HomeMy WebLinkAbout32 - PH-1 - Attachment 4 - 5/20/2014RESOLUTION NO. PC-14-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVOKING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-99-09 FOR THE
SANDPIPER MOTEL TO RENT UP TO 40% OF ITS
ROOMS TO LONG-TERM TENANTS
WHEREAS, on March 8, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa
approved Conditional Use Permit PA-99-09 under Resolution No. PC-99-17 to extend the
compliance period for PA-98-44, which allowed 40 percent of the total rooms at the
Sandpiper Motel, located at 1967 and 1977 Newport Boulevard, to be dedicated to long-
term occupancy; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing on the revocation of
CUP PA-99-09 was held before the Planning Commission, which included a staff report,
presentation of evidence by staff wherein the applicant and applicant's counsel were
allowed to cross-examine members of the City staff and provide oral arguments to the
Planning Commission. In addition, public comments both in favor of and opposed to
revocation were received by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, based upon its review and due consideration of all materials
presented to it, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the
revocation of PA-99-09.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa finds
and resolves as follows:
A. The Costa Mesa Development Services Department has identified the following
Conditions of Approval that have been violated by the Sandpiper Motel during the
period from January 2012 through January 2014, inclusive:
Condition of approval number 7 provides that "Twenty-four hour
management shall be provided. The manager shall ensure compliance with
all applicable conditions of approval and code requirements."
a. The findings articulated under subsections (A)(2), (A)(3) and (A)(4)
below are incorporated herein by reference, and justify revocation
under this condition. The number and severity of the violations found,
and the operation of the motel as a public nuisance, demonstrate that
the management of the motel did not ensure compliance with all
applicable conditions of approval and code requirements.
2. Condition of approval number 12 further provides that "the conditional use
permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or
revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied
with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or
ordinances."
a. The Sandpiper Motel has been operated in violation of applicable
laws and ordinances. To wit:
On May 8, 2013, an inspection of the Sandpiper Motel was
conducted by the Orange County Health Department, the
Costa Mesa Fire Department, the Costa Mesa Building
Department and the Costa Mesa Code Enforcement Division.
8 rooms were inspected.
ii. On May 8, 2013 the following violations were found in rooms
106, 113, 119, 123, 126, 129, 139 and 140, as well as the
laundry room:
a. Unpermitted construction. 2010 California Building
Code ("CBC") § 105.1; former CMMC § 20-4(b).
b. Severe hoarding conditions. 2007 International
Property Management Code §§ ("IPMC") 307.1, 308.1;
Health & Safety Code § 17920.3; 1997 Uniform
Housing Code ("UHC") §§ 1001.2, 1001.9, 1001.11.
c. Unsanitary conditions. UHC § 1001.2.
d. Vermin. UHC § 1001.2(12); former CMMC § 20-7(r).
e. Peeling paint. IPMC § 305.3; former § CMMC 20-7(e).
f. Mildew. UHC § 1001.2(11).
g. Missing or damaged window screens. Former CMMC
§ 20-7(i); IPMC § 304.14.
h. Improperly installed water heater. 2010 California
Plumbing Code ("CPC") §§ 1.8.4.1, 503.0.
i. Damaged windows. Former CMMC § 20-6(g).
j. Graffiti. Former CMMC § 20-6(e).
k. Damaged fixtures. IPMC § 305.3; former CMMC § 20-
7(e).
i. Missing smoke detectors. IPMC § 704.1.
K
m. ❑amaged walls and door Knobs. UHC § 1001.2(13);
IPMC § 304.15.
b. Unpermitted construction was brought into compliance by June 14,
2013. All other violations, other than the conditions in room 139, were
corrected by May 31, 2013.
C. Severe hoarding conditions continued in room 139 for several
months. The violations were fully corrected by November 15, 2013.
Reinspections were conducted on May 30, June 7, August 9, August
27, September 20, ❑ctober 16 and November 15, 2013.
d. While the violations were eventually corrected, it is unclear how long
they were allowed to stand, and were only corrected due to the City's
enforcement action, which required two inspections by the City on
May 8 and May 10, 2013, and repeated reinspections over a period
of several months. The Sandpiper should be operating in compliance
with the law at all times, not only when the City catches the violations
and forces the motel to comply. Despite the corrections, therefore,
the Sandpiper Motel operated for a period of several months, maybe
longer, in violation of applicable law.
e. The Sandpiper's annual inspection followed on November 1, 2013.
City found an additional 21 violations in 16 rooms that had not been
previously inspected in May 2013, as follows
Peeling paint. IPMC § 305.3; CMMC § 20-6(d) (former CMMC
§ 20-7(e)).
Vermin infestation. UHC § 1001.2(12); CMMC §§ 20-6(q), 20-
12(r)(1) (former CMMC § 20-7(r)).
iii. ❑amaged walls (holes), UHC § 1001.2(13); IPMC § 305.3.
iv. Missing light bulbs. UHC § 1001.2(13).
V. Broken/missing window screens. CMMC § 20-6(h) (former
CMMC § 20-7(1)); IPMC § 304.14.
vi. Mildew. UHC § 1001.2(11).
While the code violations found during the November 1, 2013
inspection were als❑ corrected, compliance followed inspection and
enforcement by the City. The Sandpiper Motel should have been
correcting violations as they occurred, and not waiting to be told by
the City to do so.
3
3, Condition of operation number 9 provides that "[m]onthly inspections of the
long-term occupancy units shall be conducted by the on -site manager to
ensure that ... no maintenance problems have developed,"
a. It is reasonable to infer that monthly inspections have not occurred
at the property, based on the severe hoarding conditions of room
139, the unpermitted construction, and the multiple and repeatedly
deteriorated conditions of windows, doors, etc. found during the
inspection of May 8, 2013.
b, It is further reasonable to infer that monthly inspections were not
conducted during the period between the May 8, 2013 and
November 1, 2013 inspections, based on the additional violations
found at the property.
4. The property has been operated as a public nuisance, pursuant to Section
13-29 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and Sections 3479 and 3480 of
the Civil Code. Namely, the following conditions are found to be injurious to
health, indecent or offensive to the senses, or constitute obstructions to the
free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of fife
or property:
a. Severe hoarding conditions, which constitute a fire hazard, as
emergency workers, in the event of a fire, cannot enter the affected
room to look for victims based on the lack of clearance. The
conditions also may constitute a fire hazard depending on the
flammability of the materials being hoarded. Such conditions further
constitute a health hazard, due to the accumulation of garbage and
debris, and constitute ideal conditions for vermin infestation. While
the conditions were limited to one unit, the effects of such conditions
are not. Vermin do not remain confined to one room, nor would a fire.
Finally, such conditions caused noxious odors based on the
accumulation of garbage.
b. Missing or broken smoke detectors constitute a condition that is
injurious to health as an undetected fire can spread quickly and
cause damage, injury and possibly death to the occupants of the
room as well as other occupants.
c. Vermin carry disease and can contaminate food and drink. Vermin
infestations are injurious to health and constitute obstructions to the
free use of property, and interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
life and property.
B. The cost for the above inspections and re -inspections has been borne by the City
with taxpayer funds.
0
C. Under the totality of the circumstances above, there is substantial evidence that
the Sandpiper Motel used less than 25% of its rooms for extended occupancies
for a period exceeding 180 days, and that the CUP has thus expired by operation
of its own terms.
D. Under the totality of the circumstances above, there is substantial evidence that
the Sandpiper Motel has been operated by its management in disregard for the
health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood, its patrons and the people
of the City of Costa Mesa, as well as in violation of law.
E. The current and past operation of the Sandpiper Motel constitutes a public
nuisance and is detrimental to the public health or safety so as to constitute a
public nuisance.
F. This revocation hearing of Conditional Use Permit PA-99-09 is deemed
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15321 (Class 21), Enforcement Actions of
Regulatory Agencies.
G. Chapter IX, Article 12, Transportation Demand Management, of Title 13 of the
Costa Mesa Municipal Code does not apply to this revocation hearing.
The Secretary of the Commission shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and
shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same.
6E IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the
findings contained in this resolution, the Planning Commission hereby revokes
Conditional Use Permit PA-99-09 with respect to the property described above.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-99-09 PASSED AND
APPROVED at the Planning Commission meeting of April 14, 2014, by the following vote:
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2014,/
k
FITZPA-TRICK, Chair
:a Mesa Planning Commission
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE j
I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-19 was passed and adopted at a
meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on April 14, 2014, by the
following votes:
AYES: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, Sesler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Claire F nn, ecretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
2