Agenda — Stanton City Council, January 23, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

NOTICE AND CALL

CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

SPECIAL MEETING

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF STANTON AND TO THE CITY CLERK / SECRETARY:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council / Successor Agency / Stanton Housing Authority for the City of Stanton is hereby called by the Mayor / Chairman, to be held on January 23, 2024, commencing at 5:30 p.m. at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680.

The Agenda for the Special Meeting is attached to this Notice and Call.

Dated: January 18, 2024
s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk / Secretary

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AT (714) 890-4245. NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING.

PUBLIC ACCESS IN-PERSON AND VIA TELECONFERENCE
(Electronically / Telephonically)
Attendance by the members of the public may view the meeting live in one of the following ways:
• Attend in person - City Council Chambers: 7800 Katella Avenue, California 90680. • Via Teleconference (electronically / telephonically) - Zoom:

In order to join the meeting via telephone please follow the steps below:

1. Dial the following phone number +1 (669) 444-9171 (US).

2. Dial in the following Meeting ID: (824 7695 8838) to be connected to the meeting.

In order to join the meeting via electronic device please utilize the Zoom URL link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82476958838?pwd=OGhGUUtaeXVvaFlsRE5ZRVJ3cmZvZz09

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY DO SO AS FOLLOWS:
• Attend in person and complete and submit a request to speak card to the City Clerk. • E-Mail your comments to [email protected] with the subject line “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #” (insert the item number relevant to your comment). Comments received no later than 5:00 p.m. before the scheduled meeting will be compiled, provided to the City Council, and made available to the public before the start of the meeting. Staff will not read e-mailed comments at the meeting. However, the official record will include all e-mailed comments received until the close of the meeting.

Should you have any questions related to participation in the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 1 of 10 ends

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

SPECIAL & JOINT REGULAR MEETING
STANTON CITY HALL, 7800 KATELLA AVENUE, STANTON, CA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2024
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 P.M.

JOINT REGULAR SESSION - 6:30 P.M.

In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

In order to join the meeting via telephone please follow the steps below:

1. Dial the following phone number +1 (669) 444-9171 (US).

2. Dial in the following Meeting ID: (824 7695 8838) to be connected to the meeting.

In order to join the meeting via electronic device please utilize the Zoom URL link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82476958838?pwd=OGhGUUtaeXVvaFlsRE5ZRVJ3cmZvZz09

Should you have any questions related to participation in the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 2 of 10 ends

The City Council agenda and supporting documentation is made available for public review and inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton California 90680 immediately following distribution of the agenda packet to a majority of the City Council. Packet delivery typically takes place on Thursday afternoons prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday. The agenda packet is also available for review and inspection on the city’s website at www.StantonCA.gov.

1. CLOSED SESSION(5:30 PM)

2. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Taylor Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Van
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairperson Warren
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Closed Session may convene to consider matters of purchase / sale of real property (G.C. §54956.8), pending litigation (G.C. §54956.9(a)), potential litigation (G.C. §54956.9(b)) or personnel items (G.C. §54957.6). Records not available for public inspection.

4. CLOSED SESSION
4A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of cases: 1
Case Name: Tina Pacific Residents Association, et al. v. City of Stanton Case Number: OCSC 39-2023-01316300-CU-WM-CXC
4B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 8830 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-01)
8840 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-02)
8850 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-03)
8860 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-04)
8870 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-05)
8880 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-06)
8890 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-07)
8900 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-08)
8910 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-09)
8920 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-10)
8930 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-11)
8940 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-12)
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 3 of 10 ends

8950 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-13)
8960 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-14)
8970 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-15)
8841 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-29)
8851 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-28)
8861 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-27)
8870 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-05)
8871 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-26)
8880 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-06)
8881 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-25)
8890 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-07)
8891 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-24)
8900 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-08)
8901 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-23)
8910 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-09)
8911 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-22)
8920 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-10)
8921 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-21)
8930 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-11)
8931 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-20)
8940 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-12)
8941 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-19)
8950 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-13)
8951 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-18)
8960 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-14)
8961 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-17)
8970 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-15)
8971 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-16)
Negotiating Parties: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, City of Stanton Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Housing Authority Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Successor Agency David M. Cook and Chaicran Daphnie, Owner
Jennie Trust, Owner
Nga Summer Thien Trang (Trang Trust), Owner
Ngoc Trieu and Andy Pham, Owner
Sky Nguyen / Nguyen Sky SN Living Trust, Owner
Steven W. Reiss Trust (Steven W. Reiss), Owner
Tammy T. Doan and H. Le Harvey, Owner
Trachy Family Trust (Phillip R. Trachy), Owner
Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 4 of 10 ends

5. CALL TO ORDER STANTON CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY JOINT REGULAR MEETING (6:30 PM)

6. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Taylor Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Van
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairperson Warren
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
A. Presentation of American Flag to the City of Stanton by Congressman J. Luis Correa (CA-46).

B. Introduction of newly assigned Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Deputies to the City Council and Community, announcement of the 2023 Deputy of the Year, and recognition of the outgoing Human Liaison Officer.

C. Presentation by the Cypress College Foundation regarding the 49th Annual Americana Awards, which will honor Mr. Rigoberto A. Ramirez as the 2024 Citizen of the Year for the City of Stanton

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be acted on simultaneously, unless a Council/Board Member requests separate discussion and/or action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
9A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE

PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waive reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 5 of 10 ends

9B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
City Council approve demand warrants dated December 22, 2023 – January 11, 2024, in the amount of $3,368,736.24.
9C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approve Minutes of Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023; and

2. City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approve Minutes of Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2562, WHICH APPROVED THE REVOCATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 859 (PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN P-435), FOR THE OPERATION OF A MOTEL AT 11632 BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE GENERAL MIXED

USE OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE, DUE TO SIGNIFICANT

NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE OPERATION OF THE MOTEL USE This matter is before the City Council as an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to revoke Precise Plan of Design P-435 for the operation of a motel use at 11632 Beach Boulevard, where the Dixie Orange County currently operates.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council conduct a public hearing; and

2. Find that the effects of the proposed action are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15270, as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2024-02 denying the appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2562 and rescinding and revoking Resolution No. 859, which approved Precise Plan of Design P-435, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STANTON UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2562, WHICH REVOKED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 435 FOR THE
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 6 of 10 ends

DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11632 BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE

GENERAL MIXED-USE OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE,

DUE TO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE

OPERATION OF THE PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE, DENYING AN

APPEAL BY CALIFORNIA ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC AND MEGHA

HOSPITALITY, LLC, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA”.
10B. AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE

ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW TOBACCO RETAILER BUSINESS, AS DEFINED,

AND TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR

ALTERATION OF ANY EXISTING TOBACCO RETAILER BUSINESSES PENDING STUDY AND THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING CODE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65858 AND 36937 AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA The City of Stanton (“City”) has identified ongoing violations among local tobacco retailers that continue to sell flavored tobacco products in violation of Senate Bill 793 (“SB 793”) and the Stanton Municipal Code (“SMC”). The persistence of these sales not only violates State law but also impedes SB 793’s core objective of reducing the prevalence of adolescent tobacco use throughout California.

To safeguard youth and curb illegal tobacco sales within the City, the City Council is asked to consider an interim urgency ordinance to temporarily prohibit the establishment of “tobacco retailers,” as defined, below, and/or the expansion, enlargement, or alteration of existing tobacco retailers within the City. The interim urgency ordinance is intended to provide the City with sufficient time to study the continuing impacts of these establishments and to develop new municipal and zoning code regulations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that the proposed urgency ordinance is: Not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly and is exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and

2. Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1138, entitled:
“AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY

MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW TOBACCO

RETAILER BUSINESS, AS DEFINED, AND A TEMPORARY
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 7 of 10 ends

MORATORIUM ON ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR

ALTERATION OF ANY EXISTING TOBACCO RETAILER BUSINESS

PENDING STUDY AND THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE
CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING CODE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65858 AND 36937 AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA”.

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

12. NEW BUSINESS
12A. CYPRESS COLLEGE FOUNDATION ANNUAL AMERICANA AWARDS City Council will consider participation through a sponsorship contribution for the 49th Annual Cypress College Foundation Americana Awards scheduled for Saturday, March 16, 2024. The awards ceremony serves as a fundraiser for the Cypress College Foundation with all proceeds benefiting Cypress College students and programs and honors the Citizens of the Year from surrounding communities. This year Mr. Rigoberto A. Ramirez has been selected and will be honored as the City of Stanton’s Citizen of the Year.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Approve the City’s participation through a sponsorship contribution for the 49th Annual Cypress College Foundation Americana Awards; and

3. Discuss and direct staff to proceed with the selection and purchase of either Option 1:
the Benefactor Sponsorship at a cost of $3,500 which includes registration for ten (10) and a half-page color donor acknowledgement in the American Program or Option 2:
the purchase of ten (10) individual registrations at a cost of $300 per registration for a total cost of $3,000.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 8 of 10 ends

12B. OPPOSITION TO STATE BALLOT INITIATIVE 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER

PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide along with the provision and delivery of related core public services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024-01 opposing State Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1, the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act”, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA TO OPPOSE INITIATIVE 21-0042A1”.

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
At this time members of the public may address the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority, provided that NO action may be taken on non-agenda items.
• Members of the public wishing to address the Council/Agency/Authority during Oral Communications-Public or on a particular item are requested to fill out a REQUEST TO SPEAK form and submit it to the City Clerk. Request to speak forms must be turned in prior to Oral Communications-Public.
• When the Mayor/Chairman calls you to the microphone, please state your Name, slowly and clearly, for the record. A speaker’s comments shall be limited to a three (3) minute aggregate time period on Oral Communications and Agenda Items. Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted. • Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of chambers will not be permitted.

All those wishing to speak including Council/Agency/Authority and Staff need to be recognized by the Mayor/Chairman before speaking.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 9 of 10 ends

14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

15. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 15A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/ COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community provided no discussion or action may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda.
15B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE MEETING At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future agenda. 15C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future study session agenda.

Currently Scheduled: None.
15D. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING CREATION OF AN

ORDINANCE ALLOWING FOR THE USE OF FIREWORKS DURING CULTURAL

EVENTS/HOLIDAYS ALONG WITH A SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE
At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Warren requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Warren is requesting to discuss creation of an ordinance allowing for the use of fireworks during cultural events/holidays along with a social host ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Warren further requested that the City monitor the use of fireworks during the upcoming 2024 cultural holiday season, reach out to neighboring cities to inquire about their current practices/policies and to report back to the City Council at a future meeting.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council provide direction to staff.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2024

Page 10 of 10 ends

15E. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY’S INHOUSE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, Mayor Shawver requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Shawver is requesting to discuss assigning a City Council liaison to the City’s in-house Traffic Committee.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council provide direction to staff.
15F. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING CONTRACT

PARKING ENFORCEMENT
At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, Mayor Shawver requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Shawver is requesting to discuss contract parking enforcement.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council provide direction to staff.
15G. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING EXPLORING

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE TINA/PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT
At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, Mayor Shawver requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Shawver is requesting to discuss exploring alternative options for the Tina/Pacific development.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council provide direction to staff.

16. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL

17. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

18. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, the foregoing agenda was posted at the Post Office, Stanton Community Services Center and City Hall, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Dated this 18th day of January, 2024.
s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk/Secretary
December 22, 2023-January 11, 2024
Electronic Transaction Nos. $ 3,185,772.34
Check Nos. $ 182,963.90
TOTAL $ 3,368,736.24
Demands listed on the attached
registers are accurate and funds
are available for payment thereof.
/s/ Hannah Shin-Heydorn /s/ Michelle Bannigan

CITY OF STANTON

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTER
2972-3003
conform to the City of Stanton Annual
Budget as approved by the City Council.
137402-137446
Demands listed on the attached registers
Finance Director
Item: 9B
Click here to return to the agenda.

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 2 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 3 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 4 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 5 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 6 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 7 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 8 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 9 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 10 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 11 of 12 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 12 of 12 ends

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 1 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY

OF THE CITY OF STANTON
JOINT REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2023

1. CLOSED SESSION None.

2. CALL TO ORDER STANTON CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY /

HOUSING AUTHORITY JOINT REGULAR MEETING
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. by Mayor Shawver.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Mr. Brian Donahue.

4. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor, Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Van, and Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: None.

Mayor Shawver motioned to hear New Business Item 9A out of order.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Torres
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, Van, and Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion unanimously carried.

The City Council authorized the request to hear New Business Item 9A out of order. 9A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE

PALESTINIAN PEOPLE OF GAZA
At the November 14, 2023, City Council meeting, Council Member Torres requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Council Member Torres requested to discuss the creation of a resolution in support of the Palestinian people of Gaza, Item: 9C
Click here to return to the agenda.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 2 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
which also calls for a ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine. At the November 28, 2023, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to create a staff report and resolution for City Council consideration modeling the proposed resolution passed by the City of Cudahy, California.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

Mayor Shawver called point of order: Mayor Shawver reported that the request for approval of Resolution No. 2023-30 is in violation of the City’s adopted Administrative Rules & Regulations Policy II-2-7.

Is request of approval of Resolution No. 2023-30 in violation of the City’s adopted Administrative Rules & Regulations Policy II-2-7?
Motion/Second: Shawver/Warren
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres NO
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion carried:

The City Council voted that approval of Resolution No. 2023-30 is in violation of the City’s adopted Administrative Rules & Regulations Policy II-2-7.

Mayor Shawver called for the question: Not to move forward with approval of Resolution No. 2023-30, due to the approval being in violation of the City’s adopted Administrative Rules & Regulations Policy II-2-7.

Mayor Pro Tem Van called for a substitute motion: Requesting that the City Council review and consider an alternate resolution provided to the City Council.

Public Comments / E-Mail (Written):
• Ms. Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk, reported that as of December 12, 2023, 5:32 PM, the City has received a total of 633 written comments. o 221 - Spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. o 412 - Spoke in support of the proposed resolution.

Public Comments / In-Person:
• Mr. Joe Urcis, spoke regarding the proposed resolution. • Ms. Anne Katz, spoke regarding the proposed resolution. • Ms. Michal Accad Elisha, spoke regarding the proposed resolution. • Mr. Speaker, spoke regarding the proposed resolution.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 3 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
In Opposition:
• Mr. David Tz Liezril, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Peter Levi, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Robin Gurien, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Nika Galperin, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Laurel Feldner, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Levy Dror, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Judy Yehuda, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Manahil Haroon, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Brett Nemeth, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Rabbi Nancy Myers, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Hadas Dvir, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Mendel Rosenbluh, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Charles Niederman, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Wing Sum, spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution.

In Support:
• Ms. Rowan Saleh, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Sam Stanton, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Mona Yashruti Schnell, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Thayer Hussein, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Lulu Hammad, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Amir Nash, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Demian Garcia-Monroy, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Salma Maaytah, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Rawan Tahan, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Rashad Al-Dabaagh, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Ayah Maaytah, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Maha Afra, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Ryda Hamida, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Mirvette Judeh, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Mimi Jubran, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Alexandra Noyes, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Juliana M., spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Basha Jamil, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Leena Sabagh, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Aliya Yousufi, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Adam Overton, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Manahil Awan, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Emma Jensen, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Danyah Mousa, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Ahmad Mousa, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Estee Chandler, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Ahmad A. Skoudarani, spoke in support of the proposed resolution.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 4 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
• Ms. Jessica Moss, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Kayla Asato, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Fernando Delgado, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Fatnal, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Nadeah, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Ms. Ahmad Mukdad, spoke in support of the proposed resolution. • Mr. Nicholas Dibs, spoke in support of the proposed resolution.

Public Comments / E-Mail (Written):
• Per Ms. Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk, as of December 12, 2023, 12:06 AM, the City has received an additional total of 959 written comments. o 196 - Spoke in opposition of the proposed resolution. o 763 - Spoke in support of the proposed resolution.

Motion/Second: Van/Shawver
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres NO
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion carried:

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Approved amended Resolution No. 2023-30.

MAYOR SHAWVER CALLED FOR A RECESS AT 9:55 PM.

THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 10:06 PM.

Mayor Shawver motioned to hear City Council Initiated Item 12D out of order.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Van
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, Van, and Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion unanimously carried.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 5 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
The City Council authorized the request to hear City Council Initiated Item 12D out of order. 12D. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING STRENGTHENING THE CITY’S TOBACCO RETAIL LICENSE ORDINANCE At the November 28, 2023, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Van requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Van is requesting to discuss strengthening the City’s tobacco retail license ordinance to address any potential loopholes, ensure that the definition of both "tobacco retailer" and "flavored tobacco" is adequately defined, ensure that the City has an adequate application fee to cover the cost of enforcement and monitoring, and methodize compliance monitoring frequencies.

Presentation by Mayor Pro Tem Van.

Public Comments:
• Ms. Claire Braeburn, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Maria Salgado, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Maria Montes, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Guadalupe Vigil, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Eugenia Amaro, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Lorena Flores, spoke in favor of this item.
• Ms. Aiya Kahawati, spoke in favor of this item.
• Dr. Maha Afra, spoke in favor of this item.

Motion/Second: Van/Taylor
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, Van, Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion unanimously carried:

The City Council received consensus and directed staff to proceed with research and to bring this item back for City Council review at a future City Council meeting.

5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
At the request of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, item 5 was tabled for presentation at a future City Council meeting.

Introduction of newly assigned Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Deputies to the City Council and Community and recognition of outgoing Human Liaison Officer.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 6 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion/Second: Warren/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor AYE Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres AYE
Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Van AYE
Mayor/Chairman Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

CONSENT CALENDAR
6A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON

THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER

READING WAIVED
The City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waived reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
6B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The City Council approved demand warrants dated November 3, 2023 – November 30, 2023, in the amount of $2,028,618.36.
6C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approved Minutes of Joint Special and Regular Meeting – November 28, 2023.
6D. OCTOBER 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT
The Investment Report as of October 31, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of October 2023.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 7 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
6E. OCTOBER 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT (SUCCESSOR AGENCY)
The Investment Report as of October 31, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The Successor Agency finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of October 2023. 6F. OCTOBER 2023 GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; AND STATUS

OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Revenue and Expenditure Report for the month ended October 31, 2023, has been provided to the City Manager in accordance with Stanton Municipal Code Section 2.20.080 (D) and is being provided to City Council. This report includes information for both the City’s General Fund and the Housing Authority Fund. In addition, this report includes a status of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as of October 31, 2023. The figures reported represent preliminary figures through October 31, 2023. The fiscal year end closing process for Fiscal Year 2022/23 is still in progress and the final figures are pending completion of the City’s annual financial statement audit.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the General Fund and Housing Authority Fund October 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Reports and Status of Capital Improvement Projects for the month ended October 31, 2023.
6G. APPROVE REVISED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS POLICY (ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. IV-4-2)
The City’s Budget Adjustments Policy (Administrative Policy No. IV-4-2) was last approved on September 25, 2007, and neither incorporates modern best practices nor reflects the City’s current practices. The proposed policy has been updated to be consistent with the authorizations approved by the City Council with the adoption of the City’s annual operating and capital budget (Resolution No. 2023-19).

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 8 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

2. Approved the revised Budget Adjustments Policy (Administrative Policy No. IV-4- 2).
6H. FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) RESOLUTION
On November 29, 2023, the Orange County Community Resources Department released a Request for Applications (RFA) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Community Development Block Grant projects related to public facilities and improvements (PF&I). In response to the RFA, staff is proposing the Stanton Community/Senior Center Improvement Project. As part of the application process, the City Council must review and authorize Resolution No. 2023-31 authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, contract and other documents.

1. The City Council declared that this project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” as defined by CEQA; and

2. Approved Resolution No. 2023-31 authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, contract and other documents required by the Orange County Community Resources Department for participation in the CDBG program on behalf of the City Council, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STANTON, CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) WITH THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE”.
6I. AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION: PREMIER PARK RENOVATION PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1

WITH RJM DESIGN GROUP
The plans and specifications for the Premier Park Renovation Project are complete.

The City Engineer is recommending City Council approve the specifications and plans for bidding, subject to revision by the City Engineer and the City Attorney, to ensure the construction contract is awarded in an efficient and timely manner. To ensure construction of the Project is in conformance with the design, staff is recommending approval of a First Amendment to RJM Design Group, Inc.’s to extend the term of their Agreement.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 9 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

1. The City Council finds that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Class 1, Section 15301 as an alteration of existing public facility and Class 2, Section 15302(c) as reconstruction of existing facility; and

2. Approved the bid specifications and plans, subject to revisions required by the City Engineer and the City Attorney; and

3. Authorized and advertise for bids the Premier Park Renovation Project (Task Code No. 2022-206); and

4. Approved the First Amendment to the existing agreement with RJM Design Group and allows the City Attorney to make minor edits as necessary prior to the execution of the Amendment; and

5. Authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the existing Agreement with RJM Design Group, Inc.
6J. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE ON-CALL

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
On September 26, 2023, staff released a “Request for Proposals” (RFP) soliciting firms to provide professional, on-call geotechnical engineering services in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures. Staff has prequalified four firms and recommends entering into on-call services agreements in the amount of $150,000, annually, with each of the pre-qualified firms. Costs associated with work by these firms will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and funded by each project’s approved budget.

1. The City Council declared this action to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, since the action herein does not constitute a “project” as defined by section 15378 of the CEQA guidelines; and

2. Awarded a contract for professional geotechnical engineering services to GMU Geotechnical, Inc., Leighton Consulting, Inc., Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, and Petra Geosciences, Inc. to provide on-call professional geotechnical engineering services in an amount not-toexceed $450,000 or $150,000 annually; and

3. Authorized the City Manager to bind the City of Stanton and GMU Geotechnical, Inc., Leighton Consulting, Inc., Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants, and Petra Geosciences, Inc. in a contract to provide the services.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 10 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
6K. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PACIFIC ADVANCED CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROJECT (TASK CODE 2024-801)
A Storm Drain Master Plan assesses the needs of the City’s storm drain system and plans and prioritizes maintenance and rehabilitation of the system with available funding. It also serves as a useful planning tool for the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The previous Storm Drain Master Plan was prepared in 1991 by RBF Consulting Engineers. Staff released a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) soliciting proposals to provide a Storm Drain Master Plan Update to reflect the current condition of the storm drain system, assess the capacity of the existing system to handle flows generated at the ultimate “build-out” of the City, and develop a comprehensive 10-year Capital Improvement Program. Staff recommends awarding a contract to Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $539,870.

1. The City Council declared this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15301(b) as operation, repair, and maintenance of existing publicly owned utilities; and

2. Awarded a professional services agreement to Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. for a Storm Drain Master Plan Update in the amount of $539,870; and

3. Authorized the City Manager to bind the City of Stanton and Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. in a contract to provide the services; and

4. Authorized the City Manager to approve a contract contingency, not to exceed ten percent of the contract amount, of $53,987.
6L. LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING ASSET FUND ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 (HOUSING AUTHORITY)
The attached Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 is being presented for consideration as required by State Law.

1. The Authority Board declared that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Received and filed the Annual Progress Report.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 11 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS None.

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

9. NEW BUSINESS
New Business item 9A was heard out of order.
9A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE

PALESTINIAN PEOPLE OF GAZA
9B. CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF EXPIRED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS

PERMITS
At the October 24, 2023, City Council meeting, Mayor Shawver requested that a discussion regarding a review and update of the City’s current cannabis ordinance be agendized for discussion. At the November 14, 2023, City Council meeting, per the discussion, the City Council directed staff to bring back an agenda report focused on the possible extension of recently expired cannabis permits.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

Public Comments:
• Mr. Joseph Adeife, representative for Culture and Stanton Fresh Farms, spoke in favor of an extension of expired commercial cannabis permits, requested that the City Council grant an additional 36 months, and further reported that they are prepared to pay respective fees to show that they are dedicated to being responsible stakeholders in this process. • Mr. Allan Othman, business owner, spoke in favor of an extension of expired commercial cannabis permits, proposed that prior to the City’s issuance of licenses ensure that the granted licensee confirm that they have secured a suitable location, and further stated that in not granting an extension of expired permits would displace current permit holders and the City would also be at a disadvantage.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Van
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, Van, Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion unanimously carried:

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 12 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

2. The City Council directed staff to conduct a cultivation survey (timeline/cost and/or fees) of neighboring/surrounding cities and to bring this item back for City Council review at a future City Council meeting.
9C. AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY

OR LODGING BUSINESSES OR USES, AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON

ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR ALTERATION OF ANY EXISTING

PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY, OR LODGING BUSINESSES AND

USES PENDING STUDY AND THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING CODE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65858 AND 36937 AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO

BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
The City of Stanton (“City”) has documented that a number of motels in the City are magnets for criminal activity. This is a significant drain on City resources. Each year, the City’s law enforcement responds to hundreds of calls for services that include, among other things, prostitution, narcotics violations, stolen vehicles, weapon possession, probation/parole violations, burglary, robbery, gang activity, assaults, and assaults with deadly weapons. That amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on law enforcement, code enforcement, public safety, and other City costs. The high level of criminal activity at motels in the City poses immediate impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The crime endangers residents, businesses, and visitors, and significantly degrades quality of life. Against this backdrop, the City Council is asked to consider an interim urgency ordinance to temporarily prohibit the establishment of public lodging and/or the expansion, enlargement, or alteration of existing public lodging businesses and uses within the City. The interim urgency ordinance is intended to provide the City with sufficient time to study the continuing impacts of these establishments and to develop new municipal and zoning code regulations.

Introduction by Ms. HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney.

Ms. HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney announced that due to a conflict of interest the City Council will segment the discussion and vote so that Mayor Pro Tem Van and Council Member Warren, Council Members who own property close to the Dixie Hotel, Starlite Motel, and Villa Motel, would not vote on whether the moratorium should apply to those hotels/motels.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 13 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
First Discussion: Jade Palace, Chester Inn, Casa Playa Inn and Suites, and Motel 6.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

Motion/Second: Taylor/Torres
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council finds that the proposed urgency ordinance is:
a) Not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly; and
b) Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1136, entitled:
“AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY

NEW PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY OR LODGING

BUSINESSES OR USES, AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON

ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR ALTERATION OF ANY

EXISTING PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY, OR LODGING

BUSINESSES AND USES PENDING STUDY AND THE PREPARATION
OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING
CODE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65858 AND
36937 AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM
CEQA”.

Prior to the discussion and vote on the Dixie Hotel, Starlite Motel, and Villa Motel, there was a drawing of names between Mayor Pro Tem Van and Council Member Warren since the item required a four-fifths vote of the Council, and it was legally necessary to qualify another council member to be part of the vote. Ms. Patricia A.

Vazquez, City Clerk initiated the drawing of names, and Council Member Warren was selected to remain in the council chambers and at the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Van left both the dais and the council chambers.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 14 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
Second Discussion: Dixie Hotel, Starlite Motel, and Villa Motel Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van RECUSED
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council finds that the proposed urgency ordinance is:
c) Not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly; and
d) Exempt from the requirements of CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1136, entitled:
“AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY

NEW PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY OR LODGING

BUSINESSES OR USES, AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON

ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR ALTERATION OF ANY

EXISTING PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY, OR LODGING

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 15 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
9D. SELECTION OF THE CITY’S NEW LOGO, BRANDING AND MESSAGING The purpose of this report is to review outreach results and seek City Council selection of a logo and motto as part of the next phase of the City's Branding & Messaging Project.

Staff report by Ms. Ashley Cain, Community Services Manager.

Motion/Second: Taylor/Torres
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council declared this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Selected logo option number 2 (green/orange/periwinkle); and

3. Directed staff to originate additional motto options for City Council review and consideration at a future City Council meeting.

10. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Mr. Nicolas Dibs, spoke regarding his request for the City to proceed with a universal declaration of human rights, by declaring a “Human Rights Day” within the City of Stanton.

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 16 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

12. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS

12A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS • Council Member Torres expressed his gratitude to the City Council and Stanton community in his service to the City as a Council Member this past year. • At the request of Mayor Shawver, Ms. Zenia Bobadilla, Community Services Director reported on the following upcoming City held events:
o Christmas Tree Lighting Event, which was held on December 7, 2023, at the Stanton Community Services Center.
o Karina’s Backpack Project - Dreams for Schools Event
o Stanta’s Siren Express Event
• Mayor Shawver reported on an upcoming drive through food and diaper distribution event, which is scheduled to be held on December 16, 2023 at Stanton Park.
• Mayor Shawver reported that he is in the process of preparing to host a Public Safety Services appreciation luncheon, details to follow. 12B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL

MEETING
None.
12C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION

None.
12D. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING CONDUCTING A REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE CITY’S CURRENT CANNABIS ORDINANCE (Heard out of order)
City Council Initiated Item 12D was heard out of order.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 17 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
12E. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING MAYOR PRO TEM HONG ALYCE VAN Presentation of honors to Mayor Pro Tem Hong Alyce Van by the City Council.

The City Council expressed their gratitude to outgoing Mayor Pro Tem Van for her outstanding service to the Stanton community this past year.

Mayor Pro Tem Van expressed her gratitude to the City Council, city staff, and Stanton Community.

Mayor Shawver reported that as part of their 40th Anniversary Commemoration, the Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County presented Stanton with a commemorative "Key to the Food Bank" to express their gratitude for the city's support of both Second Harvest and their partner network. 12F. REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL
Annually, the City Council elects a Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor Shawver opened nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.

Mayor Shawver nominated Council Member Carol Warren for the office of Mayor Pro Tem, which was seconded by Council Member Taylor.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Van AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

Council Member Carol Warren was unanimously elected Mayor Pro Tem.

13. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL None.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – December 12, 2023 - Page 18 of 18

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

14. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, reported on the upcoming Stanton State of the City event and filming schedules.
14A. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
At this time the Orange County Fire Authority will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

Chief Steve Dohman provided the City Council with an update on their current operations.

15. ADJOURNMENT in memory and honor of Ms. Loreen Berlin.

Motion/Second: Shawver/
Motion carried at 12:06 a.m.
_______________________________________

MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

CITY CLERK/SECRETARY
DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 1 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY

OF THE CITY OF STANTON
JOINT REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 2024

1. CLOSED SESSION None.

2. CALL TO ORDER STANTON CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY /

HOUSING AUTHORITY JOINT REGULAR MEETING
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Shawver.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Council Member Taylor.

4. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor, Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Council/Agency/Authority Member Van, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Warren, and Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: Council/Agency/Authority Member Van.

5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
Presentation by Mr. Connor Medina, Regional Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities, Orange County Division, sharing their mission with the City Council, providing information on their current operations, and providing an update on the California Business Roundtable’s “Taxpayer Protection Act”.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Shawver requested to pull item 6G from the consent calendar for separate discussion.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor AYE Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres AYE
Council/Agency/Authority Member Van AYE
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Warren ABSENT
Mayor/Chairman Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

Item: 9C
Click here to return to the agenda.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 2 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

CONSENT CALENDAR
6A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON

THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER

READING WAIVED
The City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waived reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
6B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The City Council approved demand warrants dated December 1, 2023 – December 21, 2023, in the amount of $3,356,269.98.
6C. NOVEMBER 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT
The Investment Report as of November 30, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of November 2023. 6D. NOVEMBER 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT (SUCCESSOR AGENCY)
The Investment Report as of November 30, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of November 2023. 6E. NOVEMBER 2023 GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; AND STATUS

OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 3 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
The Revenue and Expenditure Report for the month ended November 30, 2023, has been provided to the City Manager in accordance with Stanton Municipal Code Section 2.20.080 (D) and is being provided to City Council. This report includes information for both the City’s General Fund and the Housing Authority Fund. In addition, this report includes a status of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as of November 30, 2023.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the General Fund and Housing Authority Fund November 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Reports and Status of Capital Improvement Projects for the month ended November 30, 2023.
6F. MEETING DATES FOR THE STANTON CITY COUNCIL, STANTON PARKS,

RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION, STANTON

PLANNING COMMISSION, AND STANTON PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE City Council review the attached 2024 meeting dates for the Stanton City Council, Stanton Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, Stanton Planning Commission, and Stanton Public Safety Committee.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Stanton City Council, Stanton Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, Stanton Planning Commission, and Stanton Public Safety Committee meeting dates for the year 2024.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
6G. MAYOR’S APPOINTMENTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AS REPRESENTATIVES

TO VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES Traditionally, Council Members have been appointed by the Mayor to serve on numerous outside committees, boards, commissions and agencies. Each appointee is responsible for representing the City and voting on behalf of the City Council. The Mayor conducts a review and selects appointees, as detailed in Attachment A, with the exception of the Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) appointment, which is required to be made by City Council Resolution, the Mayor may otherwise make DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 4 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
appointments to each committee, board, commission or agency by nomination and Minute Order confirmation. In addition, the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) regulations require the adoption and posting of Form 806, Agency Report of Public Official Appointments, in order for individual Council Members to participate in a City Council vote that would result in him or her serving in a position that provides compensation of $250 or more in any 12-month period.

Report by Mayor Shawver.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Warren
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: 1 (Van)
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. The City Council confirmed the Mayor’s appointments; and

3. Approved Fair Political Practices Commission Form 806 and authorized the City Clerk to post the form on the City’s website.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7A. AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 36937 AND 65858 EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY

OR LODGING BUSINESSES OR USES, AND EXTENDING A TEMPORARY

MORATORIUM ON ANY EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR ALTERATION

OF ANY EXISTING PUBLIC LODGING, LODGING FACILITY, OR LODGING BUSINESSES AND USES FOR 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS PENDING STUDY AND THE PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE

AND ZONING CODE AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT

FROM CEQA
Due to the continuing need to protect the public safety, health, and welfare of the community from the substantial amount of crime that is occurring at various public lodging uses within the City, and the comprehensive nature of the necessary review DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 5 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
of the applicable Municipal Code regulations including operational standards, security provisions, zoning regulations, business license requirements, and transient occupancy taxes, the City Council is asked to consider an extension of the interim urgency ordinance to temporarily prohibit the establishment of public lodging and/or the expansion, enlargement, or alteration of existing public lodging businesses and uses within the City. The interim urgency ordinance would provide the City with sufficient time to study the continuing impacts of these establishments and to develop new municipal and zoning code regulations. The length of the moratorium would be 10 months and 15 days.

Staff report by Ms. HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney.

Ms. HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney announced that due to a conflict of interest, with Council Member Van and Mayor Pro Tem Warren, Council Members who own property close to the Dixie Hotel, Starlite Motel, and Villa Motel, would not vote on whether the moratorium should apply to those hotels/motels. However, since the item required a four-fifths vote of the Council, it was legally necessary to qualify another council member to be part of the vote. Due to the excused absence of Council Member Van, Mayor Pro Tem Warren remained in the council chambers and at the dais.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Taylor AYE
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Van ABSENT
Mayor Pro Tem Warren AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

2. The City Council received and filed the 10-day action report for the conclusion of the 45-day moratorium; and

3. Adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1137, entitled:

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 6 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
“AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY

MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW PUBLIC

LODGING, LODGING FACILITY OR LODGING BUSINESSES OR USES,

AND A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON ANY EXPANSION,

ENLARGEMENT, AND/OR ALTERATION OF ANY EXISTING PUBLIC

LODGING, LODGING FACILITY, OR LODGING BUSINESSES AND
USES FOR 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS PENDING STUDY AND THE
PREPARATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE

AND ZONING CODE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
65858 AND 36937 AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA”.

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

9. NEW BUSINESS None.

10. ORAL COMMUNICATION None.

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

12. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 12A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS • Council Member Taylor reported on the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District's upcoming 2024 campaign and reported on an upcoming presentation by the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District to the City Council.
• Mayor Pro Tem Warren reported on her attendance at the Brown Descents Car Club Association’s 2023 Toy Drive & Car Show event, which was held on December 16, 2023, in the City of Garden Grove.
• Mayor Shawver reported that in honor of National Law Enforcement Day, which is held on January 9th of each year. He has reached out to both the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and Orange County Fire Authority to provide them with an appreciation luncheon for each Stanton station thanking them for their service to our community.

DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 7 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
12B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL

MEETING
• Mayor Pro Tem Warren requested to agendize discussion regarding the creation of an ordinance allowing for the use of fireworks during cultural events/holidays along with a social host ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Warren further requested that the City monitor the use of fireworks during the upcoming 2024 cultural holiday season, reach out to neighboring cities to inquire about their current practices/policies and to report back to the City Council at a future meeting. 12C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
• Mayor Shawver requested to agendize discussion regarding assigning a City Council liaison to the City’s in-house Traffic Committee. • Mayor Shawver requested to agendize discussion regarding contract parking enforcement.
• Mayor Shawver requested to agendize discussion regarding exploring alternative options for the Tina/Pacific development.

13. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL None.

14. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
None.
14A. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
At this time the Orange County Sheriff’s Department will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, provided the City Council with an update on the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s current operations.

15. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Shawver/
Motion carried at 7:26 p.m.
_______________________________________

MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
DRAFT
Joint Regular Meeting – January 9, 2024 - Page 8 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

CITY CLERK/SECRETARY

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: January 23, 2024
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2562, WHICH APPROVED THE
REVOCATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 859
(PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN P-435), FOR THE OPERATION OF A
MOTEL AT 11632 BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE GENERAL MIXED USE

OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE, DUE TO

SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE OPERATION OF

THE MOTEL USE
REPORT IN BRIEF:

This matter is before the City Council as an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to revoke Precise Plan of Design P-435 for the operation of a motel use at 11632 Beach Boulevard, where the Dixie Orange County currently operates.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. City Council conduct a public hearing; and

DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11632 BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE

GENERAL MIXED-USE OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE,

DUE TO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE
Item: 10A
Click here to return to the agenda.

Page 2 ends

OPERATION OF THE PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE, DENYING AN

APPEAL BY CALIFORNIA ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC AND MEGHA

HOSPITALITY, LLC, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA”.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Stanton (“City”) has continuously sought to deter nuisance activities throughout the City. These efforts have included daily work by City staff and partnerships with other public agencies. For example, the City has worked with the City of Anaheim to install blue light cameras to monitor high trafficked commercial areas within the City.

Additionally, the City continues to coordinate with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (“OCSD”) to seek new pilot programs that target crime and quality of life issues such as human trafficking, illegal gambling, and public intoxication. In conjunction with these efforts, City staff assessed motel operations as potential contributing factors and magnets to nuisance activities. This assessment found that the subject property, The Dixie Orange County (“Dixie” or “Motel”), located at 11632 Beach Boulevard (“Property”), was the highest contributor to nuisance activity. Of the seven motels located within Stanton, it has caused the greatest ratio of calls for service from the OCSD for the past three years and the greatest number of calls for 2023 through November 2023.

The Property was developed in 1983 after approval of a Precise Plan of Design and Variance permitted the development and operation of a motel use. It is located on the east side of Beach Blvd., south of Orangewood Avenue and north of Chapman Avenue.

The Property is bordered by a vehicle dealership to the north, motel to the south, and residential uses to the east and across Beach Boulevard to the west.

The Property has operated as a motel for 40 years. However, over time, the continued operation of the use has resulted in increasingly negative impacts to the community. The premises are a public nuisance that drain vital community resources. In the past year, City administration and staff have worked to address the adverse conditions with the current owner in a series of meetings and correspondence. Despite that coordination, the Property conditions have only further degraded, and the Motel management has demonstrated that it is unable or unwilling to alleviate the substantial nuisances.

On December 20, 2023, after proper notice and a hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the revocation of the original approval for development and operation of the Motel. On January 2, 2024, the Planning Commission’s decision was timely appealed by Deepa Patel on behalf of California One Hospitality, LLC and Megha Hospitality, LLC (collectively, “Appellants”).

Page 3 ends

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Pursuant to Stanton Municipal Code (“SMC”) section 20.615.040(F)(1), when the Council is deciding an appeal, the Council “shall not hear or consider any evidence of any kind other than the evidence received from the previous review authority, or any argument on the merits of the case other than that contained in the notice of appeal….” Thus, Part I of the Analysis/Justification provides the evidence that Staff provided to the Planning Commission, and Part II provides responses to Appellant’s arguments on appeal.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

I. Evidence Provided by City Staff to the Planning Commission at the December 20, 2023 Hearing
The Motel’s construction and use were originally approved by the Planning Commission through a Precise Plan of Design (“PPD”)1 and Variance on October 6, 1982. The original application sought approval for the development and operation of a 67-room motel use on the subject property that was proposed to be constructed in two phases. Ultimately, only the first phase of the project was approved and developed, and the subject site has operated as a 36-room motel since its inception. The subject site has had three operators in its 40-year history: Howard Johnson from 1983-2015, Knight’s Inn from 2016-2017, and the Dixie Orange County from 2018 to the present.

A. Extensive Criminal Activity and Public Nuisances Occur at the Property and Conditions are Worsening
In the past five years since the current Property Owner, California One Hospitality, LLC, represented by Deepa Patel, (“Owner”) took ownership of the Motel, the number of law enforcement calls relating to the Property have increased at an alarming rate. City staff worked with the OCSD Public Records Act Division to quantify the number of calls for service as well as the type/level of calls for service.

Specifically, the City requested OCSD data on calls for service related to Stanton motels over the past five years. The data demonstrates:
• During that time, the calls for service related to the Dixie have significantly increased, from 47 calls in 2019 to 172 calls in 2023 (through November 2023), an increase of 266 percent; and
• Over the past five years, the Dixie had the highest ratio of calls for service to number of rooms amongst all Stanton motels at 12.3 calls for service per guest room. The only other motel with a double-digit ratio was the former Riviera Motel, which reported 11 calls for service per guest room. The Riviera Motel has since transitioned into a Project Homekey development.
1 A “precise plan of design” is now referred to as a “site plan and design review” in the current Stanton Municipal Code (See SMC § 16.72.010; and Ch. 20.530).

Page 4 ends

Additionally, the majority of motels have either maintained or decreased their number of calls for service every year, as well as their ratio of calls for service. The exception is the Dixie, which has experienced significant increases. As a matter of comparison, the Villa Motel is located immediately adjacent to the Dixie on the south but has significantly lower numbers of calls for service and has shown a decrease in the five-year assessment.

Similarly, the Starlight Motel, which operates 32 guest rooms, is located two properties south of the Dixie and has an even lower number of calls for service with a range of 9 to 16 calls per year.

Table 1. OCSD Calls for Service to Stanton Motels
(as of November 30, 2023)

Page 5 ends

In the following charts, the calls for services at the Dixie are identified by the red hashed line. That line illustrates how the Dixie is an outlier due to its increasing calls for service.

Chart 1. OCSD Calls for Service to Stanton Motels
(as of November 30, 2023)
Chart 2. OCSD Ratio of Calls for Service to Stanton Motels (as of November 30, 2023)
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 - to date
Chester Inn Dixie Hotel Jade Palace Motel 6
Casa Playa Riviera Motel* Stanton Inn* Starlight
Tahiti Motel* Villa Motel

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Chester Inn Dixie Hotel Jade Palace Motel 6 Casa Playa
Riviera Motel* Stanton Inn* Starlight Tahiti Motel* Villa Motel

Page 6 ends

The types of calls for service at the Dixie go well beyond the common disturbances typically associated with motels (Table 2). The call types include assault with a deadly weapon, carjacking, shots heard, robbery in progress, battery, prostitution, and “investigate dead body.” The following are some examples of the calls that the City and its law enforcement have received as documented in a Public Records Act response from the OCSD on October 25, 2023 (Attachment B):
• Disturbance. On May 7, 2020, the Motel owner called law enforcement about a male who keeps bringing “tweakers” into his room and disobeying policy about unauthorized guests.
• Investigate dead body. On February 9, 2021, Orange County Fire Authority arrived at the Motel parking lot to investigate a report of an unconscious male.

The individual was pronounced dead.
• Assault with deadly weapon. On March 5, 2021, there was a report regarding a Motel guest who was walking his dog when another Motel guest got out of his vehicle and struck the man five- to six times with a bat, causing injury to the front and back of his head. The report provides that “Dixie cameras do not record,” which implies that security measures at the Motel are not effective. • Investigate dead body. On April 22, 2021, law enforcement responded to a report of a person who was not breathing in a Motel room. On arrival, OCSD deputies performed CPR on the individual and gave him Narcan due to a report that the individual took fentanyl. The man was eventually pronounced deceased. • Suspicious person/circumstances. On November 18, 2021, a woman reported from the Motel that she was subject to some kind of sex trafficking. The caller said she did not feel safe, someone was “making a lottery” on her, and that someone was going to take her away.
• Disturbance. On August 24, 2022, a call was received from an alleged Motel guest who claimed that he could not leave his room because there were so many people outside in the hallway doing drugs.
• Weapons violation. On August 30, 2022, a suspect was detained at the Motel and patted down for weapons. Law enforcement found a stolen handgun in his waistband.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On December 10, 2022, a female called and reported that a male had touched her genitals at the Motel. • Disturbance. On March 12, 2023, there was a report regarding a dispute between a prostitute and another individual over sexually illicit services. The reporting party stated that a male was going room to room looking for the female and threatening to kill her.
• Robbery report. On April 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was walking to her room at the Dixie, a man threatened her with a three-inch knife, demanded her wallet, and then stabbed her and ran away with her wallet. • Disturbance. On April 25, 2023, a woman called law enforcement claiming that there was a man in the Motel who was threatening to shoot her with a gun after he gave her money for sex and she refused.
• Use of pipe bomb. On May 11, 2023, there was a call regarding an individual with a pipe bomb. The suspect was apprehended, prosecuted, and pled guilty in June

Page 7 ends

2023 to attempting to set fire and burn one of the buildings at the Dixie with a “flammable and combustible incendiary device.” (See People v. Domville, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 23WF1522.)
• Suspicious person in vehicle. On May 12, 2023, there was a report that two individuals were sitting in a vehicle parked in the Dixie parking lot who were doing drugs. The report was that they had been there for hours with other vehicles pulling up and getting things from them.
• Assault with deadly weapon report. On June 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was at the Dixie, a male went up to her room and tried to hit her across her face with a gun.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On July 7, 2023, a woman reported that her pimp had forced her friend into his vehicle at the Dixie and driven off. • Disturbance. On July 27, 2023, there was a report about a woman who had fentanyl in her pockets and was trying to sell the illicit narcotics to other Dixie motel guests.
• Suspicious person in vehicle. On August 29, 2023, a call was received regarding an individual bleeding from the ribs, unconscious, and not breathing at the Dixie.

The victim was transported to UCI Medical Center and later reported that he was involved in an altercation at the Motel and had been stabbed in the chest.

Some of the illicit narcotics that have been found at the Dixie include black tar heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and amphetamine pills. Some of the large quantities of drugs that have been found at the Property support that they are possessed for sale and not for personal use.

As demonstrated, the crimes are significant and a severe and immediate threat to Dixie employees and guests, as well as City residents, visitors, and businesses.

Table 2. OCSD Call Types for Dixie
(as of November 30, 2023)
Call Types
Narcotic Violation Brandishing a Weapon Report Medical Aid Suspicious Vehicle Marijuana Violation Assault w/Deadly Weapon Petty Theft Keep the Peace Resisting Arrest Investigate Person Down Stolen Vehicle Traffic Hazard Robbery in Progress Disturbance – Music or Party Warrant Arrest Unknown Trouble Robbery Report Disturbance–Family Dispute ID Theft Found Property Carjacking Report Disturbance–Mechanical Trespassing Property Destruction Information Report Receiving Stolen Property Disturbance Assist Outside Agency Domestic Battery Suspicious Person in Vehicle 911 Hang Up Citizen Assist Burglary in Progress Vandalism in Progress Welfare Check Pedestrian Check Hit & Run – Felony Hit & Run – Misdemeanor Shots Heard Domestic Verbal Only Grand Theft Report Hit & Run – Parked Car Bike Stop Follow Up Reports Stolen Vehicle Located Disorderly Conduct – Prostitution Battery Weapons Violation Illegal Parked Vehicle Suspicious Person/Circumstances Missing Adult Investigate Dead Body The frequency of calls for service, combined with the severity and significance of the types of calls, then translate into increased arrests and citations, resulting in a 183 percent increase in arrests and a 600 percent increase in citations over the past five years.

Page 8 ends

Table 3. OCSD Arrests and Citations for Dixie
(as of November 30, 2023)
Arrests Citations
2019 6 2
2020 16 2
2021 3 1
2022 11 6
2023 17 14
The data above was provided in an external memo from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department dated November 17, 2023 (See Attachment C). Since then, staff requested the latest calls for service data through November 30, 2023, which was then included in the tables and charts above. The illicit activity at the site is an incredible drain on City resources. The City commits the majority of its budget to law enforcement and public safety. Fifty-four percent of the City’s annual budget, or $16.2 million a year, goes to supporting law enforcement and code enforcement services. Calls for service at the Dixie have resulted in an increase of almost 200 percent in consumed police time, from 59 hours in 2019 to 175+ hours in 2023. Those hours do not reflect the hours spent by City administration and staff dealing with the code enforcement issues at the property.

The types of illegal and illicit activities have even drawn the attention of local groups. The picture, below, was taken by a resident of Hynes Estates, a residential neighborhood adjacent to the Dixie, during a protest in the Dixie parking lot on October 14, 2023. It depicts a group from Northeast of the Well, which has a focus on prostitution and human sex trafficking. (See https://www.northeastofthewell.org.)

Page 9 ends

The pictures below are from the Meta (formerly known as Facebook) page of Northeast of the Well advertising the Human/Sex Trafficking Awareness March that culminated in the parking lot of the Dixie.

Page 10 ends

The number of calls for service, along with the severity and type of calls, are a danger to those in the immediate area and the entire community. The subject site has become a known public nuisance that attracts illicit and illegal activities and requires immediate corrective action. However, the property owner and the property manager have not taken sufficient action to alleviate the current conditions on the property.

B. Extensive Emergency Medical Services Activity and Public Nuisances Occur at the Property and Conditions are Worsening
In the past five years since the current Property Owner took ownership of the Motel, the number of emergency medical services calls relating to the Property have increased at an alarming rate. City staff worked with the Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) to quantify the number of calls for service as well as the type/level of calls for service.

Specifically, the City requested OCFA data on calls for service related to Stanton motels over the past five years. The data demonstrates:
• During that time, the calls for service related to the Dixie have significantly increased, from 6 calls in 2019 to 38 calls in 2023 (through December 13, 2023), an increase of 533 percent; and
• In 2023, the Dixie had the highest ratio of calls for service to number of rooms amongst all Stanton motels at 1.05 calls for service per guest room. And the number of calls in 2023 at the Dixie equals the same number of calls at Motel 6, which has 6x the number of rooms.
• The types of calls for service at the Dixie are contrary to the advancement of public safety, health, and welfare.

As a matter of comparison, the Villa Motel is located immediately adjacent to the Dixie on the south but has significantly lower numbers of calls for service with a range of 8 to 17 calls per year. Similarly, the Starlight Motel, which operates 32 guest rooms, is located two properties south of the Dixie and has an even lower number of calls for service with a range of 4 to 9 calls per year.

Page 11 ends

Table 4. OCFA Calls for Service to Stanton Motels
(as of December 13, 2023)
Calls for Service
Chester
Inn
Dixie
Hotel
Jade
Palace
Motel
6 Casa
Playa Starlight
Villa
Motel
Calls for
Service
2019 2 6 3 57 1 6 14
2020 2 7 2 61 4 9 11
2021 3 16 10 44 3 7 17
2022 10 15 6 44 6 9 14
2023 – to date 8 38 4 38 7 4 8
TOTAL 25 82 25 244 21 35 64
Calls for
Service/#
of
Rooms
Rooms 24 36 29 206 28 32 25
2019 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.6
2020 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4
2021 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7
2022 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6
2023 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3
Chart 3. OCFA Calls for Service to Stanton Motels
(as of December 13, 2023)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 - to date
Chester Inn Dixie Hotel Jade Palace Motel 6
Casa Playa Starlight Villa Motel

Page 12 ends

Chart 4. OCFA Ratio of Calls for Service to Stanton Motels (as of December 13, 2023)
Table 5. OCFA Call Types for Dixie for 2023
(as of December 13, 2023)
Call Types # of Incidents
Trauma/Assault/Bleeding 10
Overdose/Drugs 6
Chest Pain/Cardiac Arrest 5
Unconscious/Unknown 5
Unknown Medical Aid 5
Back Pain 2
Seizure 2
Behavior/Suicide 1
Fall 1
Respiratory 1
TOTAL 38
C. Notice to the Property Owner and Management of the Severe Public Nuisances and the City’s Year-Long Effort at Gaining Compliance at the Property The City acknowledges that the Property has long been established as a motel use. It also recognizes that the consequences of revoking a PPD are serious. The Stanton Municipal Code provides, “The City’s action to revoke a permit or approval, instead of modification, shall have the effect of terminating the permit or approval and denying the privileges granted by the original approval.” (SMC § 20.630.030.) The PPD granted the

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Chester Inn Dixie Hotel Jade Palace Motel 6
Casa Playa Starlight Villa Motel

Page 13 ends

property owner (and subsequent owners) the “privilege” of operating a motel at the subject site. Thus, if a PPD revocation was approved, it would result in no public lodging business being able to operate at the property.

In this context, it is important to note that the City has worked with the Property Owner for nearly a year in an effort to stem the grave nuisances at the property. Despite those efforts, illegal activity at the Property has only worsened and increased, as discussed, above. Initially, the Owner and management signaled cooperation with the City, but over time, they indicated that they are either unwilling or unable to address the problems.

The City first connected with the current Property owner’s representative, Deepa Patel, when the Owner submitted an application to the City to expand the Motel in July 2022.

The application, which initially proposed 18 additional guest rooms, is not yet complete and is not before the City Council for its consideration. This report does not discuss the application in detail. To the extent the application is referenced, it is to provide the City Council with information about nuisance activity and security issues that were raised by the City to the owner concurrently as the application has been processed.

When the Property Owner submitted the application, the City approached it as an opportunity to partner with the owner to address the serious nuisance activities at the property. In each of the incomplete letters that the City sent to the owner’s representative, the City raised concerns about public safety. A recurring comment was, “The existing motel on the property has experienced a high volume of specific calls for service that demonstrate the ongoing public safety issues on the property.” (See Attachment F.2.) After the Owner’s second incomplete application submittal, the City initiated a meeting with the Property Owner that took place on February 21, 2023. At the February meeting, Ms. Patel was informed of the high frequency of calls for service and the burden that the nuisance activity on the site was having on the City’s public safety resources. In response, the Property Owner indicated certain actions would be taken to deter the nuisance activity on the subject site, as memorialized in an email dated March 13, 2023 (See Attachment D.1.) The actions included:
• Add parking lot lighting;
• Close off hidden areas of the parking lot;
• Register all guest vehicles in the Anand Systems Inc. (ASI) FrontDesk Property Management System;
• Provide dated parking permits to all registered guest vehicles; • Procure the services of a towing company to conduct daily tows of unregistered vehicles;
• Register all customers and require a valid ID to be logged; and • Decline to provide services to guests engaged in prostitution or drug dealing, as memorialized in a letter dated February 24, 2023 (See Attachment D.1.a) from COH LLC (Deepa Patel) to Megha Hospitality LLC (Suresh Ahir) provided to the City in the previously referenced email dated March 13, 2023.

Page 14 ends

The commitments focused on the parking lot, in part, because poorly-lit, obscured areas are recognized as magnets for illegal activities. A vehicle registration system is a common practice at public lodging businesses to, among other things, control who may use the business’s parking facilities.

In correspondence dated April 25, 2023 (See Attachment D.2), the City Manager sent an email to Ms. Patel acknowledging that multiple City staff members had visited the Property over the prior few weeks and agreed the physical improvements by management had made a positive impact to the property. In the same email, the City Manager noted that a City staff member had reported on a recent visit that there were no parking permits on display in vehicles parked in the lot. The City Manager requested confirmation that the permit system was being utilized and asked for the number of tows that had occurred since March 13, 2023.

In an email dated June 1, 2023 (See Attachment D.3), the Property Owner noted that a tow company had been procured to conduct random visits to the Dixie between the hours of 4 p.m. – 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. – 10 p.m. to tow any cars without a permit. The Property Owner also noted that additional signage would be installed to inform guests a permit would be required to park in the parking lot.

Unfortunately, as the months progressed, nuisance activities did not cease at the Dixie.

During this time, there were a number of especially concerning calls for service. One related to an armed robbery and one related to a pipe bomb. As a courtesy, the City Manager called and left a voicemail for the Property Owner to make sure she was aware of the recent calls for service. In response, the Owner sent an email to the City Manager, dated June 27, 2023, expressing that she and management were unable to alleviate the Motel’s nuisance conditions. In the correspondence, she compared the Motel operations to a retail store open to the general public. She indicated both uses “have no control over who walks thru those doors and what these people do.” (See Attachment D.4.) However, unlike a retail store, motel premises are only for use by patrons who have properly registered and paid for use of a guest room and related amenities. For this reason, onsite security, vehicle registration programs, and regular monitoring of the parking lot and grounds are crucial components of operating a motel and deterring crime.

In the same June 27 email, the Owner took issue with the City’s request for a security plan. City staff provided the owner’s representative a template (See Attachment G) to fill that asked for basic things like, “Will there be on site security? If not, what measures are taken to monitor activity or prevent detrimental activity on site?” In response the Owner wrote back, “We are being asked for things that no other city has asked for. Security plans?” (Ibid.) However, these discussions were a reasonable outgrowth based on the substantial nuisance conditions that occur on a regular basis at the Motel. Having a security plan helps safeguard the property and public from crime.

In a verbal update to the City Manager, the City’s Crime Prevention Specialist shared that during a meeting between her and the Property Owner on August 17, 2023, the Owner admitted to the OCSD representative that she felt scared being at the Motel due to the nuisance conditions and was anxious to leave the premises.

Page 15 ends

During a phone call with the Property Owner and Motel management on August 31, 2023, the City Manager brought up the continuing nuisance issues at the site. The conversation covered issues including:
• An incident from 6-8 weeks prior in which OCSD had to be called on-site to forcibly enter a room;
• An incident from earlier in the week regarding a male who had been stabbed on the premises, did not report the incident at the time, and the next day went to the hospital; and
• Continued complaints from neighboring property owners regarding noise at all hours.

The City Manager also brought up, again, that on a recent inspection, staff had observed there were no parking permits on display in vehicles parked in the motel lot. The Property Owner responded that the feedback was untrue and questioned the accuracy and validity of City staff’s observations.

Following the phone call, the City Manager visited the property along with Code Enforcement staff on September 7, 2023, between approximately 8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.

Upon arrival, the lobby was closed, so the City Manager rang the night bell. She introduced herself to the manager who had also participated in the August 31, 2023 phone call. She noted to the manager that she would be checking for properly registered vehicles. The motel manager confirmed that all cars in the lot were registered.

The City Manager and Code Enforcement staff then walked the parking lot and observed 26 vehicles and took photographs of all 26. Only five vehicles were properly registered.

During the site visit, a male guest came out of his room and asked the City Manager what she was doing. Upon hearing she was checking vehicle registrations, he stated that he had been staying there for a few weeks, and although he had been told he should register, no one had ever made him and his car had never been towed.

Page 16 ends

The City Manager then sent an email to the property owner along with the photos on September 7, 2023 (See Attachment D.5.) She also documented the following in the email from the site visit:
• During the visit, a gray van was in the parking lot with two people who appeared to be sleeping inside. A woman exited the van, pulled down her underwear, and began to urinate in the parking lot.
• During the visit, staff observed a prone body at the top of the staircase. Upon closer inspection, staff determined it was a man and there was dried blood and flies on his face. Staff attempted to rouse the man, and after the third try they were successful. The man was observed to be clearly intoxicated and had difficulty responding. Staff offered services, including temporary shelter, and the man declined and left the property.
• The trash bin was overflowing.

Overflowing Trash Bin – September 7, 2023

Page 17 ends

The Property Owner sent an email response on September 12, 2023 to the City Manager (See Attachment D.6.) The email stated the following:
• She had visited the property on September 11, 2023, and had figured out some of the obstacles.
• She met with the City’s Crime Prevention Specialist on site. • She planned to have a gate installed.
• She would be visiting the property on a weekly basis indefinitely to improve the aesthetics, safety, and training.

The Property Owner sent a second response on September 13, 2023 to the City Manager.

She wrote, among other things, “I went to the property and it was a shit show of drugs[,] homeless[,] and prostitution. …Once it’s all cleaned up and in better shape. I’m going to ask the city manager again to push the project forward and if she doesn’t at the point then I will send the legal letter, but as of now from what I saw it does look like a nuisance.” (See Attachment D.7)
The Property Owner did attempt to implement a suggestion made by law enforcement to enhance security by installing a gate at the front entrance to control ingress and egress.

However, the gate was illegally installed without obtaining the required building permit or inspection by the Orange County Fire Authority and posed a danger to the community due to lack of egress for emergency and other vehicles.

Upon discovering the unpermitted gate installation, Code Enforcement informed the Motel operator that the gate must be immediately removed. That same day, the Property owner contacted OCSD, which confirmed that permits were required to install the gate. Despite the directive to immediately remove the gate, Code Enforcement confirmed five days later that the gate remained, and administrative citations were issued. The Property Owner finally removed the gate more than a week after Code Enforcement directed that it be removed. The Property owner appealed the administrative citation arguing, among other things, that it was the City’s responsibility, from the beginning, to inform her that she needed a permit. The City disputed that and noted that all property owners are tasked with knowing the law. On December 8, 2023, a hearing officer upheld the administrative citations and order. (See Attachment E)
On November 9, 2023, the City staff sent a fifth letter to the owner’s representative noting that their application for an expansion continued to be incomplete (See Attachment F.5.) In relevant part, it noted:
“***No security plan provided in the latest submittal.

The project site has a high volume of calls for service that Stanton Police Services has responded to. The calls for service range from prostitution, narcotics violations, stolen vehicles, weapon possession, probation/parole violations, burglary, robbery, gang activity, assaults, assaults with deadly weapons, etc. Additional numerous arrests and citations have been made and given, around, out front, and coming from this motel. For that reason, the application must provide a remediation and security plan that address site safety concerns.” (Correspondence from City to Saeed Kamkar, dated November 9, 2023.)

Page 18 ends

The record demonstrates that the City has repeatedly raised concerns regarding the criminal activities and nuisance conditions on the property for nearly a year. In good faith, the City initially partnered with the Owner in hopes that the Owner and its management could address the issues. However, over time, the Owner and its management have demonstrated that they are unable or unwilling to do so, despite the Owner expressly acknowledging that the Motel is a public nuisance.

D. There are grounds to revoke the PPD under the Stanton Municipal Code The Municipal Code has established procedures for revocation of previously approved permits or approvals in SMC Section 20.630. Among other things, it requires notice and a hearing, which the City has satisfied.

SMC 20.630.050 specifies that a City planning permit or approval may be revoked by the review authority that originally approved the permit if any one of seven potential findings can be made. The Planning Commission was the original review authority that approved Resolution No. 859 which granted the original approval of the Precise Plan of Design for the development and use of a motel.

The City has assessed the current conditions on the subject site and its five-year history and has determined that the following four findings can be made to support revocation of Resolution No. 859 pursuant to SMC Section 20.630.050. The findings are as follows:
(A)(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;
(A)(3) One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated;
(A)(6) An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute; or (A)(7) 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 original approval was granted in 1983, and circumstances have changed since its initial development and operation to the extent that the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made. Moreover, the public health, safety, and welfare require the revocation. The business operations under the current ownership have been rife with crime and public nuisances. The numerous and increasing number of calls for service show a considerable increase in criminal activity on the motel property which the current owner and management have been unable or unwilling to continuously correct. The Precise Plan of Design approved the development and operations of a motel use which

Page 19 ends

has progressively morphed into a public nuisance. The subject site has become an attractive venue for nuisance activity which is a significant drain on City and law enforcement resources and causes unsafe conditions that are a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

The subject site has failed to comply with conditions placed upon it through its original approval for development and use of a motel. Condition 2(a) of Resolution No. 859, requires that all applicable requirements of the Stanton Municipal Code be met.

Additionally, Condition 2, which provides that the failure to abide and comply with all conditions and provisions of the Municipal Code constitutes grounds for revocation. The property has failed to maintain the registration, sanitary, and security provisions required by Stanton Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 9.52. Additionally, SMC 9.16.020 establishes that it is unlawful and declared to be a public nuisance when a property owner or lessee maintains a property in a manner where people engage in two or more acts which are prohibited pursuant to the laws of the state of California including possession of controlled substances, prostitution, gambling, or solicitation for unlawful conduct. As shown in Sections A and B of this report, the subject site has been maintained in a manner that continues to increasingly attract unlawful activity and operates as a public nuisance.

The City of Stanton continuously seeks to find a balance between supporting its businesses and protecting the community from negative impacts and nuisance behavior.

In this case, all available data shows that the subject site has become a public nuisance and current ownership has not shown consistent efforts to secure the property or deter nuisance activity on the property. The current state of the subject site requires immediate corrective action which the current property owner has not been able to consistently implement. The City of Stanton cannot continue to allow the degradation of the property, the negative impacts on the community, and the drain on public safety resources. The conditions of and operation of the motel use have significantly changed from its original approval in 1983 and must now be revoked to terminate the privilege of operating a motel at the subject site.

II. City’s Response to Appellant’s appeal of Planning Commission’s December 20, 2023 Decision to revoke P-435
In appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke P-435, Appellant bears the burden to show that there was an “error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission in the consideration and action on the matter being appealed” or “the decision was not supported by the evidence on the record.” (SMC § 20.615.040(B)(1).) Appellants assert their use “is not operating as a nuisance” with no evidence to support their conclusion. Rather, they raise Constitutional grievances that are unfounded or irrelevant. To preserve the City’s arguments, the remainder of Part II of the Analysis/Justification responds to these red herrings.

Page 20 ends

A. “Last Resort” Argument: At the Planning Commission hearing, Appellants argued that revocation of the PPD should be the City’s “last resort.” Appellants’ continue to make that argument, asserting the proposed revocation is “oppressive and disproportionate, and in violation of due process, as there is no evidence that [Appellants] have ever been cited for criminal or administrative fines in the past at the motel.” (Appeal p. 3 of 12.) They also claim that the City should have started with “alternative remedies” or the “imposition of additional conditions or controls” prior to seeking a revocation. (Appeal p. 4 of 12.) The City’s response is that nothing in the Stanton Municipal Code requires the City to first condition or modify a permit prior to seeking a revocation. (See SMC § 20.630.050.) That said, the City also asserts that the revocation was the City’s “last resort.” For nearly a year, City staff attempted to partner with Appellants and explore alternatives to revocation, as discussed in Subsection (C) of the Analysis/Justification, above. Beginning in February 2023, City staff met with Appellants’ representatives through in-person and virtual meetings and numerous correspondence asking Appellants to abate the ballooning nuisances at the Property. Appellants initially agreed to measures like vehicle registrations and security but never fully followed through. For example, they instituted a vehicle registration system but did not regularly check on whether vehicles in the parking lot were actually registered. When the City pointed out these half-implemented measures, Appellants argued that the City’s proposed security measures were unreasonable, and Appellants did not have the ability to stem the nuisances issues at the Property. In September 2023, Ms. Patel, herself, asserted to the City that Appellants “have no control over who walks thru those doors and what these people do.” Thus, the Planning Commission’s revocation of P-435 was a last resort for the City after Appellants demonstrated that they were unwilling or unable to address the nuisance conditions at the Property. The revocation proceedings came after nearly a year of the City’s efforts to work with them.

On December 20, 2023, Appellants brought multiple representatives, including security officers, to speak on their behalf to the Planning Commission. According to Appellants, 24-hour security began surveilling the Property in November 2023 and were allegedly successful in abating any issues. However, at the same time the Planning Commission hearing was underway, multiple fire engines and an ambulance responded to the Property due to “ALS-Behavioral/Suicidal” where an individual “took pills to hurt himself” (Attachment N). A photo, below, depicts the scene the evening of December 20, 2023.

Page 21 ends

The City’s move to revoke the Dixie’s permit was a last resort for the City after: (1) a nearly year-long attempt to work with Appellants failed; (2) Appellants, themselves, admitted and demonstrated that they could do no more to improve the nuisance conditions at the Property; and (3) the efforts that Appellants did make (i.e., 24 hour security) proved ineffective at stopping nuisance activities at the Property. Thus, the City’s action to revoke P-435 is proportionate to the circumstances.

B. Substantive Due Process: Appellants claim that the City’s revocation was a “violation of substantive due process.” Appellants do not identify a protected liberty interest entitled to substantive due process protections. Additionally, the City’s response is that the Planning Commission’s action to revoke Appellants’ permit was justified by the overwhelming data and evidence that demonstrates that Appellants are operating the Dixie business and Property as a public nuisance. The SMC findings to revoke P-435 were squarely met. (See SMC § 20.360.050(A)(1), (3), (6), and (7).) Moreover, throughout the appeal, Appellants provide, “the motel is not operating as a nuisance,” or the City has made “unfounded allegations of the hotel operating as a public nuisance. They also claim, “The hotel has never, and is not at present operated as a public nuisance under the ownership and operations of my clients.” However, in correspondence from Ms. Patel as early as four months ago, she admits that the Property, “was a shit show of drugs[,] homeless[,] and prostitution…” and “as of now from what I

Page 22 ends

saw it does look like a nuisance.” The City and Ms. Patel agree that the business operations and Property are a public nuisance. Thus, the City had a sufficient purpose and reason to revoke the permit.

C. Procedural Due Process: Moreover, Appellants claim that their procedural due process was violated because “the evidence used by the Planning Commission was unsubstantiated hearsay, and [the City] used redacted police reports and calls for service.” Here, the City Council Rules of Order were followed for the Planning Commission hearing and will be followed, again, for the City Council hearing. They provide, in relevant part, “Except as otherwise required by law, the technical rules of evidence shall not apply. As used in this Section, the word ‘evidence’ is not used in the limited sense of legally admissible evidence.” (See City Council Rules of Order § 2.8, Quasi-Judicial Hearings.”) Thus, it was proper for the City to use statistics provided by OCSD to evidence the overwhelming nuisance activity occurring at the Property.

D. Equal Protection: Appellants claim that they are being singled out for enforcement.

The City’s response is that the City has been addressing nuisance activities at public lodging facilities like motels in the City for years. The City has not just been concerned about public nuisance issues at the Dixie but at all motels within the City.

Since 2020, the City has been working with community partners (i.e., the County of Orange and Jamboree Housing) to convert three motels in the City to permanent supportive housing through Project Homekey. That means rooms at the Riviera, Tahiti, and Stanton Motels are now reserved for persons experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness. Moreover, due to the public nuisance activity, in December 2023, the City Council enacted a moratorium against the establishment of new public lodging or the expansion of existing public lodging within the City. This affects all motels in the City. Finally, as the City collected data and evidence regarding motels, the Dixie was a stand out when it came to the number of police calls and nuisance activity in the City. In hearing from OCSD, it became clear that of all the motels within the City, the Dixie is by far the biggest problem for law enforcement. Thus, the Dixie was brought to the Planning Commission for entitlement revocation.

E. Fifth Amendment Takings: Appellants claim that the City’s revocation of P-435 violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The City’s response is the City is not “taking” the Property from Appellants. The City is authorized under the California Constitution with the right to protect the public health, welfare and safety pursuant to its police powers. State and City laws enable the City to address public nuisance issues within the City and take actions to enforce its laws and abate nuisances. Moreover, even without PPD-435 and the ability to operate a motel, the Property retains value and can be put to other valuable uses. The Property sits prominently on Beach Boulevard, which is a busy thoroughfare. It is zoned for other uses, including an array of commercial uses such as retail, restaurants, commercial recreation, as well as service uses along with mixedused residential. Thus, there is no government “taking” here.

Page 23 ends

F. First Amendment: Appellants appear to claim that the City’s efforts to revoke P435 are in response to Appellants’ efforts to redevelop the Property. Appellants’ representative submitted an application to the City to add 18 rooms to the Property in July 2022. Appellant asserts, “[Appellants] were given citations followed shortly after the project was initiated by my clients, and the City instead of addressing the normal project review began to make unfounded allegations of the hotel operating as a public nuisance.” (Appeal p. 6 of 12.) This allegation is patently false. Appellants’ application for an expansion has been pending since the Summer of 2022, and the City initiated revocation proceedings in Winter of 2023, or more than a year and a half later.

As noted above, the expansion application proceedings are not a part of this process and are not discussed in detail in this report. That said, the City notes that it has diligently processed the application, and Appellants have received five incomplete letters noting deficiencies in Appellants’ application. Moreover, Appellants received an administrative citation September 26, 2023, September 27, 2023, and September 28, 2023 for erecting a gate without a building permit and not correcting the violation. While law enforcement suggested to Ms. Patel that a gate could help deter crime at the Property, it was Appellants’ legal obligation to obtain the proper permits for the gate. Ms. Patel pleads ignorance of the City’s requirements, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse to violate the law. Moreover, Ms. Patel has consistently touted to the City her experience as a motel owner with multiple motels in different cities. As a seasoned businessperson, she would understand that erecting a large and heavy structure without permits on the Property is a danger to the public. An improperly installed gate could collapse onto pedestrians and vehicles. The Property sits on Beach Boulevard, and an improperly installed gate could also fall right into traffic, causing innumerable injuries and property damage. Fire officials must approve of a gate to ensure emergency access. Ms. Patel deflects and places responsibility on the City for her failure to follow the law. That is wrong. The installation of a gate without permits is yet another instance in which Appellants cause a public nuisance within the City and put Motel guests, visitors, and residents in danger.

The City’s action to revoke P-435 was squarely because of the nuisance conditions at the Property and Appellants’ failure to correct such conditions are why the City is seeking a permit revocation.

G. Threats: Appellants claim the City has made “threats as to enforcement actions the City may take against ‘Appellants.” It is unclear what alleged threats the City has made against the Appellants, and the City disputes it is threatening Appellants.

H. Fourth Amendment Warrantless Searches: Appellants claim that “law enforcement have been entering the hotel on a daily basis approximately three to five times a day, without warrant or consent, harassing the hotel guests, and at times blocking access to the hotel and even entering the locked guest units by force without a warrant or consent.

Page 24 ends

The City’s response is that law enforcement and fire were called out to the Property more than 200 times, alone, in 2023. Thus, the reason why law enforcement and fire are at the Property on nearly a daily basis is because Appellants’ own guests and visitors call police and fire for help. Due to Appellants’ inability to secure the business and premises, the City’s law enforcement has become Appellants’ de facto security personnel. These calls detract from other urgent law enforcement needs throughout the City. The inordinate number of calls for police and fire services is a strain on law enforcement and a public nuisance.

At the Planning Commission hearing, Appellants also asserted that law enforcement chase criminals onto the Dixie Property. To the contrary, criminals are the ones that lead a chase and bring police to the Dixie. The Property is a known magnet and shelter for criminals and offenders. It is Appellants that have allowed a criminal environment to gestate and flourish at the Property, which directly creates a need for law enforcement and fire responses.

I. “Deprecatory Remarks” by Planning Commissioners: Appellants claim the Planning Commission made deprecatory remarks against Appellants and Appellants’ legal counsel without describing what those remarks may be. The City notes that Appellants put on a robust defense of their business at the Planning Commission meeting.

They were represented by counsel, and Ms. Patel and other supporters spoke against the revocation. They submitted documents to be included into the record. At the conclusion of the hearing, each Planning Commissioner provided thoughtful and reasoned comments as to why they were voting to revoke P-435. Thus, the Planning Commission hearing was fair to all parties.

Thus, City staff urges the City Council to wholly reject Appellants’ appeal and revoke P435.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed revocation is Exempt by Statute from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section specifies that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves. The recommended action is the revocation of an existing approval to cease nuisance activity which has negatively impacted the surrounding community.

Page 25 ends

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED:

Obj. No. 1: Provide a safe community.

Obj. No. 5: Provide a high quality of life.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Notice of the Public Hearing was emailed and mailed via United States Postal Service certified mail to the Property owner on January 11, 2024, and also provided to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the property on January 11, 2024. A Public Hearing notice was also published in the Orange County Register on January 13, 2024, posted to the City’s website on January 11, 2024, and made public through the agenda-posting process.

Prepared by: HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Crystal Landavazo, Community Development Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2024-02
B. Orange County Sheriff’s Department Public Records Act response, October 25, 2023
C. Orange County Sheriff's Department Memo, dated November 17, 2023 D. Email Correspondence

1. March 13, 2023
a. Ack Letter 2022
b. Lighting Photos 1-5
c. Dixie Hollywood Story
d. Dixie OC License Plate
e. Parking Permit Dixie OC
f. Towing Authorization Dixie OC 2022
g. Towing Dixie OC 2022

2. April 25, 2023

3. June 1, 2023

4. June 27, 2023

5. September 7, 2023
a. Site Visit Photos

6. September 12, 2023

7. September 13, 2023
E. CA Hospitality One vs Stanton Decision, December 8, 2023 F. Letters of Incomplete Filing for Expansion Application

1. August 22, 2023

2. February 16, 2023

3. May 17, 2023

Page 26 ends

4. September 5, 2023

5. November 9, 2023
G. Security Plan Template
H. Planning Commission Resolution No. 859
I. Precise Plan of Design, 1983 Approval for Motel Use
J. 1981 Stanton Municipal Code Chapter 20.92
K. Planning Commission Staff Report for December 20, 2023 L. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2562
M. Letter from Hynes Estates to Planning Commission dated December 19, 2023 N. OCFA CAD Report – December 20, 2023
O. Letter from Deepa Patel to Planning Commission on December 20, 2023 P. Planning Commission Audio Recording – Link
Q. Appeal Application (City Council)
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 1 of 18 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2562, WHICH REVOKED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN 435 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11632 BEACH

BOULEVARD IN THE GENERAL MIXED-USE OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE, DUE TO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE

OPERATION OF THE PUBLIC LODGING/MOTEL USE, DENYING AN APPEAL BY

CALIFORNIA ONE HOSPITALITY, LLC AND MEGHA HOSPITALITY, LLC, AND

MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2024, the City of Stanton (“City”) received an appeal by Deepa Patel on behalf of California One Hospitality, LLC and Megha Hospitality, LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) of a Planning Commission decision to revoke Precise Plan of Design 435 (“PPD-435”) for the development and operation of a public lodging/motel use on property located at 11632 Beach Boulevard in the General Mixed-Use Overlay/Commercial General (CG) Zone (the “Property”) due to significant impacts caused by the operation of a public lodging/motel use at the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke PPD-435 occurred on December 20, 2023 after proper notice was given to the affected parties and the matter was heard at a public hearing in which Appellants presented their comments to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Property has operated as a motel use since its development in 1983 and has changed ownership on at least two occasions, with the subject site currently operating under the business name of Dixie Orange County Hotel (“Dixie” or “Motel”) and owned by California One Hospitality, LLC, who has been represented by Deepa Patel, (the “Owner”); and
WHEREAS, an assessment of Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) data was conducted to review the calls for service generated by 10 motels within the City and resulting data showed that the Dixie Orange County Hotel generated the highest ratio of calls per guest room; and
WHEREAS, during the five-year assessment period from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department from 2019 to 2023, the Dixie Orange County Hotel increased the number of calls for service every year from 47 calls in 2019 to 172 calls in 2023 through November 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the criminal activity that generated these calls for service include narcotic violations, assault with a deadly weapon, warrant arrest, prostitution, shots heard, investigate dead body, amongst several others and reflect the severity of the public nuisance that has been created through the operation of the motel use on the subject property; and
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 2 of 18 ends

WHEREAS, data provided by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department identifies an 183 percent increase in total arrests and citations between 2019 and November 2023; and WHEREAS, an assessment of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) data was conducted to review the calls for service generated by 7 motels within the City during the five-year assessment period from 2019 to 2023, the Dixie Orange County Hotel increased the number of calls for emergency medical service every year from 6 calls in 2019 to 38 calls in 2023 through December 13, 2023, a 533 percent increase; and WHEREAS, the emergency activity that generated these calls for service include trauma, assault, bleeding, overdose, drugs, chest pain/cardiac arrest, and unconsciousness, amongst several others and reflect the severity of the public nuisance that has been created through the operation of the motel use on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Property has operated as a motel for 40 years. However, over time, the continued operation of the use has resulted in increasingly negative impacts to the community. The premises are a public nuisance that drain vital community resources. In the past year, City administration and staff have worked to address the adverse conditions with the current owner in a series of meetings and correspondence. Despite that coordination, the Property conditions have only further degraded, and the Motel management has demonstrated that it is unable or unwilling to alleviate the substantial nuisances. The calls for service include assault with a deadly weapon, carjacking, shots heard, robbery in progress, battery, prostitution, and investigation of dead bodies; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has failed to provide consistent effort to implement programs and security measures that would safeguard the property from continued criminal activity and nuisance behavior, as detailed in the staff report related to this resolution; and WHEREAS, two motels operating in close proximity to the subject site have significantly lower ratios of calls for service and calls for emergency service and have both shown an overall reduction of calls for service in the five year assessment period from 2019 to 2023; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Resolution No. 859, which originally approved the development and operation of the motel use on the subject site, established Condition 2.a. which established that failure to comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code is grounds for revocation. However, the Property Owner has failed to maintain the registration, sanitary, and security provisions required by the Stanton Municipal Code Section 9.52; and
WHEREAS, Stanton Municipal Code Section 9.16.020 establishes that it is unlawful and declared to be a public nuisance when a property owner or lessee maintains a property in a manner where people engage in two or more acts which are prohibited pursuant to the laws of the state of California including possession of controlled substances, prostitution, gambling, or solicitation for unlawful conduct. Data provided by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has shown that the subject site is maintained in this manner and is thus designated as a public nuisance as defined by the Stanton Municipal Code; and RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 3 of 18 ends

WHEREAS, even the property owner agrees that the current use is a public nuisance. In correspondence to the City Manager dated September 13, 2023, the property owner wrote, among other things, “I went to the property and it was a shit show of drugs[,] homeless[,] and prostitution. …[A]s of now from what I saw it does look like a nuisance.” However, nuisance activity has continued to occur on the property; and WHEREAS, a “precise plan of design” is now referred to as a “site plan and design review” in the current Stanton Municipal Code (See SMC § 16.72.010; and Ch. 20.530). Stanton Municipal Code Section 20.630 establishes a revocation procedure for previously approved permits or approvals and specifies that the City’s action to revoke a permit or approval shall have the effect of terminating the permit approval and denying the privileges granted by the original approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent written and verbal testimony and information, including the Staff report prepared for this appeal, as presented at the public hearing, Appellants’ appeal documents, and testimony from staff, Appellants, and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites have occurred prior to adoption of this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON DOES HEREBY FIND:

SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2: The proposed revocation is Exempt by Statute from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section specifies that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves. The action is to revoke an existing approval to cease nuisance activity which has negatively impacted the surrounding community.

SECTION 3: The City Council hereby finds that there was no error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission in approving Planning Commission Resolution No. 2562 because the Planning Commission’s decision was based on the required findings as set forth in Stanton Municipal Code Chapter 20.635.050(A)(1), (3), (6), and (7). Moreover, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by the evidence on the record, which is as follows:

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.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 4 of 18 ends

Former SMC Section 20.92.010, which existed at the time the original PPD 435 was approved, provided the “purpose” of a precise plan of design to, among other things, “…to accomplish…enjoyment of property in any zone while at the same time imposing a uniformity and regulation and restriction to protect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties….” Moreover, former SMC Section 20.92.050 provides that grounds for rejecting a proposed PPD was, in relevant part, “If the precise plan of design would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would adversely affect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare to a degree greater than that generally permitted by this title, such plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before adoption as to remove the said objections.” In the original approval, the City’s police services raised no concerns about the public health, safety, and welfare related to the approval of PPD-435.

However, the operations on the Property have altered in a manner such that the original findings can no longer be made. The surrounding properties have been and are being detrimentally affected by the Motel use, and the public peace, safety, and general welfare has been adversely affected to a degree greater than permitted by the Stanton Municipal Code. The criminal nuisance activity has progressively increased over the last five years and resulted in increased calls for service from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, from 47 calls in 2019 to 172 calls in 2023 (through November 2023), an increase of 266 percent. Moreover, over the past five years, the Dixie had the highest ratio of calls for service to number of rooms amongst all Stanton motels at 12.3 calls for service per guest room.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 5 of 18 ends

• Investigate dead body. On February 9, 2021, Orange County Fire Authority arrived at the Motel parking lot to investigate a report of an unconscious male. The individual was pronounced dead.
• Assault with deadly weapon. On March 5, 2021, there was a report regarding a Motel guest who was walking his dog when another Motel guest got out of his vehicle and struck the man five- to six times with a bat, causing injury to the front and back of his head. The report provides that “Dixie cameras do not record,” which implies that security measures at the Motel are not effective. • Investigate dead body. On April 22, 2021, law enforcement responded to a report of a person who was not breathing in a Motel room. On arrival, OCSD deputies performed CPR on the individual and gave him Narcan due to a report that the individual took fentanyl. The man was eventually pronounced deceased. • Suspicious person/circumstances. On November 18, 2021, a woman reported from the Motel that she was subject to some kind of sex trafficking. The caller said she did not feel safe, someone was “making a lottery” on her, and that someone was going to take her away.
• Disturbance. On August 24, 2022, a call was received from an alleged Motel guest who claimed that he could not leave his room because there were so many people outside in the hallway doing drugs.
• Weapons violation. On August 30, 2022, a suspect was detained at the Motel and patted down for weapons. Law enforcement found a stolen handgun in his waistband.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On December 10, 2022, a female called and reported that a male had touched her genitals at the Motel. • Disturbance. On March 12, 2023, there was a report regarding a dispute between a prostitute and another individual over sexually illicit services. The reporting party stated that a male was going room to room looking for the female and threatening to kill her.
• Robbery report. On April 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was walking to her room at the Dixie, a man threatened her with a three-inch knife, demanded her wallet, and then stabbed her and ran away with her wallet. • Disturbance. On April 25, 2023, a woman called law enforcement claiming that there was a man in the Motel who was threatening to shoot her with a gun after he gave her money for sex and she refused.
• Suspicious person in vehicle. On May 12, 2023, there was a report that two individuals were sitting in a vehicle parked in the Dixie parking lot who were doing drugs. The report was that they had been there for hours with other vehicles pulling up and getting things from them.
• Assault with deadly weapon report. On June 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was at the Dixie, a male went up to her room and tried to hit her across her face with a gun.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On July 7, 2023, a woman reported that her pimp had forced her friend into his vehicle at the Dixie and driven off. • Disturbance. On July 27, 2023, there was a report about a woman who had fentanyl in her pockets and was trying to sell the illicit narcotics to other Dixie motel guests.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 6 of 18 ends

• Suspicious person in vehicle. On August 29, 2023, a call was received regarding an individual bleeding from the ribs, unconscious, and not breathing at the Dixie.

The victim was transported to UCI Medical Center and later reported that he was involved in an altercation at the Motel and stabbed in the chest.

The frequency of calls for service, combined with the severity and significance of the types of calls, then translate into increased arrests and citations, resulting in a 183 percent increase in arrests and a 600 percent increase in citations over the past five years. There have been a total of 53 arrests and 25 citations at the Property in the last five years. The illicit activity at the site is an incredible drain on City resources. Calls for service at the Dixie have resulted in an increase of almost 200 percent in consumed police time, from 59 hours in 2019 to 175+ hours in 2023. Those hours do not reflect the hours spent by City administration and staff dealing with the code enforcement issues at the property.

The emergency medical service activity has also progressively increased over the last five years and resulted in increased calls for service from the Orange County Fire Authority. In the past five years since the current Property Owner took ownership of the Motel, the number of emergency medical services calls relating to the Property have increased at an alarming rate.

The data demonstrates:
• During that time, the calls for service related to the Dixie have significantly increased, from 6 calls in 2019 to 38 calls in 2023 (through December 13, 2023), an increase of 533 percent; and
• In 2023, the Dixie had the highest ratio of calls for service to number of rooms amongst all Stanton motels at 1.05 calls for service per guest room; and • The types of calls for service for 2023 were as follows:
o Trauma/Assault/Bleeding: 10
o Overdose/Drugs: 6
o Chest Pain/Cardiac Arrest: 5
o Unconscious/Unknown: 5
o Unknown Medical Aid: 5
o Back Pain: 2
o Seizure: 2
o Behavior/Suicide: 1
o Fall: 1
o Respiratory: 1
During the original document review, law enforcement did not express concerns related to the issuance of this permit on the grounds of detrimental impacts to public health, safety, and welfare issues. Those circumstances have drastically changed. The findings of the current use are that the public health, safety, and welfare are endangered by this use and require revocation to safeguard the public.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 7 of 18 ends

B. One or more of the conditions of the original permit or approval have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated.

Resolution 859, which approved the development and use of the motel on the Property includes conditions of approval, including Condition 2(a), which provides, “That all applicable requirements of the Stanton Municipal Code be met.” Moreover, Condition 2(e) provides, “Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions as attached to this permit pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code shall constitute grounds for revocation.” Multiple violations of the Stanton Municipal Code have been violated, including:
• SMC section 9.16.020 provides that it is unlawful and it is declared to be a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge of any…commercial…property within the city, to maintain such property in such a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon:
o Subsection (I): “Building exterior, roofs, landscaping, grounds, walls, retaining and crib walls, fences, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, or walkways which are maintained in such condition so as to become defective, unsightly, cracked or no longer viable.” Moreover, Subsection (J) provides the following as a public nuisance, “The accumulation of dirt, litter, feces, or debris in doorways, adjoining sidewalks, walkways, courtyards, patios, parking lots, landscaped or other areas.” Here, during a City inspection on September 7, 2023, trash was overflowing from the trash enclosures such that the parking lot and Motel grounds had become unsightly. A photograph of the overflowing trash is provided in the staff report associated with this resolution.
o Subsection (W): “Any other condition declared by any state, county, or city statute, code, or regulation to be a public nuisance.” Here, Penal Code 370 defines “Public nuisance” as, “Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.” Moreover, Civil Code section 3479 provides a “Nuisance” is “Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.”
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 8 of 18 ends

Here, the crimes that are occurring on the Property as described in the staff report and Finding A above are injurious to the health, indecent, and offensive to the senses. They include crimes including narcotic violations, robberies, carjacking, battery, burglaries, disorderly conduct – prostitution, an attempt to set the Property on fire with an incendiary device, armed robbery, and weapons violations. And these crimes occur at such a frequency that it is offensive to the entire community. As such, the revocation is necessary in order to put an end to this unchecked growth of public nuisances at this location.
o Subsection (AA): “Any building, use or structure wherein one or more persons engage, or have engaged, in two or more acts which are prohibited pursuant to the laws of the state of California, the provisions of this code or any other penal ordinance of this city, including, but not limited to the following acts: (1) Unlawful possession or use of controlled substances, or (2) Prostitution. Here, there have been numerous calls for police services relating to narcotics and prostitution.

Unlawful possession or use of controlled substances.
 The unlawful narcotics that have been found on the Property include black tar heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine in large quantities that suggest that they are being sold to others and not just for personal use.
 On May 7, 2020, the Motel owner called law enforcement about a male who keeps bringing “tweakers” into his room and disobeying policy about unauthorized guests.
 On April 22, 2021, law enforcement responded to a report of a person who was not breathing in a Motel room. On arrival, OCSD deputies performed CPR on the individual and gave him Narcan due to a report that the individual took fentanyl. The man was eventually pronounced deceased.
 On August 24, 2022, a call was received from an alleged Motel guest who claimed that he could not leave his room because there were so many people outside in the hallway doing drugs.  On May 12, 2023, there was a report that two individuals were sitting in a vehicle parked in the Dixie parking lot who were doing drugs. The report was that they had been there for hours with other vehicles pulling up and getting things from them.  On July 27, 2023, there was a report about a woman who had fentanyl in her pockets and was trying to sell the illicit narcotics to other Dixie motel guests.
 In 2023, there were 10 arrests or citations at the property related to narcotics violations, particularly Health & Safety Code 11350 (possession of designated controlled substances). In the prior four years, there was a total of 7 narcotics violations, demonstrating a steep rise in illegal narcotics use and possession at the site.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 9 of 18 ends

 In 2023, OCFA responded to six calls related to overdoses or drugs.

Prostitution.
 On November 18, 2021, a woman reported from the Motel that she was subject to some kind of sex trafficking. The caller said she did not feel safe, someone was “making a lottery” on her, and that someone was going to take her away.
 On December 10, 2022, a female called and reported that a male had touched her genitals at the Motel.
 On March 12, 2023, there was a report regarding a dispute between a prostitute and another individual over sexually illicit services. The reporting party stated that a male was going room to room looking for the female and threatening to kill her.  On April 25, 2023, a woman called law enforcement claiming that there was a man in the Motel who was threatening to shoot her with a gun after he gave her money for sex and she refused.  On July 7, 2023, a woman reported that her pimp had forced her friend into his vehicle at the Dixie and driven off.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 10 of 18 ends

 Calls for emergency services including trauma, assault, bleeding, overdose, drugs, chest pain/cardiac arrest, and unconsciousness. • SMC Section 9.52.040 requires that, as part of the registration process at a public lodging facility, each guest must identify all occupants of a room and collect vehicle registration information. However, in discussions with the City Manager, the property owner has stated that they collect registration from guests but have no control over additional guests that occupy the room. Additionally, the City Manager’s site visit on September 7, 2023 showed that many of the vehicles did not display verification that they had been registered with the motel • SMC Section 9.52.090 and 9.52.100 requires that garbage and putrescible matter, whether mixed with rubbish or other matter or not, shall be kept in watertight receptacles with close-fitting lids. The garbage bin was observed to be uncovered and overflowing which is not in compliance with this provision. • SMC Section 9.52.150 requires public lodging facilities to install and maintain in proper operating order security cameras throughout the property. In at least one police report dated March 5, 2021, there was a report that the Dixie cameras were not working. The continuously increasing calls for service for criminal activity such as narcotics violations, prostitution, weapons violations, assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in 53 arrests and 25 citations on the subject site show that the motel operators have not focused on complying with security measures required by Stanton Municipal Code Section 9.52.150.
• SMC section 16.04.010 adopts the California Building Code, which provides that a building permit shall be required for the erection or construction of any structure.

SMC section 20.710.190 states the following: A “structure” is defined as, “anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground.” On or about September 21, 2023, an illegal gate was erected at the Property without a proper building permit. A verbal courtesy notice was provided to the general manager on September 21, 2023, the first administrative citation was issued to the Property owner on September 26, 2023, the second and third administrative citations were issued for September 27, 2023, and September 28, 2023, and the gate was not taken down until on or about October 2, 2023. The Property Owner appealed the administrative citations to a third party hearing officer, who upheld the City’s issuance of the administrative citations.

The Property owner is in agreement with the City that the conditions at the Property are a nuisance. In her own words, she called the Property conditions “a shit show of drugs[,] homeless[,] and prostitution.” Neither the Property owner nor manager have taken consistent action to effectively abate the nuisance conditions at the Property. A condition of the original permit was that the use should comply with the SMC. The Municipal Code provides that a law must be followed, and the current use violates both local law and state law by operating as a public nuisance. Thus, a revocation of PPD 859 is necessary and appropriate to safeguard the public health, welfare, and safety.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 11 of 18 ends

C. An improvement authorized in compliance with the permit or approval is in violation of any applicable code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute.

Both the SMC and state law have been violated as follows. • SMC section 9.16.020 provides that it is unlawful and it is declared to be a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge of any…commercial…property within the city, to maintain such property in such a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon:
o Subsection (I): “Building exterior, roofs, landscaping, grounds, walls, retaining and crib walls, fences, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, or walkways which are maintained in such condition so as to become defective, unsightly, cracked or no longer viable.” Moreover, Subsection (J) provides the following as a public nuisance, “The accumulation of dirt, litter, feces, or debris in doorways, adjoining sidewalks, walkways, courtyards, patios, parking lots, landscaped or other areas.” Here, during a City inspection on September 7, 2023, trash was overflowing from the trash enclosures such that the parking lot and Motel grounds had become unsightly. A photograph of the overflowing trash is provided in the staff report associated with this resolution.
o Subsection (W): “Any other condition declared by any state, county, or city statute, code, or regulation to be a public nuisance.” Here, Penal Code 370 defines “Public nuisance” as, “Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.” Moreover, Civil Code section 3479 provides a “Nuisance” is “Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.”
Here, the crimes that are occurring on the Property as described in the staff report and Finding A above are injurious to the health, indecent, and offensive to the senses. They include crimes including narcotic violations, robberies, carjacking, battery, burglaries, disorderly conduct – prostitution, an attempt to set the Property on fire with an incendiary device, armed robbery, and weapons violations. And these crimes occur at such a frequency that it is offensive to the entire community. As such, the revocation is necessary in order to put an end to this unchecked growth of public nuisances at this location.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 12 of 18 ends

o Subsection (AA): “Any building, use or structure wherein one or more persons engage, or have engaged, in two or more acts which are prohibited pursuant to the laws of the state of California, the provisions of this code or any other penal ordinance of this city, including, but not limited to the following acts: (1) Unlawful possession or use of controlled substances, or (2) Prostitution. Here, there have been numerous calls for police services relating to narcotics and prostitution.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 13 of 18 ends

 On March 12, 2023, there was a report regarding a dispute between a prostitute and another individual over sexually illicit services. The reporting party stated that a male was going room to room looking for the female and threatening to kill her.  On April 25, 2023, a woman called law enforcement claiming that there was a man in the Motel who was threatening to shoot her with a gun after he gave her money for sex and she refused.  On July 7, 2023, a woman reported that her pimp had forced her friend into his vehicle at the Dixie and driven off.

Injurious to the senses/Indecent/Interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
 On March 5, 2021, there was a report regarding a Motel guest who was walking his dog when another Motel guest got out of his vehicle and struck the man five- to six times with a bat, causing injury to the front and back of his head. The report provides that “Dixie cameras do not record,” which implies that security measures at the Motel are not effective.
 On April 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was walking to her room at the Dixie, a man threatened her with a three-inch knife, demanded her wallet, and then stabbed her and ran away with her wallet.
 On May 11, 2023, there was a call regarding an individual with a pipe bomb. The suspect was apprehended, prosecuted, and pled guilty in June 2023 to attempting to set fire and burn one of the buildings at the Dixie with a “flammable and combustible incendiary device.” (See People v. Domville, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 23WF1522.)
 On June 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was at the Dixie, a male went up to her room and tried to hit her across her face with a gun.
 On August 29, 2023, a call was received regarding an individual bleeding from the ribs, unconscious, and not breathing at the Dixie. The victim was transported to UCI Medical Center and later reported that he was involved in an altercation at the Motel and stabbed in the chest.
 Calls for emergency services including trauma, assault, bleeding, overdose, drugs, chest pain/cardiac arrest, and unconsciousness. • SMC Section 9.52.040 requires that, as part of the registration process at a public lodging facility, each guest must identify all occupants of a room and collect vehicle registration information. However, in discussions with the City Manager, the property owner has stated that they collect registration from guests but have no control over additional guests that occupy the room. Additionally, the City Manager’s site visit on September 7, 2023 showed that many of the vehicles did not display verification that they had been registered with the motel RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 14 of 18 ends

• SMC Section 9.52.090 and 9.52.100 requires that garbage and putrescible matter, whether mixed with rubbish or other matter or not, shall be kept in watertight receptacles with close-fitting lids. The garbage bin was observed to be uncovered and overflowing which is not in compliance with this provision. • SMC Section 9.52.150 requires public lodging facilities to install and maintain in proper operating order security cameras throughout the property. In at least one police report dated March 5, 2021, there was a report that the Dixie cameras were not working. The continuously increasing calls for service for criminal activity such as narcotics violations, prostitution, weapons violations, assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in 53 arrests and 25 citations on the subject site show that the motel operators have not focused on complying with security measures required by Stanton Municipal Code Section 9.52.150.
• SMC section 16.04.010 adopts the California Building Code, which provides that a building permit shall be required for the erection or construction of any structure.

D. 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 operations on the Property have altered in a manner such that the original findings can no longer be made. The surrounding properties have been and are being detrimentally affected by the Motel use, and the public peace, safety, and general welfare has been adversely affected to a degree greater than permitted by the Stanton Municipal Code. The criminal nuisance activity has progressively increased over the last five years and resulted in increased calls for service from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, from 47 calls in 2019 to 172 calls in 2023 (through November 2023), an RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 15 of 18 ends

increase of 266 percent. Moreover, over the past five years, the Dixie had the highest ratio of calls for service to number of rooms amongst all Stanton motels at 12.3 calls for service per guest room.

The types of calls for service at the Dixie go well beyond the common disturbances typically associated with motels. The call types include assault with a deadly weapon, carjacking, shots heard, robbery in progress, battery, prostitution, and investigate dead body. Some of the illicit narcotics that have been found at the Dixie include black tar heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and amphetamine pills. Some of the large quantities of drugs that have been found at the Property (i.e., 400 amphetamine pills and a half pound of methamphetamine) suggest that they are for dealing, not just for personal use. Just in May 2023, Orange County Sheriff’s Department received an emergency call regarding an individual with a pipe bomb. The suspect was apprehended, prosecuted, and plead guilty in June 2023 of attempting to set fire and burn one of the buildings at the Dixie with a “flammable and combustible incendiary device.” (See People v. Domville, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 23WF1522.) The following are additional examples of the types of calls that the City and its law enforcement have received:
• Disturbance. On May 7, 2020, the Motel owner called law enforcement about a male who keeps bringing “tweakers” into his room and disobeying policy about unauthorized guests.
• Investigate dead body. On February 9, 2021, Orange County Fire Authority arrived at the Motel parking lot to investigate a report of an unconscious male. The individual was pronounced dead.
• Assault with deadly weapon. On March 5, 2021, there was a report regarding a Motel guest who was walking his dog when another Motel guest got out of his vehicle and struck the man five- to six times with a bat, causing injury to the front and back of his head. The report provides that “Dixie cameras do not record,” which implies that security measures at the Motel are not effective. • Investigate dead body. On April 22, 2021, law enforcement responded to a report of a person who was not breathing in a Motel room. On arrival, OCSD deputies performed CPR on the individual and gave him Narcan due to a report that the individual took fentanyl. The man was eventually pronounced deceased. • Suspicious person/circumstances. On November 18, 2021, a woman reported from the Motel that she was subject to some kind of sex trafficking. The caller said she did not feel safe, someone was “making a lottery” on her, and that someone was going to take her away.
• Disturbance. On August 24, 2022, a call was received from an alleged Motel guest who claimed that he could not leave his room because there were so many people outside in the hallway doing drugs.
• Weapons violation. On August 30, 2022, a suspect was detained at the Motel and patted down for weapons. Law enforcement found a stolen handgun in his waistband.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On December 10, 2022, a female called and reported that a male had touched her genitals at the Motel.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 16 of 18 ends

• Disturbance. On March 12, 2023, there was a report regarding a dispute between a prostitute and another individual over sexually illicit services. The reporting party stated that a male was going room to room looking for the female and threatening to kill her.
• Robbery report. On April 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was walking to her room at the Dixie, a man threatened her with a three-inch knife, demanded her wallet, and then stabbed her and ran away with her wallet. • Disturbance. On April 25, 2023, a woman called law enforcement claiming that there was a man in the Motel who was threatening to shoot her with a gun after he gave her money for sex and she refused.
• Suspicious person in vehicle. On May 12, 2023, there was a report that two individuals were sitting in a vehicle parked in the Dixie parking lot who were doing drugs. The report was that they had been there for hours with other vehicles pulling up and getting things from them.
• Assault with deadly weapon report. On June 8, 2023, a woman reported that while she was at the Dixie, a male went up to her room and tried to hit her across her face with a gun.
• Suspicious person/circumstances. On July 7, 2023, a woman reported that her pimp had forced her friend into his vehicle at the Dixie and driven off. • Disturbance. On July 27, 2023, there was a report about a woman who had fentanyl in her pockets and was trying to sell the illicit narcotics to other Dixie motel guests.
• Suspicious person in vehicle. On August 29, 2023, a call was received regarding an individual bleeding from the ribs, unconscious, and not breathing at the Dixie.

The victim was transported to UCI Medical Center and later reported that he was involved in an altercation at the Motel and stabbed in the chest.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 17 of 18 ends

SECTION 4: Council Decision. Based upon the findings, above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS Planning Commission decision to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2562, which revoked Planning Commission Resolution No. 859 so that all privileges granted to Precise Plan of Design P-435 are also revoked and rescinded. The City Council hereby DENIES Appellants’ appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2562.

SECTION 5: Effective Date. The Motel use on the property must cease operations within 90 calendar days of the adoption of this resolution.

SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The Custodian of Records for this project is the City Clerk. The documents related to this proceeding are kept at City Hall located at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. The staff report on this matter and related attachments are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

SECTION 7: Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02

Page 18 of 18 ends

SECTION 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Stanton at a regular meeting held on January 23, 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

DAVID J. SHAWVER, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HONGDAO NGUYEN, CITY ATTORNEY
ATTEST:

I, Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2024-02 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the Stanton City Council, held on January 23, 2024, and that the same was adopted, signed and approved by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, CITY CLERK
October 25, 2023
Hannah Shin-Heydorn
[email protected]
RE: Your Public Records Act (CPRA) request for police reports from January 1, 2019, through August 30, 2023, at 11632 Beach Blvd. in Stanton CA (Dixie Hotel) for the following dispatch codes: 211, 221R, 215R, 242, 242R, 245, 245R, 415, 459, 459R, 480R, 487R, 647B, 925, 925C, 925V, 927D, WPNS.

Dear Ms. Shin-Heydorn:

This letter is in response to your follow-up request received by the Orange County Sheriff’s Records Division on Thursday, September 21, 2023.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department declines to disclose incident reports that may be responsive to your request because any such records would be exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The records themselves are law enforcement investigatory records and part of a law enforcement investigatory file that are categorically exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code section 7923.600. Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337 (1993) As an alternative, the attached spreadsheet contains the calls for service records responsive to your request.

Please be advised that we redacted names, phone numbers, DOBs, license plate numbers and criminal history based on the right to privacy pursuant to CA Government Code section 7927.705 based on Cal. Constitution Article 1, section 1, and Penal Code section 13300. Additionally, California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) records were redacted pursuant to CA Government Code sections 7923.600 and 7927.705.

If you have any questions, please contact Staff Specialist Brenda Martin at (714) 834-6449.

Sincerely,
Cory Martino, Assistant Sheriff
Professional Services Command
CM: bm
Attachment
cc: Public Affairs and Community Engagement
Attachment: B
Click here to return to the agenda.

To: Hannah Shin-Heydorn
From: Captain C. Walters #8208
Date: November 17, 2023
RE: The Dixie Motel
The Dixie Motel is located at 11632 Beach Blvd in the city of Stanton. The city of Stanton has seen a consistent increase in calls for service at or relating to the Dixie Motel since 2019. Total calls for service were measured by querying the term “Dixie” in the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) call narrative. Calls were filtered further to represent those with an “Incident Location” of 11632 Beach Blvd., or nearby cross streets, when the call was related to activity that had just occurred at the Dixie Motel. For example, a traffic stop may be initiated in the area following suspicious activity that was observed in the Dixie Motel parking lot.

The following is the total calls for service and total consumed time per year.

Year Calls for service Consumed Time
2019 50 59:52
2020 57 75:06
2021 78 61:21
2022 90 104:30
2023 168 175:07
The city of Stanton has seen a consistent increase in arrests at or relating to the Dixie Motel since 2019. There was an 82% increase in total arrests, including citations, between 2022 and YTD 2023.

The followig is the total number of arrests or citations related to the Dixie Motel per year. 2019

1. Arrest- 4

2. Citation- 2
2020

1. Arrest- 13

2. Citation- 1
2021

1. Arrest- 3

2. Citation- 1
2022

1. Arrest- 11

2. Citation- 6
2023 (year to date)

1. Arrest- 17

2. Citation- 14
Attachment: C
Click here to return to the agenda.

The following charts below display raw data pertaining to the citations and arrest made by Deputy Sheriff’s at the the Dixie Motel.
2019
Incident Date Location Complaint Cite Arrest
01/08/2019
12:26
11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1
08/20/2019
11:55

BEACH BLVD // KATELLA
AV
11357 - MARIJUANA VIOLATION 1
08/21/2019
13:59
11632 BEACH BLVD 496 - RECEIVING STOLEN

PROPERTY
1 09/12/2019
12:57
11632 BEACH BLVD 925C - SUSPICIOUS PERSON IN
VEH
1 09/16/2019
11:22
11632 BEACH BLVD 496 - RECEIVING STOLEN

PROPERTY
1 11/21/2019
16:51
11632 BEACH BLVD INFO - INFORMATION REPORT 2
2020
Incident Date Location Complaint Cite Arrest
01/14/2020
12:32
11632 BEACH BLVD WPNS – WEAPONS VIOLATION 1
01/16/2020
05:14
11622 BEACH BLVD 503L – STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 1
03/24/2020
20:51
11632 BEACH BLVD 503L – STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 1
04/23/2020
21:34

BEACH BLVD // ORANGEWOOD
AV
211R – ROBBERY REPORT 1
07/06/2020
21:09
11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 – NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1
07/15/2020
11:49
11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT – WARRANT ARREST 1
07/16/2020
23:14

BEACH BLVD // ORANGEWOOD
AV
503L – STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 2
07/20/2020
12:44
11632 BEACH BLVD 496 – RECEIVING STOLEN

PROPERTY
2 08/31/2020
10:43
11632 BEACH BLVD 243E1 – DOMESTIC BATTERY 1
09/08/2020
20:21
11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT – WARRANT ARREST 1
09/16/2020
10:22
11632 BEACH BLVD 530.5 – ID THEFT 1
12/16/2020
00:56
11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT – WARRANT ARREST 1
2021
Incident Date Location Complaint Cite Arrest
03/12/2021 09:47 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 04/07/2021 17:29 11632 BEACH BLVD 503L - STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 1 04/11/2021 00:35 11632 BEACH BLVD 496 - RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY 1 11/04/2021 11:32 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 2022
Incident Date Location Complaint Cite Arrest
01/15/2022 13:02 11632 BEACH BLVD 243E1 - DOMESTIC BATTERY 1 04/30/2022 12:40 ORANGEWOOD AV // BEACH
BLVD
422R - CRIMINAL THREATS REPORT 1
05/14/2022 11:20 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 07/18/2022 20:04 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 08/16/2022 12:13 7050 KATELLA AV 459.5 - SHOPLIFTING 1
08/21/2022 19:59 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 08/30/2022 01:46 11632 BEACH BLVD WPNS - WEAPONS VIOLATION 1 09/19/2022 07:24 11632 BEACH BLVD 503L - STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 1 09/19/2022 10:38 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 10/28/2022 05:24 BEACH BLVD // STARR ST MUNI - MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS 1 11/10/2022 21:36 BEACH BLVD // CHAPMAN AV 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 11/12/2022 00:20 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 11/16/2022 00:15 11632 BEACH BLVD 503T - STOLEN VEHICLE TRACKING SYSTEM

ACTIVATED
1 11/23/2022 07:44 BEACH BLVD // CENTRAL AV MUNI - MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS 1 12/05/2022 15:30 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 12/06/2022 00:04 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 1 12/13/2022 13:20 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 2023
Incident Date Location Complaint Cite Arrest
01/05/2023 11:41 ORANGEWOOD AV // BEACH BLVD 503L - STOLEN VEHICLE LOCATED 1 01/11/2023 12:28 11632 BEACH BLVD 148 - RESISTING ARREST 1 01/17/2023 11:49 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 2 03/01/2023 11:49 BEACH BLVD // PINE LN 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 05/11/2023 15:08 BEACH BLVD // ORANGEWOOD AV 451 - ARSON 1 06/11/2023 15:07 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT - WARRANT ARREST 2 06/21/2023 00:46 BEACH BLVD // ORANGEWOOD AV 211 - ROBBERY IN PROGRESS 2 06/26/2023 09:02 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 06/29/2023 01:04 BEACH BLVD // ORANGEWOOD AV 11350 - NARCOTIC VIOLATION 1 07/07/2023 06:29 11632 BEACH BLVD 925 - SUSPICIOUS PERSON/CIRCS 1 08/07/2023 20:55 11632 BEACH BLVD 211
- ROBBERY IN PROGRESS1
08/08/2023 22:29 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION1 08/14/2023 03:06 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION1 08/14/2023 04:24 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION2 08/24/2023 22:47 11632 BEACH BLVD 602- TRESPASSING2
08/24/2023 23:53 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION1 08/28/2023 22:26 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION1 09/01/2023 20:20 BEACH BLVD // CHESTER AV 148- RESISTING ARREST2 09/08/2023 10:35 11632 BEACH BLVD PED- PEDESTRIAN CHECK1 09/16/2023 02:19 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT- WARRANT ARREST1 09/19/2023 03:25 11632 BEACH BLVD 11350- NARCOTIC VIOLATION1 09/25/2023 11:33 11632 BEACH BLVD WRNT- WARRANT ARREST1 10/02/2023 22:14 11632 BEACH BLVD 602- TRESPASSING1
10/08/2023 23:53 11632 BEACH BLVD 602- TRESPASSING1
10/24/2023 20:49 11632 BEACH BLVD 602- TRESPASSING1
1 Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
From: Aileen Caso
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
Subject: Fwd: Dixie Orange County - Public Safety Follow Up Attachments: Dixie 2 Lighting.JPG.JPG; Dixie 1 Lighting.JPG; Dixie 4 Lighting.JPG.JPG; Dixie Hollywood Story.pdf; Dixie 3 Lighting.JPG.JPG; Dixie 5 Lighting.JPG.JPG; Dixie OC License Plate.pdf; Parking Permit Dixie OC.pdf; TOWING DIXIE OC 2022.pdf; TOWING AUTH DIXIE OC 2022.pdf; Ack Letter 2022.pdf
Hi Paige and Hannah,
It was a pleasure meeting both of you in person a few weeks ago. I appreciate all the feedback and concerns you shared with me. I had a very serious conversation with Suresh (the leasee) and made it very clear that the operations needed to be tightened up even further to create a better standing with the city and more importantly a better business for the community.

I have attached pictures and documents that show the progress we have made so far. There is a written acknowledgment letter with the leasee discussing the issues that needed to be addressed. The lighting was completely changed so that the entire parking lot is well lit. Feel free to have a stroll in an evening whenever you'd like and provide us with feedback. We established a relationship with the tow company so that they may come and tow any cars which do not have a permit. A permit system has been implemented, as well. All gov't IDs are continued to be scanned into the system. Car license plates are being logged into the management system for easy access of reporting if a police officer may need car and owner info. And lastly, I have created an email thread with the leasee, manager, and I in which they have to report any police incidents whether they call or the police come on their own reporting the issue and details. All of this is attached to this email. If you have any further concerns please feel free to let me know. I am more than willing to work together to better the area and the property.

On a side note, I am not sure if you know the story, but this property and the one in Hollywood is a tribute to my older sister, Dixie, who was killed by a drunk driver in 1997. I have attached a copy of the Hollywood story which shares a bit of our vision and her essence that created this brand. I am very invested in this boutique brand and would like to see it prosper in a beautiful legacy to her. In no way do I want to bring a property to Stanton that would disgrace her name, so even though we are struggling a bit, due to the issues of the community right now with the type of cliental we are dealing with, I assure you we are striving for a vision greater than you may believe at this point. I hope you have hope for this property and continue to support us in the growth and beautification of it. Beach Blvd deserves a nice boutique hotel, and I will do everything I can to make Dixie Orange County the one! Again, if you have any other feedback or concerns please let me know at anytime. I'll take action immediately. --
Blessings,
Dr. Deepa Patel
Attachment: D.1
Click here to return to the agenda.

Attachment: D.1.b
Click here to return to the agenda.

II
I
// . ,,.

I .
mr
t ... 1
• '
'
'
'
-
-
,.

The D x e Ho lywood Hotel
is o tr bvte by two s sters loo lh rd. Dix e. whose
li
fe
wos cvl shorl much loo soon by o drunk driver. Look ng lo turn o negol ve inlo o posit ve. the 1wo surviv ng sisters erected a hotel
in he, name tho! embodes the
essence of who D xie was ... humble. c assy, artist c, environmentoUy owore, composs onote. serene. and so much more.

Todoy. the Dixie Hollywood Hotel
is o pet-fr end y retro motor nn with o c assy
edge. An ooss oong bvstt ng Hollywood Bou evard. the hotel s lush y p anted
wifh po m lrees. decorated in o caming nevlrol
polelte. ond offers thovghlfu
amen ties ike Yoga bolsters wth instructions on a few key poses.

The D x e Hollywood Holel incorporoles env ronmentally friend y materials throughovl ond conl nvolly str ves to reduce its carbon foolpr nl -inc uding operating on 80% pope�ess corporate office ond pope�ess check-in/check• out.

A hotel with o conscience, not on y do lhe owners take a holi st c opprooch to
employee monogemenl, bul oil to letries ond in-room amenities ore co lected, cleaned. recyc ed. ond lhen dslribvled to domestic home ess shelters and developing covntr es. Genlly worn
li
nens ore donated loo ocal domest c
vo ence shelter ond more heov
il
y worn linens ore dona led loo ocal onimoJ
sheller. A portion of lhe holel's revenve is donated lo help promote drunk driv ng awareness lhrough 0<gon zations
li
ke MADD (Mothers Agoinsl Dnmk
Driving) ond others, ond hole! monogemenl encourages guests who may have indu ged o b l too much lo call them to arrange for o return tax i
versus ge11 ng
beh nd the wheel
themselves.

Dramatic mvrols of Jomes Dean. Mari yn Monroe, ond other notab es by oco art st "Mox" groce the wofls-ond hove become a lrodemork pctvre spot for all gvesls who pass l irough. In foct lhe properly -and its onsite "Modern Amelico1 Oi.ner" restoU<ont. 54Twenty-hove become popu ar ocations for many TV show and magazine photos shoots.

And so lhis 70-roam holel
righl on Hollywood Bov evord where Dix e herself used
lo work ol the front desk. lodoy welcomes gvesls who seek someth ng vnique - o five-star experience at o three-star price -all just a stone's throw from the Hollywood Walk of Fome.

Attachment: D.1.c
Click here to return to the agenda.

Guest Parking Permit
Check-In: ------------
Check -0 u t: --- -----
.. Parking pass ruust ht dsplllytd. f•c-t up on lhc
d•shbo•rd or your vthidt. Pltan park in only ONE
SPACE ptr ,chfclt. lll<11•fly park,a Ythiol<J ffll)' be •• ,.,d at the-owntrs· uptnst. • • You arc leaving your owu
rthklt at rour own riak, Thr hotel will usumr no
WPADSlbilllY ror IQ)'. 195! or dlmli?t 19 vour YCbklt,
Attachment: D.1.e
Click here to return to the agenda.
lOOl N Lagrui St.

Santrt Ana CA 02701
7 u -� e.1.os1s
Olfiee@Kni,ght-B-'roTheR11li<:ue..co:t11
\\l'\\'W .oq)pi.<:oJU
Ptinile :P:r-0:pert.)1 Gen�iral Aut.hortzalion Form
D.. v· 111 � i n ,1,"' • 'fhi.s ng11�moot by fiM belw�n Knisht 'rowing ;md: - J.1�1e.� .V.6!,nL�---·, t\:IJt�mri7.atio:m to 81?1'\'iCie lhe pro�rt.J locate�\ nl }_1Je, t�2.i¼eCt.C\1 .. fb.:.{, 1
•••• u4l«kth·e , • . �li/Ji>..J
fnis tl6n!emcnt is iQf:fcc-li\'e u11011 sigmrlure and arnry !be c.a1u•:eUed b; eithor pi:u·ty rmti(:yh1g tlrn otJnHt in writing. Sern�.o sl111.ll mr1n1tedi:Jte1y 01N1.sc upon n-eoipl of .Ii writum ca;acc-Hntfom re�uesl by either :p31i't!"· Services. wHI oo provided in an E!fforl la ensure 1tt-sidenl� af'!d/or busine-ss aecei..llj to, lhei:r assignetl Spii&'.S :and/tlt Garages and to CA)nforin wit1h the d0mands r�gardi ng public s�r etr tuHI emerg,e.D�Y ..,chiclC's n:ixc,ss siJl forth by the 10mnge County F
:
i re DepilTlfl'li.1
1 11t. K ll is'ht Towing will :perform ti.U opi:ml't�ons wilhi111 St11ideline.s .wt forth i:a tl!Ctio11 22658 of Lhe Ci1EiFor-t1i11 V(!Jmicle Cod� ..

Knight Tov.ing is rc.spon,sib'fo and liable for �ff)' darn11ge. la vehicles resulth'lg ott :1rising £rnu1 K:night TmYing ru:ti-0ns or omissions in c0Bd11Jc'tiog tows froDm your ·p1roperty. Resoliutiott or ally dfa1pnte ia lhis n.1gtlrd sl1:aU bo il mu.Hur em1li:t:\1:�y betwe-eo K1111gbt Towing and the vsehmde ownn(i.}. K 111ight ' f
owiifig
�re�s lo m ndl!'Wnify 1u1d hotd! th.e properly O�l'icr / Ag1ml h11ir1n I �s 111el!lte,t t.o m1y (]) Godf' V Lolt1tio1ms or (:2) !JH"op�rit!' d:am� which �re alleged to ha,vc• niuin from KniigM Tmyj ng i.!iclioas or omissions duri r•g the impound proC'il:!Mi.

By signing m1y rsign4iture befow, I certify NJ, :m ogonl tlui.l l authoriudl Knight Towing to iii. gonerml t.o\1lirng .nuU1orizaUo� oi lhe fire hme-s, rire hydr.1uil, :st.eaf;i\ad n'd ZOTI(iS amt for vehkles (H.1.rk.id in a 111mn�er U1�t rie.lltrids a.c.cess to, the :property al U11e 3,boV'e-rnr:nt1oncd !ll.dd.r�Slj..

Signe •
. . . &UH•- DAte _Q_JJ� ,��Q?.-3_�- N i)tne
--��4-- --�--,,,....,,, hone
.. Ematl
Attachment: D.1.f
Click here to return to the agenda.

JOWJNG [NFQRMATlQN
l'ROPl!R'l'Y lWllE D:ooe. ::l:bil � �
ADllltl$111,32],acl] jL,[ ik;;x;cA qoh'-so
Nll:JMBED: OFtJNl!Tl_ ... h3: __• ·.·.·_q. L----
CLIAUP re TOW ,Oft FO'.LLO\VINC REASONS:
fllR.£ Li\NES flME ro STA.RT CH.EC IO:HG
Fll1un: RHMl!i!!!I; �rkiffl (Tlm1:1. ______ _,
1'!1ME O'.P n4v m,mG sr� t a pro
IP,rrJDMutm Prnnibr
AUuilli Eumplr:: geJ 0.i( 0{M4!,.

Looarioa�. l;,,illl!;;!:......:l.!��.........:J::....!-.:��·· �s:::.!.h....!.· ·�-�-- � Typi: 0£ A IMif'mT � qu
'J'�p.of:LiJ' Pcrmlts
AHJM;fi E.umplci;
No
No
IPcniilJj Au!h�mlng Vdi ktc: Rnm1val (:Siign•l11R}: Tiillr:<�------ (Sf;angnl, Gfu.°11 Y)'.l � � tto.: fUlu,]� •
. ·.·
Ccmib:i:-1 Phonf: Nmnbert. ______ -__ 1C'11.lllbid Pbl!fcll!� Number._ 1�Y" S4/,. ]ftc8� Attachment: D.1.g
Click here to return to the agenda.

2 of this is attached to this email. If you have any further concerns please feel free to let me know. I am more than willing to work together to better the area and the property.

1 Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
From: Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 8:26 AM
To: Dr. Deepa Patel
Subject: Observations of Dixie Motel
Attachments: 20230906_084542.jpg; 20230906_084042.jpg; 20230906_083828.jpg; 20230906_ 084054.jpg; 20230906_084121.jpg; 20230906_084029.jpg; 20230906_083545.jpg; 20230906_084336.jpg; 20230906_084138.jpg; 20230906_083943.jpg; 20230906_ 083849.jpg; 20230906_084217.jpg; 20230906_083917.jpg; 20230906_083931.jpg; 20230906_084014.jpg; 20230906_083822.jpg; 20230906_083814.jpg; 20230906_ 083651.jpg; 20230906_084101.jpg; 20230906_084109.jpg; 20230906_084126.jpg; 20230906_083606.jpg; 20230906_083937.jpg
Hello Dr. Patel,
After our phone call of August 31, I went and visited the Dixie Motel site yesterday, September 6 from approximately 8:30 am – 9:00 am. I rang the bell and let the manager know I was present, and asked if I walked the parking lot, if I would see all cars registered. He confirmed that I would. Here were my observations:
 I was able to count 26 cars (not including the gray minivan below). You stated last week that City staff’s observations were inaccurate if they were reporting to me that many unregistered cars were identified in the Dixie lot. I have attached pictures.
o 5 had the motel registration
o 15 were unregistered
o 6 had expired registrations
o One guest came out while I was walking around and asked what I was doing. I shared I was checking that each car in the parking lot was displaying the motel registration because they were supposed to be towed if they weren’t. He stated that he’s been told he should do it (he shared he’s stayed there for weeks), but no one has ever made him and his car has never been towed.  I observed an unregistered gray minivan. A man and a woman appeared to be sleeping in the vehicle in the Dixie parking lot. The woman opened the side door, pulled down her underwear, and publicly urinated in the parking lot. We made contact over a loudspeaker, and they left before I could get a picture of their dashboard showing the lack of registration.
 I observed an intoxicated man with dried blood and flies on his face lying prone at the top of the staircase. Two City personnel attempted to rouse him, and finally were successful.  The trash bin was overflowing.

I am still working on obtaining the detailed reports of calls for service from the OCSD for this location. As I have shared numerous times, I continue to have concerns surrounding public safety, security, and nuisance issues related to your site.

Regards,
Hannah Shin-Heydorn
City Manager
City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
714-890-4277
Attachment: D.5
Click here to return to the agenda.
__ ..
,,.,, ..... ,.,...
.,-_�.u,..,. ilifli Iii ......-u.J
.. L!LfW.' ...
• u
. , ..

Attachment: D.5.a
Click here to return to the agenda.

•
•

I
-ll//lll/ll////111111
•
\ ..,._
,

\. . -

•

1 Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
From: Dr. Deepa Patel
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
Subject: Re: Observations of Dixie Motel
Hi Hannah,
I visited the property yesterday and figured out some of the obstacles we are currently having. I met with Sarah Shirvany and will be working closely with her to get some more issues resolved.

As for some immediate actions I’ve taken, we are having a gate installed within a week at the entrance to monitor what cars and people are allowed to come in and out of the property. This will help resolve a lot of the permitting and towing issues. After the gate is installed I will need another week to monitor any further issues for further fine tuning.

We’ve implemented a few more of Sarah’s recommendations, as well. I’ll be visiting the property weekly indefinitely to improve the aesthetics, safety, and training. I’m lucky the lessor is letting me take control in some aspects because according to the contract I am not allowed to do a lot of this. He is willing to make all and every change and is cooperating fully so the vibe should start looking and feeling much better very soon.

I’ll continue to keep you posted and send you some pictures once the gate is up.

I know we have another round of edits for the plans submitted to the city. We are also continuing to work on that simultaneously.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Deepa Patel, PhD
On Sep 7, 2023, at 8:25 AM, Shin-Heydorn, Hannah <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Dr. Patel,
After our phone call of August 31, I went and visited the Dixie Motel site yesterday, September 6 from approximately 8:30 am – 9:00 am. I rang the bell and let the manager know I was present, and asked if I walked the parking lot, if I would see all cars registered. He confirmed that I would. Here were my observations:

1. I was able to count 26 cars (not including the gray minivan below). You stated last week that City staff’s observations were inaccurate if they were reporting to me that many unregistered cars were identified in the Dixie lot. I have attached pictures.

1. 5 had the motel registration

2. 15 were unregistered

3. 6 had expired registrations
Attachment: D.6
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 4. One guest came out while I was walking around and asked what I was doing. I shared I was checking that each car in the parking lot was displaying the motel registration because they were supposed to be towed if they weren’t. He stated that he’s been told he should do it (he shared he’s stayed there for weeks), but no one has ever made him and his car has never been towed.

2. I observed an unregistered gray minivan. A man and a woman appeared to be sleeping in the vehicle in the Dixie parking lot. The woman opened the side door, pulled down her underwear, and publicly urinated in the parking lot. We made contact over a loudspeaker, and they left before I could get a picture of their dashboard showing the lack of registration.

3. I observed an intoxicated man with dried blood and flies on his face lying prone at the top of the staircase. Two City personnel attempted to rouse him, and finally were successful.

4. The trash bin was overflowing.

Regards,

Hannah Shin-Heydorn
City Manager
City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
714-890-4277

<20230906_084542.jpg>
<20230906_084042.jpg>
<20230906_083828.jpg>
<20230906_084054.jpg>
<20230906_084121.jpg>
<20230906_084029.jpg>
<20230906_083545.jpg>
<20230906_084336.jpg>
<20230906_084138.jpg>
<20230906_083943.jpg>
<20230906_083849.jpg>
<20230906_084217.jpg>
<20230906_083917.jpg>
<20230906_083931.jpg>
<20230906_084014.jpg>
<20230906_083822.jpg>
<20230906_083814.jpg>
<20230906_083651.jpg>
<20230906_084101.jpg>
<20230906_084109.jpg>
<20230906_084126.jpg>
<20230906_083606.jpg>
<20230906_083937.jpg>
1 Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
From: Dr. Deepa Patel
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 6:38 PM
To: Shin-Heydorn, Hannah
Subject: Re: Observations of Dixie Motel
So I went to the property and it was a shit show of drugs homeless and prostitution. I addressed that first and they are cleaning it up.

I went to meet with this sheriff lady that high up that the manager somehow knows. She recommended they put a gate at the entrance that only the manager can let cars and people in and out. That’s being installed this weekend.

Once it’s all cleaned up and in better shape. I’m going to ask the city manager again to push the project forward and if she doesn’t at the point then I will send the legal letter, but as of now from what I saw it does look like a nuisance.

Blessings,
Deepa Patel, PhD
On Sep 12, 2023, at 11:44 AM, Dr. Deepa Patel wrote:

Hi Hannah,
I visited the property yesterday and figured out some of the obstacles we are currently having. I met with Sarah Shirvany and will be working closely with her to get some more issues resolved.

I’ll continue to keep you posted and send you some pictures once the gate is up.

I know we have another round of edits for the plans submitted to the city. We are also continuing to work on that simultaneously.

Thank you.

Blessings,
Deepa Patel, PhD
Attachment: D.7
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 On Sep 7, 2023, at 8:25 AM, Shin-Heydorn, Hannah <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Dr. Patel,

After our phone call of August 31, I went and visited the Dixie Motel site yesterday, September 6 from approximately 8:30 am – 9:00 am. I rang the bell and let the manager know I was present, and asked if I walked the parking lot, if I would see all cars registered. He confirmed that I would. Here were my observations:

1. 5 had the motel registration

2. 15 were unregistered

3. 6 had expired registrations

4. One guest came out while I was walking around and asked what I was doing. I shared I was checking that each car in the parking lot was displaying the motel registration because they were supposed to be towed if they weren’t. He stated that he’s been told he should do it (he shared he’s stayed there for weeks), but no one has ever made him and his car has never been towed.

3. I observed an intoxicated man with dried blood and flies on his face lying prone at the top of the staircase. Two City personnel attempted to rouse him, and finally were successful.

4. The trash bin was overflowing.

Regards,

Hannah Shin-Heydorn
City Manager
City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
714-890-4277

<20230906_084542.jpg>
3 <20230906_084042.jpg>
<20230906_083828.jpg>
<20230906_084054.jpg>
<20230906_084121.jpg>
<20230906_084029.jpg>
<20230906_083545.jpg>
<20230906_084336.jpg>
<20230906_084138.jpg>
<20230906_083943.jpg>
<20230906_083849.jpg>
<20230906_084217.jpg>
<20230906_083917.jpg>
<20230906_083931.jpg>
<20230906_084014.jpg>
<20230906_083822.jpg>
<20230906_083814.jpg>
<20230906_083651.jpg>
<20230906_084101.jpg>
<20230906_084109.jpg>
<20230906_084126.jpg>
<20230906_083606.jpg>
<20230906_083937.jpg>
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 1
Todd I. Priest
Administrative Hearing Officer

IN THE MATTER OF CONTESTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION

BETWEEN
Plaintiff,
vs.

DEEPA PATEL ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND

CALIFORNIA ONE HOSPITALITY LLC
11632 BEACH BLVD (THE PROPERTY)
STANTON, CA 90680
Defendant
Administrative Case:

AC005332 issued on September 26, 2023
AC007164 issued on September 27, 2023
AC007165 issued on September 28, 2023

CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 10:00 AM I conducted a hearing regarding the code violation at the property located at 11632 Beach Blvd, Stanton, CA (THE PROPERTY). This hearing was held at Stanton City Hall, located at 7800 Katella Ave., the City of Stanton, the County of Orange, State of California. These hearings were in regards to contestation of administrative citations numbers:
• AC005332 issued Tuesday, September 26th, 2023. Fine $500.00. • AC007164 issued Thursday (for Wednesday), September 27th, 2023. Fine $500.00. • AC007165 issued Thursday, September 28, 2023. Fine $500.00.

The hearing was conducted pursuant to section 16.04.010 of the Stanton Municipal Code.

During the hearing, I requested that the respondent provide additional evidence that would support her testimony. This request was agreed upon and the hearing was continued on Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 10:00AM.

Attachment: E
Click here to return to the agenda.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 2
Present at the Hearing on November 1st :

Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Dr. Deepa Patel, Respondent
Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
Eileen Caso, Employed by property lessee
Todd I. Priest, Administrative Hearing Officer
Testimony
Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Urbina was contacted by the city Building Inspector (Cameron) to inspect an installed fence/gate at the property. On Thursday, September 21st, he performed a site inspection and found a portion of a gate permanently installed into cement. This gate was unable to be moved. Also, he stated that building alterations need to be approved first, then permitted. He checked city records, and neither approval nor a permit were obtained for the gate. The gate was placed at a two-way driveway that meant there was only one-way in and one-way out.

This could cause a problem in an emergency situation. Mr. Urbina spoke with the lessee of the property/hotel general manager and communicated that the gate needed to be removed immediately because it was causing an egress safety issue. A written notice of the inspection on the 21st was not required. Mr. Urbina reiterated that he clearly stated to the general manager at the hotel, that the gate had to be immediately removed. He returned to the property, on Tuesday September 26th five days after the requirement, and found the gate was still in place. At this time, he was authorized to issue the first citation (AC005332). Mr. Urbina explained that a “first notice” is not required for egress related safety issues, which negates the standard 7-day period before a citation is issued. At this time written notices were sent both certified mail and regular mail. The certified mail “bounced back” and the regular mail was did not come back, so the assumption was that it had been delivered. He made a third inspection on Thursday, September 28th and found that nothing had changed and that the gate was still installed. At that point, he issued two more citations. AC007164 for Sep 27th and AC007165 for Sep 28th. He said he returned to the property on “either Monday Oct 2nd or Tuesday Oct 3rd “ and found that the gate had been removed and the case was closed. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 3
Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
On behalf of the respondent, he shared that Ms. Patel will be providing verbal testimony that amounts to “back-up” to the testimony just made by the city code enforcement officer. And that she is the owner of the property, and that the property is currently leased and was under lease at the time all the citations were issued. She had been in discussions with the city regarding plans to improve and expand the hotel. These discussions included possible nuisance problems at the property. He expanded this by saying that Ms. Patel was not involved with nor had any specific knowledge of these nuisance issues. He also stated, that Ms. Patel was in the process of obtaining city approval for expansion and heard about the issues and was attempting to address the issues, but does not admit to the nuisance allegations. He further stated that the gate was voluntarily put in and that it was “the city that said that it was ok to put the gate up.” In his opinion, it was wrong for the city to cite the property for something they requested.

Procedure of due process was also brought up as an objection due to the fact that notification of the citations were not given to all parties, which should have included the lessee of the property. Mr. Weiser communicated both, in prior written communication and during the hearing, that he was “seriously concerned” that there are potential constitutional violations by the city stemming from the close time proximity to the respondents attempts to gain acceptance to the building plan and the multiple citations that were issued.

Dr. Deepa Patel, Respondent
Respondent Denied Liability*
*Noted: Counsel to the Respondent stated an objection to the Administrative Hearing Officer being unilaterally appointed by the city. There is case precedence here that there is the potential for bias which may obstruct the due process of the respondent.

Two years ago, Ms. Patel submitted plans for a 16 unit expansion. At that time, there was much turn over at the city. It felt like they were getting the “run around” and that the city kept coming up with excuses not to approve. They started having meetings with the new city 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 4
manager who told her that the hotel has a lot of “activity going on” and that there is a “nuisance issue” that needed to be cleaned up. The city manager requested that many things be done at the hotel to move the expansion plan forward. So, she worked with the lessee to clean things up. Things continued to move very slowly, to the point that her architect was ready to resign the project. Then, without any prior notice, the city manager came to inspect and take pictures of the property. After, this Ms. Patel worked even more directly and diligently with the lessee to accomplish the list of requests that had been made by the city.

One of her “proactive” efforts included working with Sarah Shivarny, Crime Prevention Specialist, Stanton Police Services. The suggestion was made to install a gate because many Stanton hotels/businesses have been using a gate entrance to better monitor who comes on the property. According to the respondent, Sarah said “why don’t you do this.” Ms. Patel responded to the suggestion by saying she would have the gate installed within days. Sarah, replied “great, I’m so happy, this is going to help you monitor the people coming in and going out, please email Hannah (Hannah Shin-Heydorn-City Manager) to let her what you are doing.” There was no response nor discussion about approvals or permits to this plan for the gate installation and no issue was raised so, it was assumed all was good to install. The respondent also stated it was at this time her emails started to get blocked by city personnel. The gate was installed in two days. Then Mr. Urbina inspected the property on the Sep 21st. The respondent called Sarah that day letting her know that the city had inspected the property and required that the gate be immediately removed. Sarah apologized and followed-up with the building department and confirmed that the gate required approval and must be permitted. Within a couple days Eileen Caso, Ms. Patel’s assistant, went to the city to start the approval/permit process. During that time at the city, they believe they did not receive proper attention, the necessary information, nor was there a sense of urgency to assist them (“they were given the run around”).

Hearing Continued
I requested respondent to provide copies of the email conversations between herself, city and or police in order to provide clarification to support the respondent’s position. There was an 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 5
agreement that respondent would provide the copies to Mr. Urbina within 7 days. The hearing was continued and scheduled for Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 10:00AM.

On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 10:00 AM the in the Matter of Contestation of Administrative Citation Hearing between The City of Stanton Vs. Deepa Patel and California One Hospitality LLC reconvened.

Present at the Hearing on November 29th, 2023 :

Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Dr. Deepa Patel, Respondent
Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
Eileen Caso, Respondent’s Assistant
Todd I. Priest, Administrative Hearing Officer
Denise Hansen, Attorney for the City of Stanton
Patricia Garcia, City Planner Associate
Continued Testimony
Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
Counsel for the respondent reiterated his objections to the city appointment of the Administrative Hearing Officer and shared several court cases and constitutional objections.

Denise Hansen, Attorney for the City of Stanton
Denise Hansen communicated the Stanton code 1.12.110 that the hearing officer shall issue a written decision within ten (10) days after the hearing to uphold or deny the administrative citation and shall list in the decision the reasons for that decision. I concurred and said that I would comply.

Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Urbina reiterated his previous testimony as to the events and process in which the citations 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 6
were issued on the property. Added testimony included his ability to check city permit status while at the property which confirmed the need to cite.

Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
Frank asked Mr. Urbina how he identified who the responsible party was that should receive the notifications and citations or if Mr. Urbina performed any sort of a property search or ownership search.

Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Mr. Urbina responded that he did not do a property search nor determined if the property had a lessee, but used the property address to mail notices.

Dr. Deepa Patel, Respondent
The respondent reiterated their previous testimony made on November 1st as to the events and process in which the citations were issued on the property. She emphasized that her emails with the city, including Police Services announcing the installation of the gate, did not prompt any reply alerting the respondent that approvals and a permit was required. The respondent waited to get more direction from the city, but after a couple days (after the 21st), a subsequent phone conversation between Ms. Shirvany and Ms. Patel took place with the suggestion that the respondent go directly to City Hall to sort out the approval and permit for the gate. On Tuesday, 26th she sent her assistant Eileen Caso to the city to start the approval and permit process. According to Ms. Patel, Eileen was “having a hard time getting any information” and was asked to go online. “Nobody was available, nobody was helping, nobody called me back.” It was then (after the 28th) that she actually received the three citations. At this time, she gave the lessee/hotel general manager instructions to immediately remove the gate.

Eileen Caso, Respondent’s Assistant
Upon arrival to City Hall, she went the window and was helped by a gentleman that provided a 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 7
pamphlet explaining the process for getting approval and a permit for a gate. The clerk then said he wanted to go to the back and make sure he is providing all the info needed. It took a little longer than expected, but when he returned, another city associate accompanied him (Patricia Garcia, City Planner Associate). Ms. Cano was told by Patricia that a permit could not be issued at this time due to active plans for the property being reviewed. She asked for the reason why and was told by Ms. Garcia that there is something on the property that won’t allow them to permit the gate. She asked for the reason “why”, and said she could not say but that she would need to speak with Crystal. At that point Ms. Cano said that she was getting “the run-around”. When Ms. Cano left city hall she immediately attempted to contact Crystal, but was unsuccessful in reaching her that day.

Daniel Urbina, Code Enforcement Officer
Daniel responded to hearing officer question about the process that was followed on September 21st for this citation. Typically, these citations are “complaint” based. In this case the complaint came from Cameron, the city Building Inspector. Daniel checked their internal system to see if there were any active permits on file for a gate at this property. None were found for the gate. Daniel spoke with the general manager (Ms.Patel confirmed during this testimony that Daniel was speaking with the lessee/general manager). Daniel, communicated that the gate is posing an “in and out” issue that the gate must be removed immediately. The city does not need to provide a 10-Day notice for ingress-egress safety code/no permit citations. On the 26th (five days later), Daniel reinspected the property and found the gate still in place. The first citation (AC005332) was written. Daniel testified that he issued the citation provided normal notification in the regular course of his duties as Code Enforcement Officer.

He was unaware of any discussions or correspondence between the respondent and other City of Stanton officials.

Patricia Garcia, City Planner Associate
Ms. Garcia was the city employee who assisted Eileen Caso on September 26. Due to public safety safeguards, Gate permits are handled with increased scrutiny. Counsel for the 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 8
Respondent asked if she had discussed with Mr. Urbina the ongoing code enforcement case.

Ms. Garcia answered, “yes, but this took place after the meeting with Ms. Caso.” She did not recall discussing details surrounding this particular gate permit, nor the citation. Counsel for the city asked if she had communicated to Ms. Caso the reasons why a permit could be issued.

Ms. Garcia said “yes, that the permit could not be issued due to an ongoing entitlement action/application” (conditional use permit was pending). Additionally, applications for a gate typically would need to be reviewed by the city Fire Department, none of which could be remedied within a 24 hour period.

Frank A. Weiser, Attorney for the Respondent
“Over enforcement”, or misuse of an actual code violation was being used to hinder the respondent’s efforts to secure a building permit for the gate. The respondent had done everything in their power to secure a permit for the gate. “Ms. Patel and her associate tried to get the permit and were not given clear direction and then they received a citation.” There was a “vagueness issue” posing a “due process” issue.

Denise Hansen, Attorney for the City of Stanton
The constitutional issues raised by Respondent Counsel are not applicable. There are no Due Process issues. Arguments posed by Counsels letter are not relevant. This is a simple, straight forward case about a gate that was erected without a permit. The Sheriff representative had conversations with Ms. Patel to help decrease crime at the property. One suggestion was to install a gate/fence. As a property owner Ms. Patel has a duty to determine what laws are applicable in the city her property is in. Inspector Urbina inspected the property on Thursday the 21st and observed the unpermitted gate. He had the authority to cite that day, but did not.

Instead provided proper and clear notification to the general manager/lessee that the gate be immediately removed. Five-days later, on Tuesday the 26th, he reinspected the property. The gate was still in place and the first citation was issued. No evidence of any conversation took place regarding this property and the gate between Ms. Garcia and Mr. Urbina prior to September 26th when the respondent, through her assistant, Ms. Caso, went to the city to find 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 9
out how to secure a permit for the gate. Even if there had been discussion prior, it would not alleviate the respondent from the responsibility of erecting a non-permitted gate. All three citations were properly issued and should be upheld.

FINDINGS
I find that the gate (gate portion when cited) was neither approved nor permitted by the City of Stanton and therefore was in violation of Stanton Title 16 adopted CA Building Code

16.04.010. This gate created an obstacle for ingress and egress of the property. Due to this safety hazard, immediate removal was ordered by the city inspector which was communicated to both the lessee/general manager who informed the respondent (owner). The city had the authority to cite this violation the very first day, but instead gave the respondent notification that provided time for removal. Five (5) days later another inspection took place, the gate was still in place, and the first citation was written and delivered. Two (2) days after the first citation, another inspection was done, and the gate was still up. Citations were written for those two days. The next inspection on either October 1st or 2nd found that the gate had been removed and the case was closed. Not until at least eight (8) days after the initial inspection (on Sep 21st order to immediately remove) was the gate removed.

Throughout the hearing, the respondent, their witness, and their counsel communicated that the city was not cooperative nor helpful in resolving the issues that had been preventing the approval of the proposed expansion as well as helping with a permit for the gate. However, I advise that the respondent take this matter up with the city because this is out of the purview of this hearing.

Responsibility squarely falls on the property owner to secure proper approvals and permits prior to performing any property improvements and should be familiar with working within city building/improvement pre-requisites.

Counsel for the respondent, in both his letters to the city prior to the hearing and then during 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY OF STANTON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION - 10
the hearing, communicated case law that brought into question “due process” and other constitutional grounds for dismissal. These are noted.

The respondent did attempt, in good faith, to secure a permit. However, this was done after the gate was installed. The citations issued were for having a non-permitted gate on the property. Additionally, due to the safety concern and the potential severe injury or even loss of life, the city was correct in continuing to cite until the gate was removed and case was closed.

Therefore, the request to dismiss Citations AC005332, AC007164 and AC007165 is denied.

Evidence presented does not meet the level of extenuating circumstances to give cause to dismiss.

IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT:

Citations AC005332, AC007164 and AC007165 in the amount of $1,500.00 ($500.00 each) are UPHELD.

Any previously submitted advance deposit made by the respondent will be used toward satisfying the total order to satisfy the three citations.

December 8, 2023
Todd I. Priest-Administrative Hearing Officer
Date:
8/22/2022
Applicant:

Saeed Kamkar
Sent via Email
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714} 890-4228
F I (714) 890-1443
www.stantonca.gov
Subject: Site Plan and Design Review No. SP0R-816 - Addition of 18 new units to an existing 36-unit motel, parking lot and landscaping improvements.

Dear Mr. Kamkar:

Thank you for submitting a Site Plan and Design Review permit application for the above mentioned project. After initial review, staff has determined the application to be incomplete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a). Attachment "A" of this letter outlines project specific comments, questions, and revisions needed by Department/Division. If you have specific questions on Department/Division comments, each department contact information has been provided in the attachment. If email communication is sent, please copy me on the email. Upon resubmittal, provide the necessary information in the form of 5 full sized sets of plans and one digital set of plans.

We look forward to working with you and want to assist you on your project. If you have any questions or need clarifications, please feel free to contact me at (714)890- 4291 or via email at [email protected]
Paige Montejo
Associate Planner
Attachments: Preliminary Plan Review Comments
Development Application Packet
CC: Jennifer Lilley, AICP, Community & Economic Development Director Maribeth Tinio, Planning Manager
Kent Tsen, Building Official
Attachment: F.1
Click here to return to the agenda.

Application Completeness
Attachment "A"
Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816
Dixie Hotel - 11632 Beach Blvd
The submitted application is deemed incomplete in accordance with Government Code Section 65943(a).

The following items are required for a complete application:
l. Landscaping Plan: Submit a landscaping plan demonstrating the requirements of Stanton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 20.320.110 (Landscaping Standards for Parking Areas) and 20.315.040 (Landscaping Standards).

2. Lighting and Security Plan: Please submit a lighting and security plan showing the location of site lighting, security cameras, and/or security fencing in compliance with SMC Section 20.300.080 (Outdoor Light and Glare).

Project Specific Comments
Community Development- Planning Division
For questions regarding the following comments, please contact Paige Montojo at 714.890.4291 or [email protected].

1. Beach Blvd Frontage: The Livable Beach Boulevard Plan outlines desired improvements for developments that front Beach Boulevard. Such improvements include robust landscaping, high quality hardscaping, pedestrian or bicycle amenities, public art, etc. Please demonstrate on the site plan and/or landscaping plans how the development enhances the existing frontage along Beach Boulevard.

2. Dimensions: Please show the following dimensions on the site plan:
a) All setbacks from the property lines to existing and proposed structures. b) Building footprint dimensions on the site plan and floor plans. c) The width of the proposed walkway in front of the new building. d) Distance between existing and proposed structure

3. Rear Yard Setback: The Code requires a minimum 10-foot setback from the rear property line. Please note the dimension of the set back on the site plan.

4. Loading and Delivery: Section 20.320. 130 of the SMC requires all commercial uses to provide loading space on site. Please provide a loading and delivery plan showing where loading/unloading occurs on site.

5. Utility and Equipment Plan: Please provide a plan showing the location of all utility and/or mechanical equipment. All ground-mounted equipment shall be placed in the least visible location on site.

Architectural screening may be required to reduce visual impacts. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by an architecturally compatible parapet wall that is of equal or greater height than the equipment.

Community Pride & Forward Vision

6. Parking lot landscaping: Section 20.320., landscaping shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area. Orchard style plantings is required throughout the parking lot with trees planted at a rate of one tree for every five parking spaces for single bays, and one tree for every 10 spaces for double bays. Please demonstrate the entire parking area meets this requirement on the landscaping plan.

7. Trash Enclosure: Provide elevations for the proposed trash enclosure. The trash enclosure shall be architecturally compatible with the buildings shall have a roof cover.

Public Works Department
For questions regarding the following comments, please contact Manuel Armenta at 657.295.0919 or at [email protected]
l. A new trash enclosure must be constructed and sized to accommodate at least one 3-yard trash dumpster, one 3-yard recycled material dumpster, and a 96-gallon organics collection cart, plus enough room for users to access all carts/dumpsters to comply with State Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 341.

2. Project must allocate space for structural best management practices required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board MS4 Permit, which may include surface and subsurface devices to capture, detain, and treat storm water and nuisance water runoff. Applicant must prepare a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and a Final Water Quality Management Plan.

3. Any work in the public right-of-way for new utility cuts and driveway aprons on Beach Boulevard may require applicant to pave the half or full width of Beach Boulevard for the length of the project frontage, depending on the location of utilities which may be required. Beach Boulevard was just repaved by Caltrans.

4. A grading permit will be required for on-site work. A grading and on-site improvement plan will be required for on-site work. A grading bond will required to guarantee the work.

5. An encroachment permit will be required for off-site work, including for any sanitary sewer connections.

6. No on-site aerial utility connections will be permitted. All new and existing aerial utilities shall be undergrounded.

Community Development- Building Division
For questions regarding the following comments, please contact Kent Tsen at 714.890.4202 or [email protected]

1. Fire Sprinkler System: Please provide automatic fire sprinkler system for the new and existing building. SMC Section 17.08.020, 903.2

2. Trash Enclosure: Provide type of trash enclosure and the inclusion of recycling and organic bins.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Trash enclosures shall have a roof cover. See Public Works Comment 1 for additional requirements.

Orange County Fire Authority
For questions regarding the following comments, please contact Art Tinoco at 714.573.6130 or Arturo Tinoco@ocfa. orq

1. Provide fire and life safety building information for project (e.g., fire alarm, type of fire sprinkler system, etc.). OCFA Guideline E-04

2. Revise plans to show building occupancy group. OCFA Guideline E-04

3. Revise plans to add 2019 CFC to applicable codes. OCFA Guideline E-04

4. Indicate on plans existing and proposed structures will be provided automatic fire sprinklers.

Stanton Ordinance No. 1094, CFC 903

5. Provide overall building dimensions for each structure. OCFA Guideline E-04

6. Indicate rear setback dimension from building to property line for proposed structure. OCFA Guideline E-04

7. Plans must illustrate fire access roadways. OCFA Guideline 8-09

8. Demonstrate compliance with OCFA requirements for structure (porte-cochere) over fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline 8-09

9. Elevations must indicate vertical clearance of fire access roadways. OCFA Guideline 8-09

10. Plans must illustrate the 150' hose pull to all points around each structure from the fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline 8-09

11. Plans must show both inside and outside turning radii at fire department access roadways. A minimum 20' inner radius and 40' outer radius is required. OCFA Guideline 8-09

12. Plans must illustrate location of all public or private hydrants within 300' of the property line. OCFA Guideline 8-09
Orange County Sheriff's Department

1. Security Cameras: There shall be cameras throughout the facility including the parking lot area.

Video recording is preferred. The recordings shall be maintained for at least 30 days and made available to law enforcement if needed. The location of all security cameras shall be noted on the Lighting and Security plans.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Date:
2/16/23
Applicant:

Saeed Kamkar
Sent via Email
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714) 890-4228
F I (714) 890-1443
www.stantonca.gov
Subject: Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816 -Addition of 18 new units to an existing 36-unit motel, parking lot and landscaping improvements.

Dear Mr. Kamkar:

Thank you for resubmitting the Site Plan and Design Review permit application for the above-mentioned project. After initial review, staff has determined the application to be incomplete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943{a). Attachment "a" of this letter outlines project specific comments, questions, and revisions needed. Please provide the necessary information in the form of 5 full sized sets of plans and one digital set of plans.

We look forward to working with you and want to assist you on your project. If you have any questions or need clarifications, please feel free to contact me at {714)890- 4291 or via email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Paige Montejo
Senior Planner
Attachments: A - Project Comments
CC: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachment: F.2
Click here to return to the agenda.

Project Specific Comments
Attachment "A"
Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816
Dixie Hotel - 11632 Beach Blvd
The following comments shall be addressed upon the resubmittal of plans for review.

Public Safety-The existing motel on the property has experienced a high volume of specific calls for service that demonstrate ongoing public safety issues on the property. Because the request to expand the hotel requires discretionary action, the existing state of the property will be considered by the decisionmaking body. The property owner is encouraged to address all public safety concerns prior to consideration of the project, and demonstrate the solutions or changes implemented to prevent and/or resolve any future public safety concerns.

Orange County Fire Authority- The following comments from OCFA shall be addressed on the plans prior . to any public hearing. For questions on comments, please contact Art Tinoco at 714.573.6100.

1. Fees: Addition fees of $230 are due at the time of plan resubmittal for OCFA review. Payment can be made on line at https:ljww.msbpay.com/ocfa/pd/, over the phone at 714.573.6342, or by check made out to OCFA. Please note the SR #291939.

2. Plans must illustrate fire access roadways. OCFA Guideline B-09 a. Provide dimensions for S-Turns shown on plans, lengths currently do not meet the minimum requirement of 60'.
b. Provide dimensions for fire lane widths.

3. Demonstrate compliance with OCFA requirements for structure (porte-cochere) over fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline B-09
a. Provide compliance and indicate on plans, the edge of a fire access roadway should be located no closer than 10' from the building.
b. Provide clear width dimension at the porte-cochere, width narrows due to the left column taper.
c. Elevation (A-6) overall dimension does not match the floor plans

4. Plans must illustrate the 150' hose pull to all points around each structure from the fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline 8-09
a. Plans must show hope pull distances for each structure; hose pull is measured along a path that simulated the route a firefighter may take to access all portions of the exterior of a structure from the fire lane (not a straight line)

5. Plans must show both inside and outside turning radii at fire department access roadways. A minimum 20' inner radius and 40' outer radius is required. a. Show radii at first turns after porte-cochere
Community Development - Building Division
Community Pride & Forward Vision

1. Accessible Parking: The accessible parking stalls should be spread out to serve the entire building, they're currently lumped in the middle of the parking lot. There should be at least one accessible stall close to the lobby area.

2. EV Ready: Update the site plan to show Incorporation of the required EV Ready and required EV Capable with EVCS per CALGreen.

Community Development- Planning Division

1. Beach Blvd Frontage: The Livable Beach Boulevard Plan outlines desired improvements for developments that front Beach Boulevard. To achieve high visual impact, please incorporate tree plantings, driveway pavers or other features among the proposed shrubs fronting the property.

2. Utility and Equipment Plan: Update the site plan to show all utility and/or mechanical equipment. All ground-mounted equipment shall be placed in the least visible location on site. Architectural screening may be required to reduce visual impacts. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by an architecturally compatible parapet wall that is of equal or greater height than the equipment.

Proposed Conditions of Approval
The following items will be required at the time of building permit plan check or the indicated time frame.

This is just a cursory list and does not include all conditions of approval that may apply to the project.

Community Development- Building Division:

1. Project will need to be designed to 2022 Edition of the CA Codes

2. Soils report required.

3. Building and MEP permits and plan check shall be separate submittals

4. Incorporation of the required EV Ready and required EV Capable with EVCS per CALGreen S. Required fire separation between each guest room (and special requirements for Group R occupancies per Section 420 of CBC)

6. Existing restroom adjacent to the Reception Area will need to be upgraded.

7. Additional Compliance Requirements for Transient Lodging Guest Rooms per CBC Section llB-224 a. Minimum Guest Room with Mobility Features per Table llB-224.2 b. Minimum Guest Room with Communication Features per Table llB-224.4 c. Mobility and Communication Units will need to be on 1st floor, otherwise elevator would need to be provided to 2nd floor.

Public Safety Department

1. Security Cameras: There shall be cameras throughout the facility including the parking lot area.

2. Calls for Service: A maximum threshold of calls for service to the Orange County Sheriff's Department regarding complaints related to the Dixie Hotel operations within a designated timeframe will be established.

Public Works - Engineering Division:

1. Preliminary red lined plans must be addressed at the time of grading permit submittal (see redlines). mity Pride & Forward Vision

2. A new trash enclosure must be constructed and sized to accommodate at least one 3-yard trash dumpster, one 3-yard recycled material dumpster, and a 96-gallon organics collection cart, plus enough room for users to access all carts/dumpsters to comply with State Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 341.

3. Project must allocate space for structural best management practices required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board MS4 Permit, which may include surface and subsurface devices to capture, detain, and treat storm water and nuisance water runoff. Applicant must prepare a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and a Final Water Quality Management Plan.

4. Any work in the public right-of-way for new utility cuts and driveway aprons on Beach Boulevard may require applicant to pave the half or full width of Beach Boulevard for the length of the project frontage, depending on the location of utilities which may be required. Beach Boulevard was just repaved by Caltrans.

5. A grading permit will be required for on-site work. A grading and on-site improvement plan will be required for on-site work. A grading bond will required to guarantee the work.

6. An encroachment permit will be required for off-site work, including for any sanitary sewer connections.

7. No on-site aerial utility connections will be permitted. All new and existing aerial utilities shall be undergrounded.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Date:
5/17/2023
Applicant:

Saeed Kamkar
Sent via Email
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714) 890-4228
F I (714) 890-1443
www.stantonca.gov
Subject: Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816 - Addition of 18 new units to an existing 36-unit motel, parking lot and landscaping improvements.

Dear Mr. Kamkar:

Thank you for resubmitting the Site Plan and Design Review permit application for the above-mentioned project. After initial review, staff has determined the application to be incomplete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a). Attachment "a" of this letter outlines project specific comments, questions, and revisions needed. Please provide the necessary information in the form of 5 full sized sets of plans and one digital set of plans.

Sincerely,
Patricia Garcia
Assistant Planner
Attachments: A- Project Comments
Attachment: F.3
Click here to return to the agenda.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Attachment “A”
Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816
Dixie Hotel - 11632 Beach Blvd
Project Specific Comments
The following comments shall be addressed upon the resubmittal of plans for review.

Public Safety – The existing motel on the property has experienced a high volume of specific calls for service that demonstrate ongoing public safety issues on the property. Because the request to expand the hotel requires discretionary action, the existing state of the property will be considered by the decisionmaking body. The property owner is encouraged to address all public safety concerns prior to consideration of the project, and demonstrate the solutions or changes implemented to prevent and/or resolve any future public safety concerns.

Orange County Fire Authority – The following comments from OCFA shall be addressed on the plans prior to any public hearing. For questions on comments, please contact Art Tinoco at 714.573.6100.

1. Plans must illustrate fire access roadways. OCFA Guideline B-09 a. Provide dimensions for S-Turns shown on plans, lengths currently do not meet the minimum requirement of 60’.
b. Provide dimensions for fire lane widths.

2. Demonstrate compliance with OCFA requirements for structure (porte-cochere) over fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline B-09
a. Provide compliance and indicate on plans, the edge of a fire access roadway should be located no closer than 10’ from the building.

3. Plans must illustrate the 150’ hose pull to all points around each structure from the fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline B-09

4. Plans must show both inside and outside turning radii at fire department access roadways. A minimum 20’ inner radius and 40’ outer radius is required. a. Show radii at first turns after porte-cochere
Community Development – Building Division
As a courtesy notice, please be aware of the following items for future building permits.

1. Construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division for review and issuance of any future building permit(s). Construction plans shall comply with California Building Codes, as adopted and in effect at time of plan submittal. Building codes in effect, including local amendments, as of January 1, 2023: 2022 California Building Code (’22 CBC); 2022 California Plumbing Code (’22 CPC); 2022 California Mechanical Code (’22 CMC); 2022 California Electrical Code (’22 CEC); 2022 California Residential Code (‘22 CRC); 2022 California Energy Code (’22 Energy); and 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (‘22 CGBSC).

2. Soils report and investigation will be required with each building permit application submittal.

3. Architect of record shall be aware to provide the required number of EV Stalls per CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2.2
a. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all Community Pride & Forward Vision
types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
b. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit.
c. Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. d. Please show locations of accessible EVCS per CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.1.

4. Architect of Record shall detail on the construction plans the required fire separation between each guest room (and special requirements for Group R occupancies per Section 420 of CBC)

5. Existing restroom adjacent to the Reception Area will need to upgraded per CBC Section 11B-202.4.

6. Additional Compliance Requirements for Transient Lodging Guest Rooms per CBC Section 11B-224 a. Minimum Guest Room with Mobility Features per Table 11B-224.2 b. Minimum Guest Room with Communication Features per Table 11B-224.4 c. Mobility and Communication Units will need to be on 1st floor, otherwise elevator would need to be provided to 2nd floor.

7. The accessible parking stalls should be spread out to serve the entire building, they’re currently lumped in the middle of the parking lot. There should be at least one accessible stall closet to the lobby area.

The resubmittal did not address this comment. Sheet A-2 and Grading Plan Sheet G-3 show the accessible parking stalls in different locations.

Community Development- Planning Division

1. Variance: Per Stanton Municipal Code 20.555, Variances and Minor Variances are only approved when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of this Zoning Code denies the owner of the property privileges enjoyed by other property located nearby and in an identical zone. As proposed the total number of parking spaces required is 56 spaces, however, only 52 spaces are being provided. Staff can not support as variance if we are unable to make the following findings:
a) There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification;
b) Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification;
c) Approving the Variance or Minor Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
d) The requested Variance or Minor Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel.

2. Architectural Design: Please indicate the architectural style of the proposed building. To provide more visual interest please incorporate, as architecturally appropriate:
a) Varied materials, colors, and exterior finishes can create visual interest. Ensure that the materials are consistent with the architectural style and that there is one main focus Community Pride & Forward Vision
/point of interest. (Front façade)
b) Avoid single wall planes across the entire building. Variations in wall planes to reduce the building mass through the perceived size is reduced. i. Possible use of wood siding feature to break the wall of the new structure’s front façade.
c) Please see the attached examples of designs that incorporate color, materials, and variation in wall planes.

3. Beach Blvd Frontage: The Livable Beach Boulevard Plan outlines desired improvements for developments that front Beach Boulevard. To achieve high visual impact, please incorporate tree plantings, driveway pavers or other features among the proposed shrubs fronting the property.

4. Utility and Equipment Plan: Update the site plan to show all utility and/or mechanical equipment. All ground-mounted equipment shall be placed in the least visible location on site. Architectural screening may be required to reduce visual impacts. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by an architecturally compatible parapet wall that is of equal or greater height than the equipment.

Plan Check Review Comments (Review)

1. Title Sheet:
a. Per Stanton Municipal Code 20.700.070, Accessory Nonresidential Structures include attached and detached accessory structures. Examples include but are not limited to garages, gazebos, refuse collection structures, storage sheds, swimming pools, etc. Please update the structure coverage calculation accordingly.
b. Plan Sheet is incomplete. Ensure all sheets are listed. c. Add parking lot area (SF) and proposed landscaping area (SF) within the parking.

2. Site Plan:
a. Provide the correct scale.
b. Ensure all existing and proposed site improvements are identified (walls/fencing/gates, hardscape improvements, etc.)
c. Identify material and height of existing and proposed fencing/wall/gates. d. Ensure to provide a complete legend to include all shades/hatching used on the site plan. e. Mechanical equipment must be properly screened.
f. For angled parking stalls, ensure to note the degree of the angle. Please note different degree angles require different minimum dimension length/depth. g. Identify the surfacing material for the driveway/parking lot. h. Identify intended use for the landscaped area north of the pool/spa. i. Loading areas shall not block vehicular traffic or parking spaces. j. Individual bumper stops shall be located a minimum of three feet from a fence, wall, building or walkway or any right-of-way.

3. (E) and (P) Floor Plans:
a. Ensure all floor plans are correctly scaled.
b. Label all uses of all rooms/areas within the structure.

4. Provide floor area calculations.
a. Provide a dimensioned plan showing the existing/proposed structure. Use geometric shapes to show how the area was obtained. Provide an area tabulation (use, area/SF).

5. Provide a dimensioned existing and proposed roof plan. a. Show the roof form (ridges, hips, parapets, slopes etc.)

6. Elevations:
a. Provide existing and proposed elevations for all sides of the structure/s.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
b. Ensure to include height to the highest point of the structure. c. Label all exterior materials/features.
d. Identify materials proposed on the trash enclosure. Ensure the proposed materials are compatible with the structure.

7. Provide cross sections that include a complete view of the proposed structure and site improvements.

8. Photometric Plan:
a. Additional lighting is required at the rear of the property. b. Provide the estimated the lighting levels impacts on adjacent properties. i. Lighting levels shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at any common property line with property zoned, used as, or planned for residential uses (SMC 20.300.080).

9. Landscape Plan: Beach Boulevard is a major thoroughfare within the City so the landscaping facing this arterial must provide greater variety and interest. Drought tolerant shrubs of varying heights and colors should be clustered to create visual interest along Beach Blvd. Additionally, more trees, such as Palo Verde, should be incorporated into the landscape plan along Beach Blvd. Additionally please ensure plan include the following:
a. Provide an alternative tree for the Australian Willow. b. Trees shall be a minimum 24-gallon box.
c. A three-tier landscaping design (tree, shrub/vine and ground cover/turf/perennials) shall be used in all landscaped areas.
d. Species’ ultimate mature height and width (20 years for trees, 5 years for shrubs) e. Proposed maintained height and width of the species (if different from ultimate) f. Provide container size at installation
g. At least 50 percent of all landscaped areas containing trees and shrubs shall be underplanted with groundcover, with the remaining areas to incorporate a minimum two-inch layer of compost or mulch. Groundcover shall be approved by the Director. h. Compost and/or mulch shall maintain a consistent two-inch minimum layer and provide complete coverage under shrubs. Ensure to provide notes on plans. i. Irrigation:
i. Indicate type of irrigation and type of control
ii. Ensure compliance with SMC 20.315.050
j. Landscape lighting:
i. Show all proposed fixture type and location.
ii. Provide fixture manufacture specifications.
iii. Include a legend with total fixture count.

Public Works – Engineering Division:

1. Applicant to provide approved Preliminary WQMP (JLHA sent comments back in September 2022).

2. Following the approved Preliminary WQMP, the storm drainage may or may not change, so they would need to reflect that on the plans.

3. The grading plans attached to the plans does not indicate anything regarding sewer. Upon resubmittal, please have the applicant show what they plan to do for sewer connection / lateral.

4. The plans call out for curb work; however, no detail shown on the plans. Please have the applicant show that on the plans (this item may be more for during the plan check phase).

5. Based on the scope, at minimum, the applicant will need a WQMP, grading permit / plans, encroachment permit, and Caltrans permit.

Public Safety Department
Community Pride & Forward Vision

1. Provide a gate or security measures for the laundry/storage area located at the rear of the property.

Proposed Conditions of Approval
The following items will be required at the time of building permit plan check or the indicated time frame.

This is just a cursory list and does not include all conditions of approval that may apply to the project.

Public Safety Department

1. Security Cameras: There shall be cameras throughout the facility including the parking lot area.

2. Calls for Service: A maximum threshold of calls for service to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department regarding complaints related to the Dixie Hotel operations within a designated timeframe will be established.

Public Works – Engineering Division:

1. A new trash enclosure must be constructed and sized to accommodate at least one 3-yard trash dumpster, one 3-yard recycled material dumpster, and a 96-gallon organics collection cart, plus enough room for users to access all carts/dumpsters to comply with State Senate Bill 1383 and Assembly Bill 341.

4. A grading permit will be required for on-site work. A grading and on-site improvement plan will be required for on-site work. A grading bond will required to guarantee the work.

5. An encroachment permit will be required for off-site work, including for any sanitary sewer connections.

6. No on-site aerial utility connections will be permitted. All new and existing aerial utilities shall be undergrounded.

Date:
09/05/2023
Applicant:

Saeed Kamkar
Sent via Email
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714) 890-4228
F I (714) 890-1443
www.stantonca.gov
Subject: Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816 - Addition of 14 new units to an existing 36-unit motel, parking lot and landscaping improvements.

Dear Mr. Kamkar:

Thank you for resubmitting the Site Plan and Design Review permit application for the above-mentioned project. After initial review, staff has determined the application to be incomplete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a). Attachment "a" of this letter outlines project specific comments, questions, and revisions needed. Please provide the necessary information in the form of 5 full sized sets of plans and one digital set of plans.

Sincerely,
Patricia Garcia
Assistant Planner
Attachments: A- Project Comments
Attachment: F.4
Click here to return to the agenda.

Orange County Fire Authority – The following comments from OCFA shall be addressed on the plans prior to any public hearing. For questions on comments, please contact Art Tinoco at 714.573.6100.

1. *Plans must illustrate fire access roadways. OCFA Guideline B-09 a. *Provide dimensions for S-Turns shown on plans, lengths currently do not meet the minimum requirement of 60’.
b. *Provide dimensions for fire lane widths.
c. *Plans must show fire access roadway widths and radii. d. Plans do not meet fire lane widths, S-turn and radii requirements; provide a swept path analysis.

2. *Demonstrate compliance with OCFA requirements for structure (porte-cochere) over fire access roadway. OCFA Guideline B-09
a. *Provide compliance and indicate on plans, the edge of a fire access roadway should be located no closer than 10’ from the building.
b. Porte-cochere must be an independent structure, separated from the waiting area/reception section of the building. Fire department access cannot be along a path that exposes the fire apparatus to a potential structure fire during ingress or egress and inhibiting access to rear of site.

Community Development – Building Division
As a courtesy notice, please be aware of the following items for future building permits.

1. *Construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division for review and issuance of any future building permit(s). Construction plans shall comply with California Building Codes, as adopted and in effect at time of plan submittal. Building codes in effect, including local amendments, as of January 1, 2023: 2022 California Building Code (’22 CBC); 2022 California Plumbing Code (’22 CPC); 2022 California Mechanical Code (’22 CMC); 2022 California Electrical Code (’22 CEC); 2022 California Residential Code (‘22 CRC); 2022 California Energy Code (’22 Energy); and 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (‘22 CGBSC).

2. *Soils report and investigation will be required with each building permit application submittal.

Community Pride & Forward Vision

3. *Architect of record shall be aware to provide the required number of EV Stalls per CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2.2
a. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE.
b. Twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit.
c. Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests. d. Please show locations of accessible EVCS per CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.1.

4. *Architect of Record shall detail on the construction plans the required fire separation between each guest room (and special requirements for Group R occupancies per Section 420 of CBC)

5. *Existing restroom adjacent to the Reception Area will need to upgraded per CBC Section 11B202.4.

6. *Additional Compliance Requirements for Transient Lodging Guest Rooms per CBC Section 11B-224 a. Minimum Guest Room with Mobility Features per Table 11B-224.2 b. Minimum Guest Room with Communication Features per Table 11B-224.4 c. Mobility and Communication Units will need to be on 1st floor, otherwise elevator would need to be provided to 2nd floor.

7. *The accessible parking stalls should be spread out to serve the entire building, they’re currently lumped in the middle of the parking lot. There should be at least one accessible stall closet to the lobby area.
*The resubmittal did not address this comment. Sheet A-2 and Grading Plan Sheet G-3 show the accessible parking stalls in different locations. The Grading Plan Sheet also shows 3 accessible parking stalls whereas Sheet A-2 only shows 2. Three (3) accessible parking stalls are required for the project.

Community Development- Planning Division

1. *Architectural Design: Please indicate the architectural style of the proposed building. To provide more visual interest please incorporate, as architecturally appropriate:
a) Varied materials, colors, and exterior finishes can create visual interest. Ensure that the materials are consistent with the architectural style and that there is one main focus /point of interest. (Front façade)
b) Avoid single wall planes across the entire building. Variations in wall planes to reduce the building mass through the perceived size is reduced. i. Possible use of wood siding feature to break the wall of the new structure’s front façade.
c) Please see the attached examples of designs that incorporate color, materials, and variation in wall planes.
*No changes

2. *Beach Blvd Frontage: The Livable Beach Boulevard Plan outlines desired improvements for developments that front Beach Boulevard. To achieve high visual impact, please incorporate tree plantings, driveway pavers or other features among the proposed shrubs fronting the property. *Clearly indicate location of driveway pavers. Provide patterns and specs for staff review.

3. *Utility and Equipment Plan: Update the site plan to show all utility and/or mechanical equipment.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
All ground-mounted equipment shall be placed in the least visible location on site. Architectural screening may be required to reduce visual impacts. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by an architecturally compatible parapet wall that is of equal or greater height than the equipment. *The ground-mounted mechanical equipment located in the pool/spa area must be screened. Ensure screening is clearly noted (materials, height, etc.) and that it is compatible with the structure.

Plan Check Review Comments (Review)
Please ensure all plans are consistent (site plan, floor plans, landscape plans, grading plans).

1. Title Sheet:
a. Update the total number of units and ensure the quantity is consistent with the proposed plans.
b. Per 20.315.040, Nonresidential land use shall provide and maintain minimum landscaped areas based on impervious surface coverage standards (80% impervious, 20% minimum landscaping).

2. Site Plan:
a. *Ensure all existing and proposed site improvements are identified (walls/fencing/gates, hardscape improvements, etc.)
b. *Identify material and height of existing and proposed fencing/wall/gates. c. Rear area must be secured to prevent unwanted loitering. Security cameras shall be installed for surveillance of the area.
d. *Mechanical equipment must be properly screened.
e. *For angled parking stalls, ensure to note the degree of the angle. Please note different degree angles require different minimum dimension length/depth. i. For all 60 degree parking spaces, the minimum length is 24.2 ft (24 feet 2.4 inches). f. *Identify the surfacing material for the driveway/parking lot. g. *Identify intended use for the landscaped area north of the pool/spa. *Landscape plans indicate this area is active recreation area. Please indicate how guests will access this communal space.
h. *Loading areas shall not block vehicular traffic or parking spaces. i. *Individual bumper stops shall be located a minimum of three feet from a fence, wall, building or walkway or any right-of-way.
j. Directional arrows should be clearly marked.

3. (E) and (P) Floor Plans:
a. *Label all uses of all rooms/areas within the structure. *Sheets A-3, A-3.1, A-4 and A-4.1 have unlabeled areas (ex. area In the western side of the second floor needs to be labeled).
b. Unit 202 shows a refrigerator and kitchen range.
c. Unit 203 shows FAU. Note how the FAU will be secured.

4. Provide floor area calculations.
a. *Provide a dimensioned plan showing the existing/proposed structure. Use geometric shapes to show how the area was obtained. Provide an area tabulation (use, area/SF). *Verify the area calculations are accurate.

5. Elevations:
a. *Label all exterior materials/features.
*All materials (windows, doors, etc.) must be consistent and labeled. b. *Identify materials proposed on the trash enclosure. Ensure the proposed materials are compatible with the structure.
*Trash enclosure dimensions are not legible. Masonry enclosure should be stucco’ed and Community Pride & Forward Vision
painted to match the structure. The enclosure’s roof must also be compatible with the structure’s materials, provide an alternative solid material.

6. *Provide cross sections that include a complete view of the proposed structure and site improvements.

7. *Landscape Plan: Beach Boulevard is a major thoroughfare within the City so the landscaping facing this arterial must provide greater variety and interest. Drought tolerant shrubs of varying heights and colors should be clustered to create visual interest along Beach Blvd. Additionally please ensure plan include the following:
a. *A three-tier landscaping design (tree, shrub/vine and ground cover/turf/perennials) shall be used in all landscaped areas.
b. Indicate the quantity of each species and location within the site. c. *At least 50 percent of all landscaped areas containing trees and shrubs shall be underplanted with groundcover, with the remaining areas to incorporate a minimum twoinch layer of compost or mulch. Groundcover shall be approved by the Director. d. Turf incorporated into the landscape design shall not constitute more than 25 percent of the total landscaping area.
e. Total landscaping must be 20% of the lot area.
f. *Irrigation:
i. Indicate type of irrigation and type of control
ii. Ensure compliance with SMC 20.315.050.
* The irrigation plan shall identify all components of the irrigation system drawn on project base sheets in a clear and legible fashion and shall provide any details required by Section 20.315.050.

Public Works – Engineering Division:

1. *Applicant to provide approved Preliminary WQMP.

2. *Following the approved Preliminary WQMP, the storm drainage may or may not change, so they would need to reflect that on the plans.

3. *Based on the scope, at minimum, the applicant will need a WQMP, grading permit / plans, encroachment permit, and Caltrans permit.

Public Safety Department

1. Provide a gate or security measures for the laundry/storage area located at the rear of the property. *Not provided. Area should not be accessible to guests.

Proposed Conditions of Approval
The following items will be required at the time of building permit plan check or the indicated time frame.

This is just a cursory list and does not include all conditions of approval that may apply to the project.

Public Safety Department

1. Security Cameras: There shall be cameras throughout the facility including the parking lot area.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Public Works – Engineering Division:

4. A grading permit will be required for on-site work. A grading and on-site improvement plan will be required for on-site work. A grading bond will required to guarantee the work.

5. An encroachment permit will be required for off-site work, including for any sanitary sewer connections.

6. No on-site aerial utility connections will be permitted. All new and existing aerial utilities shall be undergrounded.

Date:

November 9, 2023
Applicant:

Saeed Kamkar
Sent via Email
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714) 890-4228
F I (714) 890-1443
www.stantonca.gov
Subject: Site Plan and Design Review No. SPDR-816 - Addition of 14 new units to an existing 36-unit motel, parking lot and landscaping improvements.

Dear Mr. Kamkar:

Thank you for resubmitting the Site Plan and Design Review permit application for the above-mentioned project. After review, staff has determined the application to be incomplete pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a). Attachment "a" of this letter outlines project specific comments, questions, and revisions needed. Please provide the necessary information in the form of S full sized sets of plans and one digital set of plans.

We look forward to working with you and want to assist you with your project. If you have any questions or need clarifications, please feel free to contact me at (714)890- 4291 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Patricia Garcia
Assistant Planner
Attachments: A- Project Comments
Attachment: F.5
Click here to return to the agenda.

Public Safety – The existing motel on the property has experienced a high volume of specific calls for service that demonstrate ongoing public safety issues on the property. Because the request to expand the hotel requires discretionary action, the existing state of the property will be considered by the decisionmaking body. The property owner must address all public safety concerns prior to consideration of the project, and demonstrate the solutions or changes implemented to prevent and/or resolve any future public safety concerns.
*** No security plan provided in the latest submittal.

The project site has a high volume of calls for service that Stanton Police Services has responded to. The calls for service range from prostitution, narcotics violations, stolen vehicles, weapon possession, probation/parole violations, burglary, robbery, gang activity, assaults, and assaults with deadly weapons, etc. Additionally, numerous arrests and citations have been made and given, around, out front, and coming from this motel. For that reason, the applicant must provide a remediation and security plan that addresses site safety concerns. *** Community Development- Planning Division

3. *Utility and Equipment Plan: Update the site plan to show all utility and/or mechanical equipment.

All ground-mounted equipment shall be placed in the least visible location on site. Architectural screening may be required to reduce visual impacts. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by an architecturally compatible parapet wall that is of equal or greater height than the equipment.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
*The ground-mounted mechanical equipment located in the pool/spa area must be screened. Ensure screening is clearly noted (materials, height, etc.) and that it is compatible with the structure. ***Latest plans indicate equipment is located within a shed. Please clearly note the materials and height of the shed. Ensure it is consistent with the structure.*** Plan Review Comments (Review)
Please ensure ALL plans are consistent (site plan, floor plans, landscape plans, grading plans). *** Not addressed***

1. *Title Sheet:
a. Update the total number of guest rooms and ensure the quantity is consistent with the proposed plans.
***Cover sheet scope of work states “Addition of new 14 units”. The proposed floor plans show 12 new guest rooms. ***
b. Per 20.315.040, Nonresidential land use shall provide and maintain minimum landscaped areas based on impervious surface coverage standards (80% impervious, 20% minimum landscaping).
***Calculations noted on cover sheet do not match the site plan. ***

2. *Site Plan:
a. *Ensure all existing and proposed site improvements are identified (walls/fencing/gates, hardscape improvements, etc.)
b. *Identify material and height of existing and proposed fencing/wall/gates. ***Provide material for Keynote 18. ***
c. Rear area must be secured to prevent unwanted loitering. Security cameras shall be installed for surveillance of the area.
*** Not addressed***
d. *Mechanical equipment must be properly screened.
***Provide “Pool Pump Shed” information (material, height). *** e. *Identify the surfacing material for the driveway/parking lot. ***Keynote 20: “Asphalt Finish”, however it is not used on the site plan. *** f. *Identify intended use for the landscaped area north of the pool/spa. *Landscape plans indicate this area is an active recreation area. Please indicate how guests will access this communal space.
*** Not addressed***
g. *Loading areas shall not block vehicular traffic or parking spaces. *** Not addressed***
h. *Individual wheel stops shall be located a minimum of three feet from a fence, wall, building or walkway or any right-of-way.
*** Not addressed***

3. *(E) and (P) Floor Plans:
a. *Label all uses of all rooms/areas within the structure. *Sheets A-3, A-3.1, A-4 and A-4.1 have unlabeled areas (ex. area In the western side of the second floor needs to be labeled).
*** Not addressed***
b. “Unit 202” shows a refrigerator and kitchen range.
*** Not addressed. Please explain why this room differs from other guest rooms. *** c. “Unit 203” shows an FAU. Note how the FAU will be secured. *** Not addressed***

4. *Elevations:

Community Pride & Forward Vision
a. *Label all exterior materials/features.
*All materials (windows, doors, etc.) must be consistent and labeled. *** Not addressed***
b. *Identify materials proposed on the trash enclosure. Ensure the proposed materials are compatible with the structure.
***Trash enclosure’s roof must also be compatible with the structure’s materials, provide an alternative solid material. ***

5. *Provide cross sections that include a complete view of the proposed structure and site improvements.
*** Not Provided***

6. *Landscape Plan: Beach Boulevard is a major thoroughfare within the City so the landscaping facing this arterial must provide greater variety and interest. Drought tolerant shrubs of varying heights and colors should be clustered to create visual interest along Beach Blvd. Additionally please ensure plan include the following:
a. Indicate the quantity of each species and location within the site. *** Not addressed***
b. *At least 50 percent of all landscaped areas containing trees and shrubs shall be underplanted with groundcover, with the remaining areas to incorporate a minimum twoinch layer of compost or mulch. Groundcover shall be approved by the Director. c. *Total landscaping must be 20% of the lot area.
***Plans do not reflect calculations provided***
d. *Irrigation:
i. Indicate type of irrigation and type of control
ii. Ensure compliance with SMC 20.315.050.
* The irrigation plan shall identify all components of the irrigation system drawn on project base sheets in a clear and legible fashion and shall provide any details required by Section 20.315.050.
*** No Irrigation Plan provided. ***

7. Lighting Plan:
a. Parking lot conceptual plan and lighting photometric does not match the proposed site plan. b. Lighting fixtures on Parking Lot Conceptual Lighting plan (sheet E200) differs from the Parking Lot Lighting Photometric plan (sheet E210) fixture locations. c. The photometric plan shows lighting inconsistencies. To deter loitering, a minimum of 2.0 foot-candles must be provided throughout the site.

8. Survey:
a. The current survey shows no easements onsite. Per the title report provided, there are easements onsite. Please ensure to include them in the survey and the site plan.

Public Works – Engineering Division:

1. The applicant must submit their WQMP and Plan Check Application Form must be submitted to the Public Works & Engineering Department. The Preliminary WQMP must be approved prior to entitlement.
a. Please ensure to submit to the Public Works & Engineering Department as payment may be required to review.

Public Safety Department

1. Provide a gate or security measures for the laundry/storage area located at the rear of the property. *Not provided. The area should not be accessible to guests.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
*** Not addressed***
Proposed Conditions of Approval
The following items will be required at the time of building permit plan check or the indicated time frame.

This is just a cursory list and does not include all conditions of approval that may apply to the project.

Orange County Fire Authority – The OCFA has reviewed the proposed project and based on the preliminary assessment the fire department requirements are listed below. Contingent upon approval of this development review application by the Planning Department/Planning Commission, the conditions listed below are applicable to this project and are to be included in the project’s resolution and approval paperwork. If you need additional information or clarification, please contact me by phone or email: (714) 573-6130, [email protected].

Conditions of Approval
Plan Submittal: The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified.

Prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required:
• Fire master plan (service code PR145)
o An AM&M will be required for access deficiencies due to the porte-cochere.

Prior to issuance of a building permit:
• Architectural (service codes PR264-PR272, abbreviated review) o For construction features at porte-cochere, noncombustible exterior finishes and 2-hr rated walls.
underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475) if new underground system is required for new building
o Addition of private hydrant to be determined at Fire Master Plan review Prior to concealing interior construction:
• Fire alarm system (service code PR500-PR520)
• Fire sprinkler system (service codes PR430-PR455), if the building is currently sprinklered and the system requires modification
o Extension of fire sprinkler system to provide protection at porte-cochere is required to mitigate potential impact on site access
Specific submittal requirements may vary from those listed above depending on actual project conditions identified or present during design development, review, construction, inspection, or occupancy. Portions of the project that are deferred shall be subject to the codes, standards, and other applicable requirements in force on the date that the deferred plan is submitted to OCFA. Standard notes, guidelines, informational bulletins, submittal instructions, and other information related to plans reviewed by the OCFA may be found by visiting ocfa.org on the Planning and Development Section homepage.

Temporary/Final Occupancy Inspections
Community Pride & Forward Vision
Prior to issuance of temporary or final certificate of occupancy, all OCFA inspections shall be completed to the satisfaction of the OCFA inspector and be in substantial compliance with codes and standards applicable to the project and commensurate with the type of occupancy (temporary or final) requested. Inspections shall be scheduled at least five days in advance by calling OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150.

Lumber-drop Inspection
After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 with the Service Request number of the approved fire master plan at least five days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection.

Community Development – Building Division
Conditions of Approval

2. *Soils report and investigation will be required with each building permit application submittal.

4. *Architect of Record shall detail on the construction plans the required fire separation between each guest room (and special requirements for Group R occupancies per Section 420 of CBC)

5. *Existing restroom adjacent to the Reception Area will need to upgraded per CBC Section 11B202.4.

Community Pride & Forward Vision
Public Safety Department

1. Security Cameras: There shall be cameras throughout the facility including the parking lot area.

Public Works – Engineering Division:

4. A grading permit will be required for on-site work. A grading and on-site improvement plan will be required for on-site work. A grading bond will required to guarantee the work.

5. An encroachment permit will be required for off-site work, including for any sanitary sewer connections.

6. No on-site aerial utility connections will be permitted. All new and existing aerial utilities shall be undergrounded.

Security Plan (Template)
Business Name:

Business Address:

Property Owner Name & Contact Info:

Business Owner Name & Contact Info:

On-Site Contact, Name & Info:

Type of Business:

Hours of OperaƟon:

Number of Employees:

Employee OperaƟons: (How many employees on-site at one Ɵme? Do they work in shiŌs? What is the shiŌ schedule? What are they responsible for?)
Security Personnel: (Will there be on site security? How many? If not, what measures are taken to monitor acƟvity or prevent detrimental acƟvity on site?) Surveillance Cameras: Yes/No Number: (How many?)
Camera LocaƟon Map AƩached (locaƟons to be approved by OC Sheriff) All recordings must be made available to OC Sheriff and/or City of Stanton Public Safety Director upon request.

Security Procedures: (List all programs and policies implemented with the intent of deterring nuisance acƟvity on site)
Incident AcƟon Plans: (What procedures are in place/will be implemented to address potenƟal incidents when they occur, i.e. disturbance on site, nuisance acƟvity, etc.?) Attachment: G
Click here to return to the agenda.
\
i
i
1I I I
i I !
I
3 ii
li
4 i
i
:I
s 11 ,1
RESOLUTION NO. 859

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY

OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN P-435 ---'--'�------
6 • THE PLANNING COMMISSION, of the City of Stanton,
7 does hereby resolve as follows:
8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does hereby find and 9 determine that an application was duly filed by:
10 11
Philip Chang -----------------------, with respect to the real property described as follows:
12 11632 Beac h Bou.leva�d
13 I and requesting a Precise Plan of Design review permitting 14 1
lapp.1t9val no� the ni�.6t on two pha.6e no� a 67 unit motel com plex 15 16
17 and further finds that a public hearing was set for:
18 __ 0_c
_to__b_e�__6....:.,_7_9_8 _2 ______ , at 7 : 3 0 p. m. , in the Stan ton ...
19 City Council Chambers, at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton; and 20 a notice of the date, time place, and purpose of aforesaid 21 hearing was duly given; that a hearing was duly held at afore22 mentioned time and olace; and 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds and
24 determines that facts exist as required in Chapter 20.02.090 25 of the STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE, justifying the adoption of 26 a Precise Plan of Design;
27 28
I -1-
Attachment: H
Click here to return to the agenda.
r
Ji
,,
'i
APPROVAL-PR: ':SE PLAN
WHEREAS, Based on the aforementioned findings,
the Commission hereby ap�roves with respect to the property described herein, the Precise Plan of Design subject to conditions! as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full and at length; and
WHEREAS, the permit hereby allowed is conditional upon
the privileges being utilized within six (6) months after the effective date thereof, and if they are not·utilized or construction work is not begun within said time, and carried on diligently in accordance with conditions imposed by the Commission, this authorization shall become VOID, and any privilege, permit or Variance granted hereby shall be deemed �9 h�ve elapsed; and
NOW THEREFORE, this action shall become final and,
effective ten (10) days after the date of the adoption of this Resolution unless during that time a written appeal is taken ·to the Stanton City Council; and
The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution, and shall transmit certified copies to the
applicant, and the Stanton City Clerk.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 6�h day of
23 1 I
O c.�o b e.11.
24 11
19 82
I,
· 1
25 26 �
TTEST:
27 , � � 1
, Frankiecarmona
28 I! Planning Secretary
i:
:/
jl
!
i
Commission
-2-
r
II
1 1
!
\
i
i
1 ,
;
I
I
2 I
i 3"
4 5
6j
71 8
9 APPROVAL-PRE(' 'E PL.AN
I, ROYE. BRUCKNER, City Planner of the City of
Stanton, County of Orange, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Stanton at a
regular meeting thereof held on the ----- 6th day of
----------- 0 c.to b e..1t 19 82 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: COt�tISSIONERS:Mount, L'Homme..die..u, Vot�dn, and Alle..n NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.. -----------------------
IO
I
! ABSENT:
11 I
I
,!
COM.MISSIONERS: ---------------------- A�pinall
,,
12 I
l
l3 I
I
14 I -- .... ~.
1s !1
ii 16 II
i'
111!
i1 18 i
i
!
i
19 1
1 1
1 20 !!
ii :1 21
22 i
23 24
25 26
27 28
-3-
City �lanner/Secretary
Planning Commission
. i
conditions of Approval: P-435 and V82-14

1. That·a11 requirements of the.Director of Community Devetopment be met.

2. That all requirements of the Planning Division be met, including, but not limited to .the following;
a" That·all applicable requirements of the, Stanton Municipal Code be met.
b. That approval of
of the requested
modifications to
must make proper
Stanton.
. r . this application is for the use and operation
use only, and any future proposed uses or
be incorporated with, or on the sac71e property·
independent application through the City of
c. The permit hereby allowed is conditional upon the privileges granted herein being utilized withiri. 180 days after the effective date hereof, and should the privileges.authorized hereby fail to be executed or utilized or where some form of construction has not actually commenced within such 180' days and is not diligently prosecuted to completion, this a,utho:r:ity shall become null and void.
• d. •· -If-'-delay has been due to reasons beyond control, a rea.sonable extension may be granted by the Planning Commission. Th� request for the extension must be filed with the secretary to the Planning Corrm1ission prior to the 180th day.
e. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions as attached to this permit pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code shall constitute grounds for revocation, f. That the recorded owner(s) and the leasee(s) return to the Planning Division written ev:i.dence of agreement to a.11.

Conditions of Approval, prior to this permit becoming
effective
g. . Prior to any work being corri,-aenced within the public rightof�way, approval by the Public Facilities Division shall be obtained and a public works permit secured from the Engineering Division.
h. The following signage shall not be permitted, paper, cloth, wallboard, flashing, pulsating, bulls-eye, spotlight, beacons, spinning, animated, blinking, a-frame, portable, freestanding, or temporary banner signs.
i. Banner signs may be used only in conjunction with an approved "Special Events Permit", and must be for an amount of time not to exceed .7-:- days (unless otherwise stipulated}, and of a flame retardant fabric.

A-1
P-435 and V82-14
j. That trash enclosures be provided as per Stanton Municipal Code ..
k. That landscaping and irrigation plans be su_bmitted for approval prior to installation.

1. That a minimum· three foot wide la.ndscaped strip and 6 ft. high block wall be constructed along the east property ]_ine, and a portion of the north property line, behind the
proposed Phase 2 buj_lding.
m. That parking spaces parallel to the norJ+h. property lines should be at least 11 ft. wide to facilitate-turning movements into and out of said spaces.
n. The west stairway should be relocated westerly to the corner of the L-shape of the building to comply with exiting
requirements.

3. 'I'hat all conditions of • the City Engineer be met, including but not limited to the following:
a. That the applicant submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered•civil engineer- >_for off-site improvements. b. That a bond or surety device be posted with the City in a.n amount sufficient to cover the amount of work to be done r as determined by the City Engineer. '
c. That the applicant annex to the local sanitation district. d. That the applicant submit a preliminary title report. e. That the applicant construct curb and gutters.
f. That the applicant construct sidewalks ±9 ft., wide. g., Construct driveway approaches as determined by the City Engineer .. ·-· .
h. All asphalt and driveway areas be resurfaced according to City standards.
i. That high pressure sodiu,--n street lights be installed on marbelite standards.
j. That the applicant submit a grading plan per City Engineer's request.
k.

1. Provide on-site drainage study and necessary facility.

That all State permits be secured prior to construction improvements when encroaching on State highways.
of
m. That all parking lot and street lighting to consist of high pressure sodium vapor.

A-2
r-
, Conditions of Approval (Cont'd): P-435 and V82-14
n. That the legal owners shall record a covena.nt and
agreement to hold three parcels as one.
o. All conflicting road and utility easements ·shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Direcl:or of Community Development ·prior to issuance of building permits.

4. That all requirements of the Building Divis
_
ion be met,· including,
but not limited to the following; ..
a. Units built on property line will be requ:Lred to be o)'. fire resistive construction as per the Uniform Building Code, Ch. 5.
b. Handicap facilities to be provided as per UBC and CH 1213. (One handicap room per each phase).
c� Second fl0or exiting tc conform to the UBC C:H,. 33,,

5. That all requirements of the Fire Department be met, including, but not limited to the following;
a. Fire flow shall be 3,500 gallons per minute a.t 20 p.s.i. residual pressure (U.F.C. 10-301 and S.M,C. - 17,201.
b. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed and mainti;j.ined as per Uniform Fire Code, Article 10.
c. Place address numbers on front of building. N1.J.Il'bers are to be at least six (6) inches in height, contrast with the background, and be visible from the street (.U.F.C. 10.208). d. Final inspection. required prior to occupancy.
e. One on-site fire hydrant shall be required. Hydrant to be placed at Fire Department approved location (U.F.C. 10.301). f. New fire hydrant shall be a Rich 960 or equivalent
(U.F.C. 10.301).
g. Plans of fire hydrant and water main shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
h. Approved ·smoke detectors shall be installed in accordance with Section 1210, Uniform Building Code.

6. That all requirements of the Police Depart�ent be met, including, but not limited to the following:
a. That all exterior lighting shall have non-breakable, tamper proof lens ·covers.
b. Am emergency card shall be filed, listing names, addresses, and telephone numbers o:!'. responsible persons to notify in case of an emergency.

A-3
it
CASE NO:

Al?PLICANT:

LOCATlON:

REQUEST:
:.,_f}'-.
•
.CITY OF STANTON

PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STUDY Mi>TERIAL
October 61 1982·
L 1, •Wm �WdQua,.1;,.:!'JIOlbS
J?reoise Plan of Design J?-435 and .variance V82-14
Philip Chang,. property owner
Edmund Cheng, Engineer
11632 B_eaoh Boulevard
r1m
To approve the·constrµction of the
.elopment, c.onsisting of 37 rooms.
froin, the. parking requirements.
f.irst·phase of a motel devAlso requested is a variance tU Iii IIUII I r. mt .. 1£ Wt? •• iWM.liUi11 - l 'lil81illtl 7 tr ilMl r I Mi ' Si. .... f " lParllfl?�-•r: won, .. • LAND USE AND ZONING: .
_SITE:

NORTH:

SOUTH:

EAST:

WEST:

Zoned c-1 and developed with an old structure used as
a restaurant.

Zoned C-1 and.developed with a nursery and a non-conforming single family home.

Zoned C-1 and developed with a motel. ...

Zoned E-1 and deveJ.oped according·ly.

Zoned R71 and developed accordingly,
ENVIRONM;e;J)TTAL DETERMINATION:

Pursuant ·to the Guidelines of the California Environmentai Quality Act of 1970, 'as amended:
____ this project is categorically exempt, CLASS __ _
----""x.,x,..� Neg.ative "Declaration has been prepared ____ a draft EIR has been prepared
for Planning Commission certification.

Attachment: I
Click here to return to the agenda.
•·
FACTS:

October 6, 198;
l. The ptoject • site currently consists of. three
parcels, The front parcel on Beach Boulevard is
occupieq by the.Pantry House Restaurant, while the
rear parcel is vacant. The third parcel is a
24 ft. wide strip along the north boundary of
the developed parcel, which is used as road
access to the vacant parcel,

2. The proposed motel developement will consist
of two phases. This application is for phase
1, which will consist of 37 rooms. Phase 2 will
include an additional 30 rooms.

Phase l will consist of the following:
a. �:he existing restaurant would be removed,
b. An "L" shaped two story structure consisting of'
37 rooms would be constructed along the
southerly property line.
c, The entire lot would be paved for parking.
d. A pool and jacuzzi, as well as landscaping
primarily in the front.
e. Phase 2, the conatruction of 'which is uHknown
at this time, would add another building
con�isting of 30 rooms along the north
property line.
f, The architectural design will be Spanish
style, utilizing a·tiled mansard roof and
stucco walls with wood trim.
3, The smallest of. the three lots comprising the
subject site is evidently a road easement whose
use is also entitled by the property owner on the
east in the E-1 zone.

4. The smallest of the lots also contains a.n open
drainage swale
. 5. Combining all three lots, a development site
measuring approximately 158 ft. wide x 300 ft.
deeps, is accomplished,

6. A variance is requested for parking. Current
requirements call for l½ parking spaces per 150 sq.
ft. of sleeping area. The appJ.icant would
provide one parking space per room.
- 2 -
ANALYSIS:

1. Of primc1ry concern is the roc1d ei,.sement to
which the p;,:,operty owner to the east has legal
access rights. Said property owner is located
in Hynes Estates, whose property currently fronts
on Court Lane, a private road. A fence currently
separates the subject site from that property.

Thus the road easement is not currently used by
said property owner ... The applicant has three
options in dealing with the issue:
;,, Purchase the r;i.ght of ac'cess from the
property owner.
b. Design the project around the easement.
c. 'Relocate the easement to coincide with
the proposed parking and access layout,
In any event, this issue must be re,;mlved
prior to issuance of any permits.

2. Due to the proposed construction across lot
lines, a covenant to hold. three parcels as one,
must be filed and recorded.

3. In, order to provide better separation with the
adjacent land uses, a six foot high block wall
should be constructed along ·the east. property
line, and portion of the north property line
in the rear of the site.
4, Regarding the parking requirements, the Zoning
Code was recently revised to combine several
categories of parking standards, Said combining·
resulted in requirements for motels which are unreasonable. The existing requirement calls for 1½ spaces per 150 sq. ft. of sleeping area. • Since
a standara motel room is 300 sq. :Et., three
parking spaces per room would be required, A more
reasonable standard would be one· space per room,
whidh is what the applicant is proposing. Staff
feels that the Zoning code should be amended and
the variance approved.
- 3 -
BURDEN OF PROOF: V82-1-4
Prior to the granting of a Variance, the Planning Commission must make ce,rtain findings of faot. The applicants Burden of Proof is as follows:

1.. THA'r THERE ARE EXCEP'l�IONAL OR EX'rRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR

CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED

USE OF SUCH PROPERTY, WHICH DO NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE.SAME ZONE:

No:t a.pp.e.lc.a.b.e.e.

2. THAT SUCH VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE .PRESERVA'.l''.J:ON AND J�N,JOYMEN'r OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPErerY RIGHT POSSESSED BY 0'.I'HER PROPERTY SIMILARLY SITUATED, BUT WHICH IS DENIED TO THE PROPER'.I'Y IN QUESTION:

3. No:t appllc.ab.te.

THAT 'l'HE GRANTING OF '.I'HE VARIANCE

DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE
. ·PROPERTY:

Not a.ppl.lc.a.ble.

WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY
OR INJURIOUS TO THE ADJACENT •
'

4. THAT TH.E GRANTING OF '.I'HE VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSE'f,Y' AFFEC'r THE STANTON COMl?REHENSIVE PLAN:

Th e. !Ce.Mon
.
a.ble. pa,1tk.,i,n.g 1Ce.q-u.,i.1Ce.me.n,t<1 wz.e..t e.n.c.oMa.ge. c.0Mt1tu.c.tion wh,i.c.h wlU be.n.e.6.lt .the. Clty e.c.onom,i.ea..U.y a.n.d ,;oc.la.,Uy •.

Staffs analysis of the Burden of Proof is as•follows:

1.. The. 1t,e.c.e.n.t.ty JLe.v.l<le.d <1-ta.n.d.a.1,d i..1, un.JLe.Mon.a.ble. a.n. d _,;h.au..td be c,ha.n.ge.d,

2. The. e.x,i,<1.:t,lng .o:ta.1>da.1Ld.6 would 1te.qu.l.1Le. 1,0 ·.mu.c.h pa.1r,lt.ln.g· ,that de.ve.lopme.n.-t 6e.M.lb.l.Uty .wau..td be. quu:t.lon.a.ble.,

3. The. vct1tia.nc.e. wou..f.d n.at: a.dve.Jt& e.Jly a.6 6 ec.:t a.dj a.c.e.nt piLo pe.1t:ty. 4, Th,e. S:ta.n.tan. ·�e.n.e.//,a.l Plan wLtf.. n.o,t be a.dve.M e.ly a.6 6e.c.:te.d. - .4 -
CONCLUSION: The proposed motel would be a substantial improvement of the area and should be approved subject to conditions.

Recommended Action:

Pending testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning · Commission should,
1, Certify the Negative Declaration;

2. Make the required findings i and

3. Approve Preci·se Plan of Design P-435 and Variance
VB2-14, subject to the attached conditions.

Respectfull submitted,
�
Roy . Bruckner, Director
Co unity Development
REB:fc
Attachments
- 5 -
i
condMoions of .Approval: P-435 and V82-.l4
·l. That·· all requirements of the· Director of Community • DeVEll.opment be met.

2. That all rEeq'!1ire1ttents of .the J?lanrtirig Division be met, including, .but· not limited to .the following:
a. That ··al;t applicable �equireme.nts ·•o·f • the Stanton Municipal C.ode be met,
b. That approval of ·chis appli'cation is for the use a,:1d' operation of the requested use only, and any future ·proposed uses or modifications to be incorporated with, or on the same property· must make proper independent application through the City of Stan:ton ..
c. The permit hereby allowed is conditional upon the privileges granted herein being utilized withi.!1 180 days a:f:ter the effective date hereof, and should the prlvileges.authorized hereby fail to be executed or utilized or where some form of construction has not actually commenced within such 180 days and is not diligently prosecuted to completion, this.a,uthority shall become null and void.
d. •• •lf'·'.delay has been due to reasons beyond control, a reasonable .extens·ion may be granted by the Plannin\;l Comm:i.ssion. • Th;. request for the extension ·m,1st be filed with the secretary to the Planning Commission pd.or to the 1·80th day.
e. Fail�re to abide by and faithfully comply with ariy and all conditicms as attached to ··this permit pursuant to provisions . ·of the Municipal Cede shall' constitute grounds for revocation. f. That the. recorded owner(s) and the leasee(s) return to the g.
h,
i.
• .Planning Division wr.itten evidence of· agreement to all.· Conditions .of Approval, prior to this permit becoming
effective.

Prior to any work being.commenced within the public ri9htof-way, approval by the Public Facilities Di.vision shall be obtained and a public works permit secured from the Engineering Divis:i.on.

The following signage shall not be permitted: paper, cloth, wallboard,. flashing, ·pulsating, bulls-<.,ye, spotlight, beacons, spinning, animated, blinking, a-frame., portable, freestanding, br temporary banner signs.

Banner signs may be used only in conjunction with an aP,proved "Special Events Permit", and must be for an amount of time . not to exceed .7'r days (unless other.wise stipulated), and of a flame retardant fabric.

A-1
PW ,i, ¢ .01 i""'M 4( "'
Conditions of Approval (Cont·'d).: P-435 and V82-14
j. That trash enclosures be provided as per Stanton Municipal Code,
k. That landscaping and irrigation.plans be submitted for approval prior to installation.

1. That a minimum three foot wide landscaped strip and 6 ft, high block W?[ll be cop.structed along the east property line, and a portion of the north property line, behind the
proposed Pha.se 2 building.
m. That parking spaces parallel to the m:n1th property lines should be at least 11 ft. wide to facilitate turning movements into and out of said spaces.
n. �:he west stairway should ):le relocated westerly to the corner of the £-shape of the building to comply with exiting
requirements.

3. That all conditions of the City Engineer be met, including but not limited to the following:
a. That the applicant submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer• for off-site improvements.
. .
b. T)lat a bond or surety device be posted with the City in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of work to be done, as c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
determined by the City Engineer. ,
That the applicant annex to the local sanitation dist:dct.

That the applicant submit a preliminary title report,
That the applicant construct curb and gutters.

That the applicant construct sidewalks ±9 ft., wide.

Construct driveway approaches as determined by the City Engineer. h. All asphalt and driveway areas be resurfaced according to City standards.
i.. That high pressure sodium street lights be installed on marbelite standards,
j. That the applicant submit a grading plan per City Engineer's request.
k,

1. m.

Provide on-site drainage- study and necessary facility.

That all State permits be secured prior to construction of improvements when encroaching on State highways.

That all ·parking lot and street lighting to consist of high pressure sodium vapor.

A-2
I
i
•
Conditions of Approval (.Cont'd): l?-435 and V82-14
n. That the legal owners shall record a covenant and
agreement to hold three parcels as one,
o. All conflicting road and u_tility easements 'shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
4, That all requirements of the Building ·Division be met, inc.luding, but not limited to th.e following:
a. Units built on property line will be required to be of fire resistive construction as ·per the Uniform Building Code, Ch. 5,
b. Handicap facilities to be provided as per UBC and CH 1213. (One handicap room per each phase).
c. Second floor exiting to. conform to the UBC Cit. 33.

5. That all requirements of the .Fire Department be met, including, but not limite
_
d to the following:
a. Fire flow shall be 3 7 500 gallons per minute at 20 p,s,i, residual pressure (.U.F.C. 10-301 and s.M.C. - 17,20).,
b, Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed and maintained as per Uniform Fire Code, Article J.O. ..,
c. Place address numbers on front of buiJ.ding, Numbers are to be at least six (.6) inches in height, contrast with the background, and be visible from the street (.U.F,C. 10.208). d. Final inspection required prior to occupancy.
e. One on-site fire hydrant shall be required. Hydrant to be placed at Fire Department approved location (.U.F.C. 10.301). f, New fire hydrant shall be a Rich 960 or equivalent·
(U.F.C. 10.301),
g. Plans of fire hydrant and water main shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval.
h. Approved.smoke detectors shall be installed in accordance with Section 1210, Uniform Building Code,

6. '£hat all requirements of the Police Depar.tment be met, including, but not limited to the following:
a. That all exterior lighting shall have non-breakable, tamper proof J.en;s covers,
b. run emergency card shall be filed, listing names, addresses, and telephone numbers of responsible persons to notify in case of an emergency.

A-3
M
PRECISE PLAN or UES!GN APPLICATION
FEE:
l, APPLICANT:

NAME: Philip Chang
ADDRESS: 11231 Bea.oh Blvd., Stanton, CA 90680
PHONE: (714) 897-9043
STATUS (Owner of Land, Agent, purchaser, etc.) owner �=�----

2. PROPERTY OWNER:

NAME: Philip .Chang PHONE: (714) 897-9043
ADDRESS: 11231 Beach Blvd., Stanton, CA 90680

3. PRO.PERT¥:

4. 5.

ADDRESS: __ l�l�·6�3�2�B'-'e"'a�c�h�B-=l�v-=d"-,�'---=S-=t-=a,,n-=tocon"-'-1 _C=l\�9c.;Oc.;6;;8c,Oc.._ ______ _ PROPOSED LAND USE:
'1:0 con'struct a
pHAS!; lI
REQUEST:
,Approval
1//3.S
. . •,:
of the
new motel,
,,;! 0. $.
precise plan
P!Hl S<:, 1. HA :S ,n 'f(ooM3
EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY: Restaurant -'-----===---------------- CHANGES TO BU MADE TO PROP1JRTY:_llffeW sidewalk, n,ew lanM.CJ.aping new motel buildin .

6. • SPECIAL INFORMATION:

The current parki!lg requirements of the Citie,s of Bt1ena Park, and Garden Grove are submitted toge;atl1er with this application,. for _your reference,
re·quested by und mail to:
.. CITY OF STANTON
i:u.r
<'tme
'
7800 Ka tell a Avenue
(Address)
Stanton, CA 90680
83-138600 IUCOROEO IN OFFICl:\L HECOf!OS
Of i)RA)l(jf cou�m. CAl\FCl!mlA
APR 1 '83
lH A. UfiANCH, Count Hacorder
li•rea reco1'd per· Cali.fornla SPACE ABOVI!l: THIS LINE .FOR RECO'Rl1ER' S USl GOv&IID'l;'.nt a fJC n 61.03.
o:Nml\N'l'AND7\t'�<ElilM&'£ 'lt! FIO!'.JT'l:>ROPEH'l'Y 1\8 0�18 PMClill, _
'f'ha ttedHrsigm:!d hereby cercl:ify that !/we .are the owner (s' ) ·o.f the h\Sreim,fter le�rally el.escribed
fe.al ffe.Oi?erty lOCi:ited" •in -l;h:e ·city of Stanton;- County of- Orange, State of __ C!ali'fo:i:nia:
as recorded in P.ook __ .,,,___
.
,page 4!5 'Records of Orange County, and, for the
p1.u:pose of o�wAL<s.0c.cr6!"'··�t:�.il--'n"',1'""'"'
·-Rd/57·,r:0:s. 77✓/ee"I" Lc>rs n,,_,.cJ"",s/,"'-'5"------ {state PLu:'f?OSe} as regulated by Section 504 oJ; the Unifoun BuilitLng code we do hereby covenant: and agree with said City th,;"tt the above _ �
legally c1escr.i.bed land shall � held as one parcel ru1d no shall be sold separately.

This covenant and ac;reerrent shall ron with the land r.md s-hall be bincli..ng upon ourseifs, anrl fi.1ture owners, encmrbrancers, • thelr successors, heirs, assign�s and shall continue in effect until such timB that the Stanton Mw.1icipal C0!'.:.1e unconditiorial.lV par.mi:ts t11e use or pt.tc:J?Ose her'eii:i
Cornnuni
above refen:e(l to or tmless othe:ct-1ise 1.-eleased by aut.hm:it.y of the nirecto:r:· nf ty DZveloprrent of the City cf Stanton.

Dated.: :zb :rfl.
day of __ @
� �tl-�: _____ 19 g,._
----11=21;,=,,Q; �1. e,::..:::l:e:;:- ;i:>-� ______ csigo) ___ _,f_· __ r __ � _______________ (Sign)
Approved £or llecorill.ng, By
Iiire
,}§�;f:-t(/fJ/uL�=:;::=:JPate' .:."s' -2., s---8·.:s
6-"'ffi • • uiun.1ty Develo . prrf' ..nt:
• City o. Stanton r California
(INDIVIDQI\L)
STJ\'.lll Oc' Cl\LJJl'ORND\)
COU,i'l� 01? OHJINGE .) ss'
CN ...... (.f /26/ i'?<f'z, , before ne, the
t.tn&:rsign@( &Notary 1?'5filTc in and for ,;:;aiQ.
county and State, personally appeared
Pllf?- / p 1/, L>(fl �k/: I ;
kni:1'.-m. to ms, to be the person whose n.arre _
subscrilief to the within !nstr�t and aclmoledged that /,:, .executed the--s,ure-�.=---�-------
(0011PORll1'ION)
S1.'A'l'E
COOO!X OS' OR/
OH' CJ\J,Il!OHNIJ-\)
INC�: ) ss.

ON . ·�-�� --� ·��-·r before 1re, tlw \lfldersigned a Notary· l')ublic in and for saicl County and State, personally appeaxed
known to n-e to be ·the President.,
and ----......:

Jmc,,m to n-., ta be Secretary of
• the: Corporation th-'1
"'
!:_e_xe_cu
-.t-e�d�th�e--'with;ln ll'l.$ttu
rrent, k11o;vn to ire ta be the persona who exeente
the within :rnst.rurrent: on behalf of the CO,;porat:i.on thereh1. narred, and acknowledged to ne that SUC!h Corpora·:;:l.on execi.rted the with.in trist:r.urrent pursuant to its by-laws o:i; a resolution of its
board of c)irecto:i:s �
W!'!'NESS roy hand and official seaL
(Sign)
(Notary Sec,1)
" 83-138600
DESClUP'l'!ON
--- ---------•· ----�- ..
,. ,.,.,,,- .,,--, "
The Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Lot 12 in Section 25, in the Ci'ty of Stanton, County of Orange, State of C1,1ll.fornia, as shown on the map showing Resurvey of J, w. Bixby & Co's subdivision of part of th Rancho Los Alamitos filed in book 2 pag• 43 of Record of Surveys in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, Callifornia. (!:'or purpose of this description the North and West linee of said Lot 12 are construed to be the center line bf streets adjoining.)
·" EXCEPTING therefrom the S�rntherly 172.65 feet thereof.

ALSO except the Easter_ly 12'0.00 feet and the Northerly :a4.00 feet thereof. l'.I\RC!U, 2:
•. The Easterly 120 feet of the NorthweE!t gua.rt1'.'Jr of the Southwest quarter of tot 12 in Section 25, as shown on the Map showing .Resurvey of J ,\'/, Bixby and Company's Subdivii,ion of a-part of th,? Rancho tos Alamitos filed in boo[1 2 page 43 of Record. of Surveys in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, (Fot purpose of this description; the North and West lines of said Lot 12 are. construed to be the center line of , streets adjoining.

EXCEPT therefrom tbe Southerly 172.6!i feet thei:eof,
l?ARCE.I, 3:
'
The Northerly 24 feet of the Northwest qua.tter of the Southwest quarter of' tot 12 in Section 25, as shown on the Map showing :Resurvey of�.1 ,lll_xby , • and Company's Subdivision of 1,1 pz,rt of the Rancho Los Alamit � filed-rt;--� b.ook 2 page 43 of. Record of Surveys in the office of: the t,;;;,.1,1 ty Recorder of Orange County, California. (Por purpose of this Description, the North and Nest line,1 of said Lot 12 are construed to be the. t:enter lines o'f streets 11cljoining.)
B%Cr11?'.l: the l�asterly 120.00 feet thereo£.
for. J0hn MoKay
1432 Old River Rd.

Fullerton, Ci\
William Farrell
Mr. Bruoknei:

Mr. !'.lruckner
Ms. Judy Vaughtl
142l Sce.:i:-'borOugh Ln,
Anaheim, CA
PUBLIC HEARIN<}
G)
NO. 0
· V82-14
Mr. Brucknar
In ..iducad himself as the father of . .ie applicant. an /stated that he was distressed with the staff report's findings at the food operation would be s:econdar.y, :rnaiaated that th e we·re several apa:i:tment houses a:t:'ound the proposed location w • ch they Wanted t() attraot as cnlstome1:s.

Introduced him.self as the other a)?P.licar�t
did not owe his ex:landlady any money n.n
coromenta she had made.
!nformed the Commission that the Ii' ice Department had inclioated to St�ff that they were agains� a granting of the applicants reques.t and .do .hav.e a comnmni.ca· -ion on file. TQat_i;{>,Q_I; had not beeri included in the staff xe :rt. The Police Department has found that the pool. tables n combination with a beel:' ba:r:. poae all lcinds of enfor�ement p oblems to the depm::tment�
There being no one; als to spl:lak either in favor or in oppos:i.tlon, the heax-ing, was close
Again J:esponded to uestioning fi:om the- Commission that the applicants ha.di _iiad to Al3C for a bee:r: and wine bar and Mt a ,:ee:taurant ·se ing beer al'i:d wine. Stat.ad that he agrGed wlth the Police De rtment thi:i.t the operation would be -a beer and w!.nll bar serving ood.

Apologize to the Commission for coming :forward after the hoadng hid been olosec\, but ind:tcated she could no longer keep gulGt.

Stated hclt she had leased Mr. Farrel1 1s old place of busJ.ness.

Saii:l ie Was upset because MJ.dw:ay City (lenied her a danr;e Hoenao beaa. e of the bad nam� that he bad left in that City.. Ind.l.01.1.ted th ahe had in the past held liceri:saa in various. citie:s,""and th-iu the first tlme Flhe was denied one not because of her lmt l;ieca'l.tao the repUta.t-i-on of Mr. Fa:i:-rell.

It _was moved by Mr, Dotson, se_conded by Mr� L
1Hom,-nedie.u and
unan:imo\laly a,grt$ed to DENY Conditional Use Permit CB.2-23 and Variance V82-13.

The applicant was advised of the ten day appeal period. hfter a sbo,:t :recess th�. meeting ra�rnmed�
SUBMITTED BY PHILlliE. ·CHANG: Requested la approval of plans for the f.irst of two phases fox a 67 unit motel oompl@x; prqpoaed to be lc,oated at ll.632 Beach Boulevard in the C-l zone and a va:t::tance from the parkirt9' ,:equire.me.nts for motels.
"Pu:rsuarit to the Guidelines of the California C:nvironmentaJ.

Quality- Act of 1970, aa amended, a Negative Declaration has been prepared.

Read a letter for the record frorn an adjoining property owner r "Stanton Planning Commi.ss-iOn
De-ar Si'rs:

We will not be able .to attetld Che hearing for Design P-435 and Variance V82-14.

We are in oppositi�n to thls plan because the bu:l.lding will be built dght ,o1,long our. property line. �
Should this plan paS$ 1 we would like to propose that �- windows are put along the north 4 side of the building and that the highest posfl.tble block wall bs 1.natal'led along tbe north end ot tli� property line, Thank you. for your oonsideration." . Signedi
George J. Nakahara
Sachiko Nakahara
P.C. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING l?AGB 3
Mr. Bruckner
Mr.· Edll\und Cheng
710 So. Garfield
'Al;hanibra, CA
Elton,Landgxen
8161 La Mohte Rd.

Anaheim, CA
Mr. llruCkner
!ndioated· that, in addition to-t11e·lotUrrhe ·:,;ead, hiid contact with the p.rope:rty owner ·to th,e east of the pr.oposad project. in »y.nas Estates who holds a 25 ft. easement· and :Ls quite conoerned about rc-rso1ving· tlla_t matter. ••
A brief discmssion ensued in. which it wa·/$" brought out that i:C the ap];)l�ciant only b\1,!lt: tbe first phase a varianoa would not b�. require�. as· thera w-cmld be sufficient· parking.

THE HEAR.ING WAS OPENED·
.
!Introduced himself as a. Civil Enginee; repr�senting the applitan:t ..

Sta�ed that h.e Wa$ ve%'Y·oonoerned about the eft�erpMt problems as tha.y were .set '.down ih -tbe sta£f :cepo-:i:t. s2tid_ th�t. iuafbe he had bean -in error b.y �dvlsing his oliant to p:rc:ioaeet. with- two phases. ;ct w9uld be·. simpler to •just build the- fir.at phase and .forget aboQt tha second·one µnt.il such tin1e as they oan rssol-ve all· _
the
eas_ement· proble!U$. Thety h.h.va spoken to f'ir. Ma.tson, the ·proper.ty ownf.U:' .t9 �e EHi.St. _of the si.1bjeot site, 8.nd had. a very f_r;i;,endJ.y tna�t:!,.ng�
_
llb:t. no.thin,g· his been x:esolved r8lative -to th� easement.

A iengthy disow,i'�:i.On !lnsueg, :tn which all thft altel:"pat.ives were. dieo\lsseU at sOma lengtp relativ:e to t.1,� eMement P:t:oblaimh Mr. Ch'3ng _was• not �esponaive to t:he • suggesticiil of . ·el.iminating •• tha second Phase from the m?l?iication. He .Sugg(;fs:(.ed -that tpe Coromisaion aClt .ori ,the �lioation as subm�tte:d to· enable the a!)plit:ant -the oppox-tUl,'l.ity to trr to resol.1re the, easement I).roPlem; •. '.l[e {las adv:i.a.ed-by the. Commission to work. closely w:i:tl:l staff .,Since a'dd:itiotial.. c�:mclitions W'ou;td have to be anded if the second, phase irr not oons't't'uot�d.
• :tnq';'�duceCChifflsGlf as the Presidt;,_nt of: Jiynas Estates aud indicated· thl:!,t he ·was not neces.S�ri11 against the J?rl:1jeot, but was there to 90 on recor(] bMauae t:hey have easements iha.l: • ru'n ·-co the Pack .of the
_property where the ma..i.,:i. water lines of Hynaa 'Esta1:es are • 1oqe.te4,- The· 'e.asem8.nt __ oh the north ;s wherli' the dx:ainaga from .

Hynea.

Estat�s goea !µto Beach Boulevard.
rrlfoxmed Mr, Landgren that 'bef�re an�rtlti,t,g b _huilt within any-. aa_aruuant., the api,l.ioarit_. WO)lld have to Check wi� the person or utility company that owna the' �ase1n.emt as to wha;t �an or oannot be built on th:at easemert.t,. The appl.:Laant:. would have to provide. a .drainage fi;iciLity to .replace. t;.hB ·ones that is. now in existence .• �Aere being no one else· to speak either :.i.n favor or in OJ;>JiiOsition. ;
thk hearing was iilosed.-
It was moved by �r. Mount, seconded by Mr. L1Ho�m0dleu and unanimousiy· agreed to cr:q:tify the. Negative Decla.ration,. ;rt Was move(:fby ·.t1r� Moullt, seconded by- Mr. 1;·1nOnunedieu and unanimoi:ie'ly agraed t:o a};lp:rove 'Preo.tas I'lati of Design P-435 and Varianoe V82-l4, Subject to the.conditions of approval as contained in tho staff repo�t.

CONtlTTrONS OF Al'PROVAL, p.435 and V82-14
1, Thai: .a Mqtlb,"111e/Vtl, of, ,the V,(M»:<Jll of, Communlty Vevaopmen,t' be, m,;t;.

2. Tha:t oU MquiMm�,n;t,s of, .the, Plal1JU!i.g Vlv.u,loo be me,t, lnolmlb!/3, bu.t not wnJ;t�ct ta ;th,. 60Uoltll1tg,
,a,
b.

Thai: a,U ClppUeab,l,e tt.equAAemewi:t, o o :the Stanton Mun,i,r,,lp«l Code be me;t.

TW app1t.0va.l: of, .tlw, appUca.tion .l!, t,Oll the w,e and opeM,:tlon of, :th pllopo.ed itoe only, a,id any llu;twie, p!Wpo1,ed w,u oil ,mocll6,/,ca:twM ,to be lno,Mpoiuu:ed wUh, all on ,tfie Aame pMpelli:y mu&i: .maf,e p1wpell ,;ndep<!ndeni: app,Uea:tlon ,th/cough :tlir. • .cuy•·,si; ,s,ta,,i,ton.
• . . . •
c. r/ie u.tLUzed with.tn
peJWtlt ,he,i,eby .a.owed ,4 eon.dJ;tlona.l upon :the piuv,Uegu g1ia,1ted heJu;ln, be-<>tg 180 MY• "nti!ll the ef,f,ec;tlw. c{a;(;e heJLM6, and Mwuld :the J'l'UV· .Ue,gu .a,,cthctt.lzed lw,e.by f,a,U to be ex••�•d ,O". ut'lUwl, 01, wheJL� Mme f,q11n! of, ccM:/:Jtuctlon h,u, not aot«a.fly oommence.d ,u,th.ln wcli 180 dayt, and ,v,;. w,,t dUlgen:tty pilo• icu.ted .tn coniputld1t, th-LI, <Urtha1Llty •holl become. NULL a>\d VOW.

P.C. MlNUTl;S REGULAR MEl:T!Ni, OCTOBER 6, 7982 PAGE 4
CONOtT!O/IS OF APPROVAL I.Cont'd\1 !'•435 «n,d V82-14
d. 16 delay h<!<I _been due to 1tea.0M be.qunci°
oonmot; a 1<eatonable ex.tet¼-lo• 06 ti.me
may be g1tan:ted by tile Ptannh,g ·comm-1,;�,lan.- The. I,eqaeo:t 601t :the ex.ten,i./.on o, ti.me .. ma.:t be 6Ued w.lth .the -1,eue:au,y :to the P.fann.<.n9 Com/!.u,J.on ptuolt _;to the .

I _&0.th dccy. . • . . •
e. faUulte .t11 ab./4e by ctrtd 6..Uh/u.Uy comply wltlt a.y «nd a.U. oond-i,tlon. i:i/4 • • attached. to .thw pe/011.lt pW'6uant ,to p!Wv./-1,.loM o 6 .the Mun.lc.lp<ti Code <1haU eon• UUu:te MJl@dl, 601t 1cevoeat,lon,
6, Thtft .tit,. 1teao1tdeiL�wl'""·l�r aµd.
the-tM,eef;J .1,etwm .t,, the P.l'ann-lnn ,v.1.v.u�iii
• WJWtten ev./.denee o 6 ag1teement ,to aU Cond./.t.loM 06 App!l,ova£., pl!,b:,1t :to ,thU • • . p!Jl!ll-{:t be.iiom./;ng'·e.6jmtl�e'. • • •. !,
_,,,.:,_{.
• e .,::,- '.;:- ·, • •• • • '' • • ·'0 • .
. . . . - • . . �- . ·,,.;.',k ,.,.,; .

B, Plt.lo1, :to . o.ny Wold! b«"[J •�mnienae.d W-1.th.ln :the .. p«_btte lt.lght·of""-Y, o.pp!!.ov.f. by • ,the Pubti.a Fo.<¼Utteo V/4vM.f.an• �fu:t.U, be tip:ta.lne:d. o.nd a 1'abUa Wo1tko Pvwil.t . .. �e!!Wled 61Wm �he. E�1'.nee1t.b19· ,Vlv_M.lo�!
T , 1_�; t�· ,,� ... �-·
h, Thi 60.U;,.;,_"B· •-1.B�age •• hate. noi be ;�ed• pape/f., atoth, waUboa11.d, 6i'Mh�, pu.(4a:t.l•g, ba-Ul,-eye, 4poftlght, beacon-I, 4!'-[•n-lng, an.lmated, /lll>tk.lng, o.-61wnie.,, poidtJ.ble, 01teM:tMillng,. 011- _.te,11pa1<o.1ty bG1Jml!IL_•./.g11o. _
. .
.
_, ;:/.} .•
.l, Banne1t ,;_g,u maq b� «4e.d oni.y Jn conJunc.tlori w{.:th ,m ap)"Cove.d "Special Eve.nt.t,·_.· PeJunlt", rutd,mu-1,.t be .601e- rut o.moun,t on .thlte wt to l!)(l'.eed oeveil {7)' day, ·ti.ui.teoi o.theJ<W./-1,� otlputate:d), ·and 06 a 6-eame Jce:(WUUlYlt. 6ab1t-la • .J. Th�_ :tJ«t.h eiw.eo.;wi� be �oJ.lded 04. pek st=an �r,..ii.ldr� Cade,· _
. .
1,. That land&,u,.p.i:ng a•d .i:Mlga:t.lon p.i.an-6 be Atcbm.U.ted {io1< appMvcit p!<.i.OIC .to ,ln-1,.ta.Ua;t.lun. . , .M ,,
l, Thttl: a mh,ln)wn tJ,.,1.ee 000:t' wliie· lanrJ,/,qa.ped .;W.p and .;Jx 6-L lll.gh b.l.�c� wa.i:e • • be eom.:tlw.p..ted a.tong the. ea.t p!Wp.e,r;ty ti.ne,, G1Jid a po1,;/;/.on 06 .the now,: p!Cop/i'.ll:ty • .UJie, beh-lnd .the p1eopo-1ed Phau 2 ou.U¢lng. . •
•
. .· .
•
.
m. Tha;t pMh..i.ng .bp«Ce.b patl:o.ttei. :to .the no/WI. pMptU,:/'!f .UnM ·.;hau.U r,; ,,,j; ·,e,a,1t 11 6t,. mlde .to 0ae,i..U.ta.:te twuil.11/) moveme11:U .lnto and ou:t. o _.i 4<lld -lpac&.1;
n. The WM.t U,w,way:,hould be 1c,i.o<'.fded <vMtfL/f.l.y :t;a the eoltitelt 06 .the L••hape 06 • :the bu.Ud./.ng :to _comply wt.th ex.lt,(n9. 1ee:quvu,me,,,,a,, . • . - •
3, That a.U. eandltl.on& oLthe CLty Eng.l.11eet<. be mit, lnetud.l»g, b,i.t tto,t t-un.Ur.d :to :the tote.owlng:
a., Tl)a-t the �pp.U.c.ant �ubn.U Uue:t lmpMvemen:a pta11o l"'•Paluid by a 4.lliJ.i/2:CR.lt.ed • CA.Vft eng,lnee/t. oOlt. 00606,l.te ./.mp11.ov:emen;t./,, . . •.
.
' • . •
b, Tlia:t ._ bon.d Olt M�.e;/;!J 4v/4ce be p�Ued "'1:th .the C:l:ty -ln 'an' amoun:t •�66,lue.nt :to · aovv, .the amoan:t 06 WM/, .to be done, a.i, de:trvunlned by· :the C.lty En9./.nee.,t. . .
e. T/u,:t .th� applfoaltt «nntx :to the .the .toeat ,a,,i:tatlon ,U;;bt.l.at. d., That the a.pp.ileant .i.ubmU a pll�Um.i.n<Vty :till.� 1cepo1ut., e. _That .the_ app.Ueant eon;:omc.t �!<1<11. qnd iiut.tvt.6, _,··.1-, '·., .··.' •• ' •;_•'• � •. ,.� .. ;_,'.·. __ , ··,+ · o. Tha.t .the appUeant en11o.tlt.tu,,t A.ldwa.eM •: 9 f,t., mi.de.

9. Con4.t,,;ue.t d!t.-/.v(!J}Jay app1waohM a.· dei:vw,lnd by :th,. C.lty En9./.ne1VL, h. AU _a.p/ta,U and �ve.way ,;,;e.o,i· be wwcf,aeed acooJtd-lng .ti, .. c./.ty M:andwal;, .. J..· Tho..t a h.i.gh l"'eMMe •ad.I.um vapo1t &.tJi.ee.t li.gh.t be ;_r,.;.mUed on mo.1tbe.U.te .siandaJJ.d.

J, Tha,f :the ·appti.Mnf. aub1nLt a gltad.l.ng rl'a.n pelt C.lty ·E11iJ.lnev, ' & 1,e.quu.t. k. P//:ov.lde on-•/4te d!t.a.i.n.age -0tudy 41td necMwcy f,aa./.Ut;,. t. That all S:ta:te pe:Jo11LU'b�.eco.1ted p"-1:o� .t.o con,iliuati.oei do .Vllpil.OV"1ntnt6 when ene1wrtclcln9 O
t
t State h:/.gliwa.y<1.
m, T�a;t a.U. po.Jr.lung .I.et and i:t,,.eet .Ugh:Ung .to eons.u;:t 06 h./.gh p!l.e<loUlte wd-lvm •. va.poh.. •
P. C. M1NUTl'S REGULAR Mfff!NG OCTOBER 6, 1982 PAGE 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IC@t'd) P-435 and V82-14
n, That :the l"<Jal ownw <1haU 1tecMd a covenant and a91<eemen,t to hold :thl<ee pMoW M one.
o, AU con/Ua.tln9 l<oad and wUUy eaoeme,m ;h.U,be l<Molved :to the •a:t.i•6aa.tlon 06 X;/ie f!1Jw,t011. o 6 Commu.n.Uy ·o,wetopment pl<loM. :tn l6<1uane, 06 br,,,Ud.lng peJt»J./,t.\. 4, That aU 1tequ..ll<em,n,t;. 06 the Br,,,Udlng V-lv.ll,.lon be me.:t, -lncfad,lng, bu.t not tlm.Ue.d ,to the 6oUowlng:
a. Un,l:tl> bulet on p!topv,.ty Un• wlU be ·11.eqteliled ,to be 06 6b,, 1<u-lJ,tlve uoM,tJuu,.tlon M p<!lt Un.i.601an Btil/,di,ng Cod<, Chap.teJt 5, • •
b, Hand.leap 611.c.llltle,i .to be p!Wv-lded M p<!< U.B.C. and Cl«p.teA 1213. (on< hand.leap l<Oom pelt eaeh pha, el .
e. Second of.001< e:x.ltlng to con601un to the U.B.c. Chap.teA 33.

5. Th-,,t alt 1<,,qu..//Leme,tt6 06 .tha F-ll<• Ve.pt111,:bne,,:t be ml!,t, foc.ludlng, but no:t .C,i.mlted to .the 60.Uowlng:
a. F.ll<e 6low •haU be 3,500 ga.e.e,,n, pelt. mlnu;t• M 10 p .. , . .l. 1<u,ldual pltM<1Me {U.F.C. 10-301 and S,M.C.C, - 17.20),
b, Pou.able 61Jte ex.tlngr,,,ll,hw •halt be ln,lta.U,.d and m"-<.n,ta,/.ned M p<!< Un,l601<m f-ll<• Code,.Al<:tlcR.e 10,
e, P.f.ao, addl<MJ numbeM on 61<0>1.t 06 bu./.l'.c/,/,ng, NwnbeM AAe .to be a,t .teM,t &ix (6) -lnclt<¼ ,ln ehglth, can:tJuu.t wlth .the baohgMund, and be v,f;,[b.1e. j(Jtam ,the o.tlteet (11. F.C, 10,208).
d, F-lna£. 1.Mpeo.tlon h.tq<Wted pl<lolt to oce.upanay. e. One an-,.i.te 6.ll<e hydltan,t oha.lt be 1tequ./Jied. 1/ydltan,t to be place a,t l'.ll<e V,paJt-Onent appJtoved looa,tlon IU,F.C. 10,30.J).

6. Nw 6,11« h!fdJUJ.n,t •h<!U be a R.loh %0 alt equ.Lvai'.en,t.

9. Pta11<1 a{ 6bte hydlumt an:d wateJt ma.ln •halt be ,ubmltted .to the f.(lte VepaMmen.t 601t appMval.
h. Appltaved •inoh detec-tOlch <liw.U be ,/,11<1,taUed .ln acuo1tdanoe wlth See,tlon 1210, U1>loo1011 Br,,,Ud.lng Code.
6, That aU Jieqrwtemen:/:.6 o 6 the PaUee VtpaJctment be met, Ine./.ucllng, but no:t tlm.i.ted :t.o .the 6oUowfng 1
a. That alt ex.telt-lo/t llgh.tlng •hale have non-b1tettko.ble, tamp<!< p1<006 ten:; cove,,•. b, An emeJtgenc.y w,d •ha.lt be_ 6-lted, ihtlng namv,;, add1teMM, and .te.eephone numbeM 06 l<<¼pon...lbi'.e pe!tMnh .to notltfy .tn eaoe 06 an eme!t9enoy,

PUBLIC HISARING
NO 91
Mr. 13Qyd Coddington
6561. Orange Ave.

Anaheim, CA
The appi:Lc:;;_ant was advised of the ten day appeal period.

MOT:tON CARitl:ED.

Sm,!.l'r'l'ED BY B.OYD COQOINGt.OON1 Requested is approv.al ·fo.r a sheet metal fabrication andator e facil:l.ty looa.ted at 8121 Electric Avenue in an M-1 zone.

Pu:rsua-nt to the Guidel es of the California Enviromnental Quality 2\ct of 1970, a ame1ided, this project msets the criteria o_f a Clas-s I Catego oal Exemption.

THE BEARING WAS/ ENED,
Introduced h�fself as the applicant in the matter before them and indioat that he has read all the conditions of approval.

Agreed :� / all of them except the one de.a.ling with dismantoling r,f auto/
P .C. MINO'!'ES REGtJ!iAR MEETING OC'l'OBER 6� 1982 f'J\.GE 6 20,BB,060--20,92,010
2"0,88,0·6·o conformance, All nonconforming uses, buildings and structures shall Ee removed, eliminated or made to conform to the requirements of this title, when any sa0tion of this ohapter requires elimination or upon the appropr.iate date for amortization· as lisj:.ed, (9r�. 550 S.l(part), 1981:
-prioJ: oode-s20,aa-.,060).
20,88.070 Relief, Any person aggrieved by the operation of the terms of th:Es·ohapter may file an application for relief in the same manner as is prpvided for the filing of conditional use permits, Upon· a determination that the terms hereof operate unjustly or harshly as applied to a particular use, building or struoture, -relief may be granted upon such terms as are deemed appropriate. (Ord, 550 §l(part), 1981: prior code §20,88,070), Sections:
2-0,92,010

20.92,020
20,92.030
20,92,040

20.92.050
20,92,060
20,92.070

20.92,080
20,92.090
20,92.100
Chagter 2 O. 92

PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
Purpose.

When required,
Contents,
Adoption.

Grounds for rejection.
l?rocedui:e.

Adoption subject to condition.
cornplianoe requi:i:-ec\.

Oi$tinotion from other precise plans,
Additional d.eviation relief,
20,92.010 Purpose. It is found and declared that it is
imprao'EioaE!e· .or impossible to eatablish or apply uniform restrictions and regulations upon the subjects mentl.oned'in Section 20, 92. 030 for uses other than those J?ei:mitted in the R-1 zone because of the extreme variations in size and sha()e of lots and parcels of land d.ev9ted to Sl\Oh othe;i; uses and ;1.n the nature of the uses and zoning of i;iurrounding premises.

The subjects mentioned in Section 20. 92. 030, tnerefore, shall be regulated by precise pl.an of design to accomplish as nearly as possible a uniformity in the permitted use and 'enjoyment of property in any zone while at the same time imposing a uniformity of regulation a11d restriction to protect the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties to the same degree 1,md extent gene.rally provided 1:n this chapter, (Ord, 550 §l(part), 1981, prior code S20,92,010).
285-118 .(Stanton 12/81)
Attachment: J
Click here to return to the agenda.

20.92.020--20.92,050

20. 92,020 When reqU.i,red, No person shall oonunenoe any use for which a conditional usu, permit is required or any use not permitted in the R-l zone, and no building permit shall be issued for any structure to be used 'for ·or in conjunction wii:.h any such use, .until a, wi;;eoise plan of design covering l:he -paroel or pi;irceTs to be so- usea shall -be-approven and adopted as provided in this cha.-,ter. (Ord. 550 !ll (part), 19811 prior code §20,92,020).
20,92,030 Contents. Such precise plan of design shall
specify ana In.elude l
A. The location, size, bulk, height and number of
stories of all buildings and structures including signs, walls and fences;
B, The location, size and. dimensions of yards, courts, setbacks, a.nd all, other open spaces between buildings and struotur·es;
c. The location, dimensions and method of improvements
of all driveways, pa:t;king areas, waU:ways and means of access, ing:t:'ass and egress, and drainage,
o. The loc.ation, dimensions and methods of improvement of all p:t;operty to be dedicated to the public or to public. utilities;
E. '!'he general natu:t:'e of the proposed use, (Ord. 550 §1 (part)
_
, 1981: prior oode §20, 92. 030) ,
20,92.040 Adoption. Any suoh,p:t;eoise plan of design
may be tejec.ted, adopte2!, modified anc:! adopted, or adopted sµbjec..t to cOnditio.ns. An,y such p'l'eoise plan of design after adoption, may be amended in the same manner as a praoise plan of sign is first adopted hereunder. (Ord. 550 §1 (part.), 1981:
prior code §20. 92,040).

20. 92. 050 Grounds fol' re eotion. If the prec.is.e plan of des gn wou d substant a y eprecTate property values in the vicinity or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants the.reef for lawful purposes O:t:' would adversely affeot the public peace, health, saf.ety or general welfare to a degree greate:t:' than that generally pel'mitted by this title, suoh plan shal;l be rejected or shall he so modified or c.onditioned before adoption as to remove the said objections, Otherwise, such pro")?osed precise plan shall be approved. Modifications and conditions may be imposed only to the extent reasonably necessary in connection with the proposed use to remove the said objections, and to that extent may impose greater, but shall not permit lssse:t:', rest:t:'ictions than those impoeed by this title. (.Ord. 550 §l(pa:t:'t), 1981: pd.or ooda- §20.92.050).
285-119 (Stanton 12/81)
20,92,060--20,92,070
20,92,060 Procedure. Application for approval of a
precise pian of design shall be made in 1;1uch form as the planning commission shall prescribe. The procedure (but not the grounds) set forth in Section 20,76,0lO shall apply to the-processing and_approvaLor _rejeqti_on of prqpc:>sed preoise plans of design, subject, however, to the following exceptions:

A. Upon the filing of an application and prior to setting the same for hearing before the planning commission, the secretary shall refer it to the city planner. !f the city planner determines that none of the grounds for rejection as set forth in Se.ction 20,76,010 exist, he shall endorse his approval thereon in writing within five days after the date of filing, His approval may be subject to express written alterations or conditions if the applicant accepts the same in writing, such approval shall be final and terminate the proceedings; otherwise, it shall be set for hearing before the planning commission,
l3, Notice of _hearings n.eed be given only by mail and only to the appli.qant and to the owner or owners of the property subject to the precise plan, Notice may be dispensed with and the hearing set within ten days or less of the date of filing if all persons entitled to notice waive the same in writing filed with the secretary of the planning commission. c, The decision of the planning commission shall be final and effective ten days after its written determination unless within said time a written appeal is filed by applicant or by action of the city-council or any member thereof,
O. A filing·fee·shall be paid at the time of application, the amount of which shall b.e determined by aity council resolution,
E, Applicant need not comply with seat.ion 20.76,010,
requiring a list of the names and addresses of all owners of real property within three hundred feet of the external boundaries of the property involved,
F. The approval of a precise plan o:f' design is conditional upon the privileges being utilize<;! within one year after the effective date thereof, and if they are not utilized or construction work is not begun within said time and carried on diligently in accordance with conditions imposed by the planning commission, this authorization shall become void, and any privileges, permit 'or conditions granted hereby shall be deemed to have elapsed. (Ord. 670 §2, 19881 Ord. S50 §1 (pa:i:t), 1981:
prior code §'20 .92. 06 o) .

20.92.070 Adoption subject to condition. A precise plari of design may be approved and adopted subject to the granting of a change.of zone, a conditional use pe:i:mit, a variance, or the approval of a final s,;i;bdivision map or lot split, and the planning commission or city council may require such a precise (Stanton 7 /89)

20.92.080--20.92,100
plan of design to be submitted prior to the granting or recommending of a zone oh:ange, variance or conditional use permit, (Ord,, 550 §l(part), 19811 prior code §20,92,070),
• or £ai� • ��-��p1
;
0 ��ta��i ��t��d
i,r;�is�e�
i�� a
�;si�
iil6;e
any conditions or provisions thereof nor s'.t\all a building permit be issl)ed for any str\.1cture which would violate or fail to comply wi·th any adopted precise pla11 of design for the parcel or paroe;ts on which .such structure is to be located, (Ord. 550 §1(.part), 1981, prior code §20,92,080) •
. 20,92,090 Distinction from other precise 12:J.ans, The precise plans of design referred to in this chapter are not to be oonfused with· or considered to be "precise plans," as referred to in the Government Code of the state of California. (Ord, 550 §l(part), 1981: prior code §20,92,090).
20 ,·92 .·1·00· • l'idditio•nal devia•tton re·1t·ef. In approving a precise plan of design, the piann;l,ng comrolsaion may grant deviations or relief :llrom the ya:i:-d I fence I aign, height, parking or loading, and open space re.gulatiol).s of this t;l;t:le. Said deviations shall be in oonform�nce with Section 20,76,080, (Ord, 550 §!(part), 1981: prior oode §20.92.100),
Se,otions,

20.93,010
20,93,020
20,93,030

20.93.040
20,93,050
20,93,060

20.93.070

20.93.080
20,93,()90

20. 93 .10.Q
20,93,'.Ll-O
20,93.120
20,93.130

20., 93 .140
20,93,150
20,93.l60
Chaptei:; 20,93
CONUOMIN!UM CONVERSIONS
Intent and purposes.

Findings,
Definitions.

Condominium conversion permit application,
Filing fees,
Inspect.ions,
Deficiencies. co;i::r<1ctio:n,
Transmittal to planning commission.
j?lanning commission report.

City council i;\etermination.

Final condom:1.ni um plan,
Expiratio11--Extens;!,on--Revisions.

Exoeptiona.

Oesi,gn cri'l:.eria.
oevalopmo1nt standards--'Nonresidential
conversions,
Development standards--Residential conversions.
285-121 ( Stanton 12/81)

REPORT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission
DATE: December 20, 2023
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 859 (WHICH APPROVED PRECISE
PLAN OF DESIGN P-435), FOR THE OPERATION OF A MOTEL AT
11632 BEACH BOULEVARD IN THE GENERAL MIXED USE

OVERLAY/COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE, DUE TO

SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE OPERATION OF

THE MOTEL USE

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Planning Commission:
• Conduct a public hearing;
• Find that the effects of the proposed action are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15270, as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency disapproves; and • Adopt Resolution No. 2562 rescinding and revoking Resolution 859, which approved Precise Plan of Design P-435.

SUMMARY
The City of Stanton (“City”) has continuously sought to deter nuisance activities throughout the City. These efforts have included daily work by City staff and partnerships with other public agencies. For example, the City has worked with the City of Anaheim to install blue light cameras to monitor high trafficked commercial areas within the City.

Page 2 ends

Stanton City CouncilJanuary 23, 2024

Stanton City Council
January 23, 2024