protect public peace, health and safety, and general welfare.
According to those findings referenced in the previous slide, staff recommends adding conditions to the CUP to ensure operations that encourage property maintenance and discourage criminal activity. A draft resolution with a complete list of recommended conditions has been included as attachment one. Conditions included in attachment one includes, but are not limited to the following:
Provide a security and operations plan to the Police department for approval with an annual review
Ensure the minimum age of a guest renting rooms 21 years Ensure the provision of 24-hour on-site management
Ensure the provision of daily cleaning service
Prohibit short duration room rentals with 12 hours being the minimum Ensure regular maintenance, including landscaping, removal of graffiti and trash The lack of property maintenance and the operations of the Anaheim Lodge is detrimental to public health and safety and staff recommends that the planning Commission modify the CUP to add the new conditions of approval. In the event that the property owner does not comply with these conditions, staff will continue to pursue compliance through Code Enforcement, CUP revocation and or the city attorney's office as necessary. As previously mentioned, we have staff here that is happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Thank you.
Chair Meeks stated we have a number of people who want to speak on these items.
Commissioners do you have any questions for staff?
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked, related to the process, why have they chosen this method as opposed to others. Have there been other ways that we've sought to fix this issue? If the city ordinances are being violated, have they been ticketed or cited, and has the owner been brought to the table to have them fix the issues that they are violating.
Ted White, Planning and Building Director stated the Sergeant informed the Commission on what the city’s overall approach has been. There have been times when the city has FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
done enforcement on short term to address Code Enforcement related issues of property maintenance, peeled paint, lack of landscaping, signs etc. But this time around, we are trying to take a more holistic approach, rather than just addressing the symptoms. We are trying to go after the base concerns that are the foundational piece of this, which is a conditional use permit that was approved without any operational standards or rules to comply by.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked if the owner has been cited.
Director White stated in the past they have. This is not a new issue and we have worked with them in the past. What happens is the property will get cleaned up for a short period of time, then, over time the standards start to drop again.
Commissioner Wolfgramm stated this happened on Orangewood and Harbor in the early 90s. I started working in the resort area, before the resort area was founded and this the exact same thing that happened. And now, it has been pushed over to Beach. Are there any other options for the owner, have you worked with him and has he responded to the demands.
Director White stated the owner is here this evening and is available to answer questions in terms of that.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked if these demands have been made to other hotel owners and other parts of the city.
Director White responded yes. In 2013 these similar conditions were put on the Rainbow Inn which is immediately north of the Travel Inn.
Leonie Mulvihill, City Attorney responded yes, our office did review the proposed recommended action. The city has many tools available to it for compliance with local laws.
In this instance, we have evaluated both criminal prosecution and administrative prosecution. In consultation with Planning, we realize that the goal is to get compliance and have this property be operated under a set of standard rules to reduce the issues that have given rise to a nuisance there. Our recommendation tonight, after you reviewed all the materials, is a modification of the CUP, to impose those conditions which are not otherwise applicable to the property at this time.
Commissioner Wolfgramm stated all these recommendations are operational; I run hotels, and I would hate for a city to come and tell me how to run my business. Are these recommendations made to other hotel operators in the city? Ms. Mulvihill responded that this is a conditional use permit, and every conditional use permit has conditions that are tailored to a specific property. We have imposed these on other motels, and in this instance, we do believe there is a compelling necessity in order to alleviate the nuisance condition and abate that nuisance at this time.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Sergeant Paqua stated it's the lack of rules that these motels have for their clientele. The Police Department isn't going to arrest or go after the motel employees or their owners. It is the clientele that they are attracting, and we feel the simple fix of having them conform to a simple and easy to follow set of standards will make it so that it is not the perfect breeding ground for the criminal element. It is more the clientele that is the problem.
Commissioner White stated we are modifying this CUP. Are we also authorizing the revocation of the CUP, or, if there is noncompliance will you come back to us and ask for that?
Director White responded that staff’s recommendation, as part of this action, is to modify the conditional use permit to add the recommended conditions of approval and not to revoke at this time. The code section that we are following provides for the modification or revocation, so the Commission could revoke the CUP, modify it, or not take our recommendation and do nothing to the CUP. All options are on the table. Staff’s recommendation is to modify the conditional use permit with the additional conditions. In the event that noncompliance continues to be a problem and the nuisance is not addressed through this process, then we would be looking to bring future action back for your consideration.
Commissioner White stated I assume Code Enforcement will be looking at whether or not there is compliance rather than the Police Department?
Director White stated we would like to use all city resources that are available in the field, but we will have proactive Code Enforcement monitoring this and many of these conditions are related to things that would be appropriate for Code Enforcement to review and track.
We will be working in coordination with the Police Department.
Commissioner Perez stated the city of Anaheim is a charter city, and in that process of us being a charter city, we can exercise our rights and impose conditions on businesses or areas that we deem fit. I think the issue that we have here is that that there really were no conditions to the original conditional use permit. The years of abuse from 1981 to where we are now is the reason why we have this. For clarification purposes, is that it's kind of the situation that we have with this?
Director White stated clarified that the status of the city as a charter city is not necessarily pertinent to our ability to use the city's Police actions to regulate and control land use. The conditional use permit, whether it is a charter city or common law city, has the ability to regulate land use and apply conditions of approval is allowed and is a common practice.
The rest of the point that you make is absolutely correct, and to Commissioner Wolfgramm’s earlier comments, we typically don't want to be in the business of requiring and dictating how businesses operate; however, when there is the need, when there is a public health crisis at hand and the business is acting as a public nuisance, we need to exercise those Police powers that are provided to us to impose these types of conditions.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked if there is any statistical data on the amount of propensity, specifically the Anaheim Lodge, for calls of service or any other kind of statistical data of that nature.
Mr. Taylor responded the data that we have available is provided in the staff report with some Police stats, calls for service and crimes, which were the two categories that were provided. We also had Anaheim Fire and Rescue statistics which were included as well, and we also had Code Enforcement case information available.
Commissioner Perez asked if we have the propensity set data of how much and how many calls or how much of our time or operational services are being dedicated just to the Anaheim Lodge in terms of service and calls, or any other additional matters.
Director White responded not from a citywide perspective, but as part of the presentation Nick did describe that of the total calls for service on Beach Boulevard was 18%.
Mr. Taylor stated the Lodge is responsible for 18% of all arrests occurring at Beach Boulevard motels.
Commissioner Heywood inquired about the process of holding the operator accountable.
Code Enforcement probably won't be out there as much as our men and women in uniform, so will they be working in tandem? If the Sergeant or some of the other officers see something that isn't a criminal issue, but is potentially Code Enforcement, will they be given a heads up so they can come out and give a citation?
Sergeant Paqua stated Code Enforcement will be doing the heavy lifting on all the enforcement part of this. But once the dust settles on all of this, and we figure out exactly what the standards are going to be, I will conduct training with all of the officers and teach them what to look for and how to identify it by clicking on the address on their computer to review the standards. If they see a violation, they will write an assist other agency report and sent it to Code Enforcement to further investigate. We will be working together, but Code Enforcement will be doing the majority of the heavy lifting.
Commissioner Heywood stated we recognize that your hands are full of other things, but that partnership is appreciated and thank you again for the opportunity to go out and view what you guys do every day and what you're working with and dealing with.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked if the original CUP has been violated; understanding that there is a limited amount or nothing in the original CUP.
Director White stated even then, the original CUP would say that you need to be in compliance with state, federal and local laws. So yes they have had violations.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked where the recommendations come from, a hotel operators manual. How were the recommendations formulated? FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Director White stated they primarily came from coordination with Police, Code Enforcement, Fire Department and staff.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked if there was any input from the other motel operators in this city.
Director White responded no.
Commissioner Vadodaria stated when you see these violations, you obviously have pointed them out to the owners and operators or the managers. Have they taken any steps to try and alleviate and what correct whatever is going on and are you facing the same challenges every day even though you pointed them out?
Sergeant Paqua stated that is yes and no. We have met with the owners and since meeting with them, I have seen some changes; some paint on the walls and they've removed some ATMs, and there have been a few modifications that we asked for. I spoke on the phone with the owner, and he has been very polite, but as far as the reduction in crime, I have not seen any. It is still just as bad as it was. We are just basically scratching the surface on this, but I have not seen any reduction in crime. To answer the first part of your question, yes they have been very cooperative.
Chair Meeks opened the public hearing and invited the owner/operator to approach. She asked the City Attorney, if the public speakers will they need to repeat their comments at both public hearings and can they note that these comments are meant for both items.
Ms. Mulvihill stated there are two different permits at issue. Although it may seem to be inefficient, she prefers to have speakers address each property separately.
Frank Weiser, attorney for the owners, stated some of the members of the LLC are also here to speak tonight, Mahendra Ahir and Ms. Patel.
I've been through a lot of the Planning Commission hearings over the years. I litigate the 30-day rule here in Anaheim that was changed back in 2002 about whether you had to have a CUP to have people live in a motel. I understand the concerns of the city about public nuisance; we're all in agreement that motels or any property should not be operating as the den of crime or public nuisance. Irrespective of that, and I believe we're going to be able to present that there is no such activity here with these motels, cities are still bound by constitutional requirements. Those constitutional requirements give us the due process, the basis of our constitution, of what makes our democracy different then what is going on.
When it comes to taking a property right of a CUP, due process is a major concern. Due process needs to be followed in the strictest of manners because if you are going to modify or take away a CUP, you have to make sure that you're doing the right thing, and that the risk of errors is going to be minimal. He stated he is not concerned with the general proposition about public nuisance and crime, the concern is where the evidence is. His clients were hauled into the hearing on a very short notice and was not given an opportunity FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
to sit down with the Police Department to see the exact concerns. The idea of an abatement of a nuisance is not to put the property owner out of business; it is to prevent the nuisance from continuing. He is concerned that they were not given the evidence, and the evidence that was gathered, if they can see it. His client told him that the Police have come on the property without respect of the 4th amendment. He's also concerned that they're going to put conditions on the property then bring them back in to the Commission. If Code Enforcement and Police can go in and say whatever they want without providing the evidence, his client cannot stand on their constitutional rights and the next step will be revocation.
If that's what the Planning Commission is really intending to do, or if there is a private developer who intends on taking over the property, put it in the open. That raises a whole different set of constitutional concerns; it's called a private taking when the government uses its power to take property from private individuals. He suggested that the Planning Commission prudently let his clients meet with the Police Department and Code Enforcement and address how they are addressing the concerns of the city, then bring it back for a hearing in three or four months. Then you can see if the same problems exist.
The property owners have implemented their own rules; requiring two forms of identification, a $100 incidental deposit, check in and check out times, daily room service and registration cards where they will require anybody who signs those cards to sign them under accountability of perjury and that no prostitution, drugs or criminal activity is allowed.
Rules will be posted on the back of the door in each room. They will have to sign under penalty of perjury. If there are problem individuals in the area, that would have to be worked out with the Police Department. They have also hired a security service that will patrol at least three times a day and will be on call to address any issues. They are taking the proactive steps, but he urged the Planning Commission not to arbitrarily put conditions on this property that will have a terrible impact on the value of the property. There is no need to do it tonight and if there is an intent by the Commission to go forward they are entitled to have the evidence and get the unredacted reports under due process so they can present their side of the case on it. They also have a right to see the reports from other motels in the area. If there is a problem on Beach Boulevard, it is not Anaheim Lodge or Travel Inn, there are many motels in that area that have problems. One of them has 30 rooms boarded up; why isn’t that motel in this hearing?
If you're going to put a motel out of business, then buy it out and don't use this process to simply say this is a bad motel and not give them a chance to present their side by saying what the evidence is. How do they know if the calls for service are true or not? What were the calls for service and objects under the due process grounds? Mr. Weiser submitted documents of the rules and pictures that will be posted in the rooms.
The contracts for security will be the same for the Anaheim Lodge and Travel Inn. The owners can tell you how the motels really operate. He stated he has been at that motel and has not seen people loitering or indications that it is a bad motel. He asked the Planning Commission to defer their decision until he can get the evidence to present a more thorough defense or at least allow his clients to sit down with the Police and work something out.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Chair Meeks invited the owner to come forward.
Mahendra Ahir approached and stated he is one of the owners of the Anaheim Lodge. They acquired the Lodge approximately 7 years ago and have worked to make the property as best as it can be. The first time they learned about the issues was when they received a letter on December 26. They took it seriously and started working on it and have already implemented all the suggestions that the city as provided to them. They now require two forms of ID from all of the guests, every guest will have daily room service and they asked their guests to read and acknowledge that they have read and understand all of the general rules for Anaheim Lodge. They have submitted all the documentation that they have implemented to the city. They follow all the rules, and they are trying their best to make sure they don't deny someone else that could be considered a discriminatory action or profiling. They have their own rules and are trying to make sure other rules are implemented. At this time, they would like to keep their business license without any conditional use permit. The conditional use permit will reduce the value of their property if they decide to sell it in the future. They will conduct the business in a proper manner, and it can be done without a conditional use permit. They are remodeling the motel and will make sure to invite more tourists and business class people. They have an online reservation system and insist that they rent rooms to tourists and business class people; however, it is difficult to deny someone else if they provide all of the necessary documentation to rent a room. They believe they are doing what they were informed to do since the last meeting on January 4th and he has stayed in touch with the Police Department and Code Enforcement officers to make sure they keep their property nice and clean.
Ms. Patel approached and stated she is one of the owners of the Lodge. She asked the Commission to reconsider placing conditions or a CUP on the business license. They have worked hard to upkeep and maintain the Lodge throughout the years. What has happened at the Anaheim Lodge in the past has nothing to do with them. The pandemic has caused many hardships and the tourist business has heavily decreased and so has the increased difficulties with the homeless on Beach Boulevard which has affected all of the motels. The motels on Beach Boulevard were selected and used as shelters to the individuals who were displaced; however, when the time came for the individuals to find a proper place to move to, no additional steps were taken to relocate them, and they were left for the hotels to harbor. Anaheim Lodge has not done anything different from what other motels have done in conducting business. Their goal is to provide hospitality service to the general public with safety and security for the guests and staff. They will continue to do so and if you are imposing a CUP on a handful of businesses, you are taking their rights the way on an unfair basis and compromising the rest of the motels on Beach Boulevard. She asked the Commission to reconsider the CUP on the Anaheim Lodge.
Chair Meeks invited the public to speak and advised them that they will each have 3 minutes to speak.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Kathy Tran approached and stated she has lived on Heywood Street directly behind Anaheim Lodge since 1995. Imagine that the people who live behind the motel have to put up with what Sergeant Paqua described. She submitted a letter to the Commission, and she fully supports and agrees with revoking the CUP. She has been there long enough to endure what has been going on every day of her life and she asked for their help to revoke or modify the CUP in order to provide safety for the residents. She has a right to feel safe in her own backyard and would like to see an 8-foot wall constructed because they can see in the back of her property and she has trespassers on her property. When they get chased from the Police or others, they jump the wall into her backyard.
Lisa Klawe lives on 503 South Hampton Street just one mile from Beach Boulevard; she is afraid to walk on the boulevard because the crime has increased and if this can help mitigate the problems, she is all for it.
David Klawe lives at 503 S Hampton Street and stated there have been problems on Beach Boulevard for decades, especially near Ball Road. This property owner has had opportunities to do many things with the property; he would like them to keep it open and run properly. The staff report lists all the problems with the motel. Simple basic steps that are required for hotels across the nation are not required for this motel. When they travel, they are asked for ID's and vehicle information which are basic standard things. The CUP that was issued stated the property would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city of Anaheim. Unfortunately, the conditions of the CUP are not enough and they are not following the basic rules such as property upkeep, and proper lighting. The community does not want to deprive the Lodge of operating properly; but they do want a basic set of rules that is clearly defined and spells out what is expected of them, whether they own it, or a future owner buys it.
Jodie Moseley stated she has been living in that neighborhood directly behind the motel for 59 years and she has been fighting it since 1980. The motels are not doing the efficient job.
There have been a lot of dangerous activities in that area. They gave up the fight because they are afraid that they are going to be sued by lawyers or people who fight against following simple rules. Any legitimate business should be leaning on the side of the community. It is mind-blowing that they can say the things they said because it is not what it looks like, it is bad, and the community needs help. She asked the Commission to listen to Sergeant Paqua about the human trafficking, drug problem and other disgusting things happening on Beach. The community needs their help, and the Commission needs to do what's fair for the residents.
Chair Meeks closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfgramm ask the owner if they've owned other motels and if they have implemented the new standards as of January.
Mr. Ahir stated yes they have owned other motels and they actually have rules and regulations; however, due to the pandemic; they were not able to invite or attract a lot of tourists and they have ended up in the middle of all the things that have happened on Beach Boulevard FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Wolfgramm confirmed that they stopped their safety procedures because of the pandemic.
Mr. Ahir stated no, they still check people’s IDs and if there is a problem, they call the Police. They had a situation where his own manager and three-year-old daughter were injured; the manager has a broken leg and they are really suffering. They still have the broken office, and they are working with the city to pull their permit. They appreciate what the city is doing by installing a lot of cameras around there and they want to be part of it.
When they acquired the property seven years ago they remodeled the property, and they were doing good business and the ratings were going up because they weren't renting to troubled people. However, there have been changes made in the city and homeless shelters were created around that area and all the homeless people were brought into the neighborhood. When the city decided to close them, they did not take the proper action to relocate the homeless and left them there.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked if he took any action to evict problem guests and are the calls that the Police are talking about from him.
Mr. Ahir said yes and some of the calls are from them.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked why he has not put up a taller wall behind his property.
Mr. Ahir responded that it has been like that since he acquired the property. There is a 25- to-30-foot easement in the back of the property that they can't use. They maintain a wood fence, then there are two brick walls behind it, but those walls were built in the 80s and they are not in the position to extend them because they may be too weak. He has worked with Code Enforcement Officer Ochoa and has evaluated the area; they were informed that they have to keep up the wood fence because they cannot do anything to the block walls.
Commissioner Wolfgramm asked Mr. Ahir if he lived on the property, and did he read the CUP when he purchased the property
Mr. Ahir stated he does not live on the property and there were no CUP conditions on the property when he acquired it.
Commissioner Heywood asked staff to bring up the slide that shows the number of arrests and calls to service over the last three years on this property. A service call does not necessarily mean that criminal activity is happening; he has to think that with these number of calls, something more is going on. He asked if Mr. Ahir lived in the manager's suite on the property and how many nights has he spent in one of the guest rooms with his children on this property.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Mr. Ahir stated he does not live on the property, nor has he spent any nights on the property with his children.
Commissioner Heywood asked why not, and would he spend a night with his children on the property.
Mr. Ahir stated the guest rooms are for the guests, but he would spend the night there with his children. Some of his personal friends and family have spent the night there.
Commissioner Heywood stated he is a business owner and is sympathetic with an outside agency coming in and telling you how to operate your business. He asked Mr. Ahir which conditions he is opposed to and why.
Mr. Ahir stated he has not seen the new conditional use permit yet. He says because of the location of his property they cannot do anything about it; people come and provide ID, so they have to rent the room. He worked with the officers and is willing to cooperate.
Commissioner Heywood stated every city has a person that comes to the City Council and Planning Commission meeting to speak on items. He pointed out the number of residents present at the meeting and how can he say that he is unaware of the issues. The approach that the city is trying to make is reasonable and the fact that Mr. Ahir is resistant to a very reasonable approach concerns him.
Mr. Ahir stated if you look at the property right now, it is nice and clean and urged the Commission to ask the officer if he has seen an improvement since they had the meeting.
He has a camera on his phone and watches the property every day to make sure the manager is taking care of the property. He understands that they are in a location where they are part of the problem, but they are not the problem. They will stay focused on what they should do to fix things and shutting down the hotel will not fix the Beach Boulevard problem. He stated the officer is saying he wants to shut them down. He's concerned that they are not allowed to conduct their business like every other hotel. He doesn't have any citations that he has not taken care of in the last seven years; he has taken care of everything in a timely manner.
Commissioner Heywood asked if there have been any incidents since they have spoken to staff in December.
Mr. Ahir say they received the notice on December 26 and the first meeting was on January 4th and that's when they were told about the situation. They are thankful that the city is willing to do something about it; they are not making money and they don't know what to do with all the problems on the property. The raid caused 10 doors to be broken and he doesn't know any of the details about the raid.
Commissioner Heywood stated that while he appreciates their willingness to work with city staff to a certain degree, but the numbers and testimony of the residents speak for themselves.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
He appreciates that they are willing to be cooperative now, but history shows that cooperation only goes so far and the city needs to take additional measures. He would like Mr. Ahir to work cooperatively with the city. Nobody said anything about shutting down the motel; they just want to make everything better for everyone, especially the residents who live around the property.
Ms. Patel stated she has owned many motels and hotels; but asking for ID does not tell them if the guest is a criminal. Because their property is known by the Police station, if something is happening adjacent to their property, it seems like the incidents are at the Anaheim Lodge. She feels Commission is being offensive towards them. During this pandemic things have changed for everybody, including the businesses. They don't have a list from the Police that says who they are not supposed to rent to.
Commissioner Heywood asked the applicant to tell them specifically what they are opposed to in the CUP.
Commissioner Perez ask if they have ever met with the Police department or anybody from staff, yet they have communicated that they met January 4th.
Ms. Patel stated they met with the Police officer and staff and recommendations were given to them. The recommendations have been met and they have provided proof of things that have been done to the property.
Commissioner Perez stated the owner said they were unaware of any crime or issues that occurred on the property, but somebody was shot and died on the property. He asked the owner if they were aware of the problems and their property, as well as on the Boulevard. He asked if they were provided the new conditions that were presented by the staff.
Ms. Patel stated they have met the recommendations that were provided to them in January.
Chair Meeks asked if they have seen the staff report with the proposed conditions Ms. Patel stated no.
Commissioner Perez asked staff to clarify if they had been communicated to them.
Chair Meeks asked staff if the owner has seen the staff report and conditions.
Ms. Mulvihill said that several members of city staff has been in communication with the property owner but not with the attorney who represented them tonight. As for their recommended conditions of approval, these were best practices that were presented to the applicant in December, and, again in January. As far as staff’s recommendation, they were based on those same best practices, the agenda was made available to the applicant and we are confirming that staff did also provided to them.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Mr. Weiser stated they have not received the staff report; it is the first time they've heard about the conditions that were placed here tonight.
Chair Meek asked how they knew to be at the meeting tonight if they have never seen the staff report.
Mr. Weiser stated they got noticed that there was a hearing.
Chair Meeks stated that they got notice, but chose not to pursue what the hearing was about or look at the staff report.
Mr. Weiser stated case law is very clear that the burden is on the government to give them the evidence.
Mr. Ahir stated they haven’t see the new conditional use permit yet; they've seen the report with their recommendations.
Chair Meeks stated they were attached to the staff report.
Ms. Wetzel stated there is an existing conditional use permit 2237 on this property that was issued in 1981 with two conditions of approval. It appears that there was not direct communication to the applicant, but clearly they were aware that there was a public hearing tonight and the staff report and agenda materials have been available to the public, including the applicant, since last Thursday. Staff is asking the Commission to replace the conditions of approval on CUP 2237 and modify those conditions to add the conditions that are before them this evening in the resolution.
Ms. Mulvihill added that the property owner was given formal notice of a revocation of the original CUP that would be set for public hearing tonight which is the due process under the law. With all due respect to legal counsel, there are several points that he raised tonight that she disagrees with. As to whether or not the due process that they are required to provide was given; that is notice and opportunity to be heard; the owner was given notice and they have given him an opportunity to be heard. In lieu of revocation of the CUP, staff has recommended amending the CUP to impose conditions of approval on which they consider best business practices.
Commissioner Perez ask the applicant if they thought there was currently no CUP.
Mr. Ahir stated the CUP was explained to them for the first time on the phone call but that there were no conditions with his permit. He understood that there were certain things staff would consider as conditions to operate in the report.
Commissioner Perez asked the applicant when he had the phone call.
Mr. Ahir stated it was in early 2022.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked staff if the current CUP had conditions.
Ms. Wetzel stated there are two conditions; one related to the reclassification and the other to 25% reduction in efficiency units.
Commissioner Perez stated that the applicant has communicated that they are aware of the changes to the CUP and asked if there are any specific conditions that they are opposed to.
Ms. Patel stated she is asking that no conditions be placed on the CUP because they don't want the value to go down if they sell the business. If they are abiding by the rules and there should not be any additional conditions. If everybody is working together there shouldn't be any issues.
Commissioner Perez asked if there are any conditions that they do like or not like.
Ms. Patel stated those are conditions that they have already implemented there isn't anything they like or don't like they just don't want conditions imposed on them.
Commissioner Perez stated if they are already doing those things; why they amenable to putting under a condition of the CUP.
Ms. Patel stated they don't need the conditions because they are already working with staff.
She would like staff to work with them as a courtesy. They have had a great record, but during the pandemic things happened and the officer can attest to the fact that they have been cleaning it up. She's not sure what all the calls for service are. It is better to work with everyone, rather than isolate a particular individual, because if you take something away from their property the problems will just move on to another one.
Commission Perez clarified there are currently no conditions that they like or dislike.
Ms. Patel stated there are no conditions that they like or dislike.
Commissioner Perez ask if anyone from the city whether it is city staff, the Police, Code Enforcement, or a Council Member ever been in communication with you, as the property owner, prior to 2022 or December of 2021. It seems a lot of the conversation has been focused on that timeline, but you have been property owners for seven years.
Ms. Patel stated there has never been any communication until December of 2021.
Commissioner Perez asked staff for clarification.
Ms. Mulvihill responded the city attorney’s office has participated in communication.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Director White responded, that in the past, there have been several Code Enforcement violations that have led to discussions, as well as an ongoing Police presence and communication. They are aware and have relationships with the property management team and are interacting with them all the time. It is not accurate to say that there has been no communication between the city and the property owner and management over the past seven years.
Ms. Patel agreed that was correct, but not from staff in terms of Planning. The Police has been involved.
Commissioner White asked to see the slide with the conditions and asked the owner if there was anything on that list that was objectionable to them.
Chair Meeks clarified that the list shown is just a summary and there is a longer list in the resolution with a lot more detail.
Mr. Weiser stated that I can't agree to rules that binds them. You are asking for rules to bind them that could lead to a revocation.
Chair Meeks stated that was not the question. If you don't want to answer that it is fine; Commissioner White is asking a specific question,
Mr. Weiser stated we don't agree to the imposition of conditions, we don't think you have a sufficient evidentiary record and that is what you need to do, you haven't followed due process.
Chair Meeks stated that Commission understood and the public hearing has been closed.
Mr. Weiser continued that they don't agree to the conditions and don't want to be pigeonholed into some kind of admission that will go to a court of law. He wants to be very clear, on the record, that they object on due process, lack of evidence and he doesn't care whether they met in January with the Police, and then a month later hauled into a Planning Commission hearing. You have a duty to present the evidence and give them the evidence, not the staff report.
Commissioner White asked the owner about the conditions Ms. Patel stated they've been doing them all except for the security, but they have been talking to the Police department about it.
Commissioner White asked Ms. Patel if she agreed that this is a simple list of requirements and it would not put them out of business if they followed them.
Ms. Patel stated yes.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Vadodaria asked for clarification that this particular business is not targeted to be shut down by adding these conditions.
Director White stated this process is about accountability to operate as a good business, and that is exactly what staff is looking for. It is a reasonable and logical step as best practices for the good operation of the business. There's a history of poor management that has led to a public nuisance and public health and safety concern, which staff is trying to address through the conditions. Staff believes conditions are reasonable and will allow for the successful operation of the business in a manner that will not be detrimental to the community.
Commissioner Vadodaria stated this is a win-win situation for the residents and the businesses.
Director White stated the key focus of the enforcement is the security and operations plan which will require the preparation of a plan, review and approval by the Police department and then it required annual check-in. We want to make sure that there is an ongoing check- in point and communication between the operator and the city so that we stay in touch about what's going on. An annual checkup will be the key component, and as stated by the applicant, it sounds like they are already doing the things that have been spelled out in the conditions of approval. A lot of it would be memorialized in the security and operations plan so that there is accountability and have best management out there on the property.
Commissioner Vadodaria stated there is no extra burden put on the business; it is just to get something in place where everyone is accountable.
Director White stated the conditions are reasonable and within the industry standard. There may be a little bit more than what is typically required on a normal motel, but it is highly justified in order to have the additional level of accountability based on the challenges and the impacts that the business has been having on that area. There is nothing in the conditions that is designed to close down the motel; it just provides so that the motel can operate successfully and the community can be assured that it is being operated in a safe manner.
Sergeant Paqua stated an overwhelming majority of crime goes unreported. He wonders why a hotel two addresses north and two addresses south of this hotel has five or six calls for service since December and theirs has close to 200. How do you explain that? He can show his statistics to the owner. This hotel has a reputation in state prisons, jails and organized crime circles; it is a perfect breeding ground for this and it lets it happen.
Chair Meeks opined that if these conditions were complied with, it would help the business stay open because they cannot continue to let a business operate as a nuisance and cause problems in the community. She stated that she does not feel the annual review of the security plan is adequate. She would like to see quarterly reviews of their security plan for at least for a couple of years until there is a good track record that shows them operating the compliance of the conditions.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Director White said they could, but the overall approach is to be pro-actively engaged in this. They didn't put anything more than yearly because they wanted it to be long term and staff plans to check in with them even more than quarterly. We will be holding them accountable for the new conditions, as well as property maintenance and working with them in terms of crime prevention and everything else staff can do to make sure they can operate safely.
Chair Meeks stated one of the conditions calls for no room rentals to guests with prior arrests; how do they comply with that on a practical basis and hold them accountable to that condition.
Sergeant Paqua stated they clearly wouldn't know about all of them, but there are patrons that they know of who have been arrested in the past or patrons that they know sell drugs.
Chair Meeks asked if Code Enforcement will still be part of the solution and have active reviews to make sure the property is well maintained etc.
Director White stated has already begun not for just this motel but for the entire corridor.
Chair Meeks stated these are all reasonable conditions, but what are the consequences if they don't comply with them.
Director White responded that the due process of the code that they are following is the section that relates to the modification or revocation of land use entitlements. Staff would continue to follow that due process; various options would be available to the Commission if it does come back due to noncompliance. The Commission could place restrictions through additional conditions, modify existing conditions or could choose to revoke the conditional use permit. All the options would be based on the individual facts as presented.
Chair Meeks stated the raid occurred last year and there hasn’t been a lot of progress made on the property since then, so she is in favor of implementing the new conditions.
Chair Meeks also stated the four foot wall does not appear to be adequate.
Director White pulled up this slide and explained there is a grade difference between the two properties. Sometime between 2008 and 2011, the wooden fence was erected on the property line and the chain link fence is an additional protective layer that keeps motel guests from loitering or using the back portion. By today's code, there would be an eight foot screen wall between the two properties if a commercial property were to be developed adjacent to a single family residence. The Commission could request that the wall be upgraded or modified.
Chair Meeks stated she would like the property owners to focus their energy and finances in cleaning up the operation and getting into compliance. She would like to see a 6 to 8 foot fence behind the property if they continue to have criminal activity in that area.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Ms. Mulvihill stated it is definitely within the Commission's purview.
Chair Meeks informed the Police department that she would like a more formal count on the types of issues and calls for service, criminal activity, and Code Enforcement violations on this property.
Director White stated the statistics that were provided this evening were formal; the informal was just for observations that were made the last couple of months. The statistics that were provided to the Commission as part of the record and the staff report were based on formal accounts.
Sergeant Paqua stated the crime analysis unit is tracking all the businesses and everything that happens within the Beach Boulevard corridor.
Chair Meeks stated she is happy to move this forward and adopt the new conditions and hopes that the property owner reads them and understands that they are not significantly different from what they are doing and what they have stated as their goal for this property.
The owner talked about being a team to clean up Beach Boulevard and this is a part of it.
It is just a document that is a mechanism to hold people accountable for their part of that teamwork. As for the concerned with moving the criminal activities to other properties, it could only be good for the owner. The goal is to move it out of Anaheim and staff will continue to work on it and have success with Beach Boulevard in time.
Ms. Mulvihill asked if the motion is consistent with staff’s recommendation to modify conditional use permit 2237.
Chair Meeks stated yes.
Commissioner Wolfgramm opined that there are some recommendations that are not market as follows:
It is ok to have them submit a security plan, but to have the Police approve their plan may not be something that we want to get into because we could be liable. I've never had a city approve my security plan and I asked that the word “approval” be reconsidered.
Condition 11 - not sure how an operator could monitor who has been arrested or what level of crime that guest has committed. That language should be modulated. Condition 15 - consider reducing the age 21 to 18
Condition 16 – daily cleaning isn’t always necessary because sometimes a guest that stays for three or four days and may agree to clean after they leave in order to save money.
Chair Meeks stated it is not out of the ordinary to have the Police Department approve the security plans and her motion would include that. The daily cleaning is part of addressing the problem that is out there and daily maintenance of the room is critical, as is over 21 FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
which is a standard requirement on motels. Her recommendations stay with the recommendations from the staff.
Commissioner Wolfgramm ask staff why these conditions have not been made to all motels across the board to other motels in the city and on Beach Boulevard.
Ms. Mulvihill responded that when they impose conditions, they do so through a discretionary permit process or the revocation process. Staff is considering a legislative change on a citywide basis at this time. Tonight, it is only one motel that has been determined to be a nuisance and in an effort to abate that nuisance. With the imposition of these conditions, we feel it will abate the nuisance. It may be applicable to other hotel/motel projects at future proceedings.
Commissioner Wolfgramm stated he feels the items that he has called out are two onerous to impose on the business owner.
Commissioner Heywood apologized for allowing his emotions to become a part of his dialogue, but is upset for these neighbors. He fully supports the change and will second the motion. He strongly agrees with the daily cleaning in order to have another set of eyes to see what was going on in the rooms.
Commissioner Vadodaria stated the residents have been fighting this since 1980 and cleaning this up will benefit everybody. He doesn't understand why the CUP was not given to the owners when they bought the property; but they should have done their due diligence at that time. He supports Chair Meeks’ motion.
Director White suggested a revision to condition #11 which currently reads” a property owner shall not rent hotel rooms to persons previously arrested on or adjacent to the motel premise for any reason” could be revised to read that the “the property owner shall not knowingly rent motel rooms to persons previously arrested..” Recognizing that it would be impossible for them to always know.
Chair Meeks accepted the revision and incorporated into her motion.
Commissioner Heywood asked if “knowingly” would be the same as having been previously informed.
Director White stated he believes they may know themselves or have been previously informed and it would cover either scenario.
Commissioner Heywood stated he would accept the revision.
Nikki Wetzel, Deputy Planning and Building Director announced that the resolution passed with six yes votes.
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Opposition: 0 persons spoke in opposition to the subject request.
In general: 4 persons spoke in favor of the subject request. 2 pieces of correspondence were received in favor of the request.
Discussion time: 120 minutes (5:49 to 7:49 p.m.)