[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
RISE FOR A FLAG, SALUTE, AND MOMENT OF SILENCE BEGIN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ROLL.
COMMISSIONER P*****K RUD PRESENT, COMMISSIONER SOLE PRESENT AND COMMISSIONER EDISON PRESIDENT.
AND LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER ERCO IS ABSENT.
[CHAIRPERSON’S WELCOME]
WELCOME TO THE ELCON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.THIS MEETING IS BEING LIVE STREAMED ON THE CITY OF EL CAJON WEBSITE.
APPEALS OF ALL FINAL DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THIS EVENING MUST BE FILED IN WRITING WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE 5:00 PM TUESDAY, MAY 30TH, 2023, AND MUST INCLUDE THE PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON EITHER A NON AGENDA OR AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT, PLEASE FILL OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD LOCATED BY THE AGENDA AND TURN IT INTO THE SECRETARY WHO WILL CALL YOU UP TO SPEAK.
WHEN THE AGENDA ITEM COMES UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WE ASK THAT YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME.
SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
THE DISPLAY ON THE PODIUM, AS WELL AS OTHER MONITORS IN THE CHAMBERS WILL SHOW TIME COUNTING DOWN AT 30 SECONDS.
THE PODIUM CLOCK READOUT WILL TURN RED.
SIGNIFYING YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS UNTIL THE END OF YOUR TIME.
APPLICANTS AND INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING GROUPS OF PEOPLE MAY BE ALLOWED MORE TIME IF APPROPRIATE.
ALL PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO ME AS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS OR TO STAFF MEMBERS.
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO ALREADY.
PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ONE 14 DASH 79, A COMMISSIONER WHO HAS RECEIVED EVIDENCE RELATED TO A MATTER BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OTHER THAN AN UNESCORTED VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION AT THE HEARING.
[PUBLIC COMMENT]
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL TAKE COMMENT FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ON ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA UNDER STATE LAW.NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN ON ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT EXCEPT TO REFER IT TO STAFFORD ADMINISTRATION OR PLACE IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.
[CONSENT]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO CONSENT CALENDAR.A SINGLE MOTION WILL COVER ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
DOES THE COMMISSION WISH TO PULL, PULL ANY ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? STAFF? UH, NO CHANGES FROM STAFF.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
YOU HAVE A SECOND? ONE SECOND.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MOROSE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PAUL.
FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, DUE TO TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THE VARIANCE UP TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO FIRST AND THEN GO TO THE ELCA ON INN IN SUITES AS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? NO OBJECTION.
[Public Hearing Item 3]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.IT'S A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
IT IS C EXEMPT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED STAFF.
GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MIKE VI, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS ITEM IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY GUY MADAR FOR 8 29 WAKEFIELD COURT TO REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 8 29 WAKEFIELD COURT HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A CORRESPONDING ZONING DESIGNATION OF RS SIX.
THE RS SIX ZONE PERMITS THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BY RIGHT PROVIDED APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE OBSERVED.
STAFF ENFORCES THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE CODIFIED.
HOWEVER, PLANNING COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY WHERE IT DETERMINES THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES DEPRIVE A PROPERTY OF A RIGHT ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONING DISTRICT THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED THE VARIANCE.
THE SUBJECT VARIANCE APPLICATION ACCOMPANIES A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND REQUESTS A REDUCTION IN THE GARFIELD AVENUE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 TO 14 FEET.
THE SUBJECT SITE SHOWN IN BLUE IS A THROUGH LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON BOTH THE WAKEFIELD
[00:05:01]
COURT AND GARFIELD AVENUE NORTH OF FLETCHER PARKWAY.THROUGH LOTS ARE DEFINED BY THEIR FRONTAGE ON TWO APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL STREETS, WHICH RESULTS IN TWO FRONT PROPERTY LINES WITH FRONT YARD SETBACKS AS OPPOSED TO A FRONT AND AR REAR.
THE LOT IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A BUILDING PAD ALONG WAKEFIELD COURT THEN DESCENDS NEARLY 30 FEET TOWARD THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON GARFIELD AVENUE.
THE GRADE OF THE SLOPE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE TO ONE.
AT ITS STEEPEST, THOUGH IT BECOMES MORE MODERATE AND PARTIALLY PLATEAUS NEAR GARFIELD, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN ALL DIRECTION AND RETAINS THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO GARFIELD AVENUE.
THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SITE PLAN SHOWN HERE SHOWS THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NEAR GARFIELD AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 14 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OVER THE SLIGHT PLATEAU ON THE SLOPE.
RS SIX ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, HOWEVER, REQUIRE 20 FOOT FRONT, FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ALONG GARFIELD.
THE PROPOSED ADU OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SIDE SETBACKS, BUILDING SEPARATION, HEIGHT, LOT COVERAGE AND SIZE AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE, THE ADU ALSO PROPOSES PARKING WHERE NONE IS REQUIRED.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTS A MODIFICATION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 14 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THIS RECOGNIZED DEVIATION.
RELOCATING THE PROPOSED ADU TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACK WOULD LIKELY NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL COSTLY GRADING WORK AND OR HIGHER RETAINING WALLS.
NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE REQUESTED WITH THE VARIANCE, AND THEREFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OTHER CODIFIED ZONING STANDARD TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST, THE PLANNING COM COMMISSION MUST MAKE FINDINGS IN SECTION 17 860.
THESE ARE IN SHORT THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH TO PRIVATE OF A RIGHT AND JOY BY OTHERS.
TWO, THE VARIANTS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
THREE, THE VARIANTS WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES.
AND FOUR, THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.
EXAMPLES IN, UH, EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN CODE WHICH MAY WARRANT A VARIANCE INCLUDE LOT SIZE, SHAPE, LOCATION, SURROUNDINGS, AND TOPOGRAPHY.
AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS STEEPLY SLOPED AND IS A THROUGH LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS.
THE THROUGH LOT CONFIGURATION IS ATYPICAL AND IS ACTUALLY PROHIBITED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UNLESS ACCESS RIGHTS ARE WAIVED TO AN ABUTTING STREET.
SIMILARLY, THE STEEP SLOPE IS THE TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITION CONSISTENT WITH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE.
THERE ARE, MOREOVER, AT LEAST THREE EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN A THIRD OF A MILE, WHICH WERE GRANTED VARIANCE TO REDUCE FRONT YARD SETBACKS DUE TO SLOPE TO ACCOMMODATE PERMITTED USES.
THESE CASES ARE IDENTIFIED IN READ IN THE SLIDE, FOR INSTANCE, VARIANCE NUMBER 39, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 10 58 GARFIELD AVENUE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS GRANTED A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET.
VARIANCE NUMBER 42, WHICH COVERS 7 31 THROUGH 8 37.
HAVERHILL ROAD AUTHORIZED A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ALL PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVER HILL ROAD.
BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY, AS WITH 8 29 WAKEFIELD, THESE PROPERTIES ARE SITUATED AT THE BOTTOM OF A SLOPE THAT DESCENDS FROM SHARON WAY.
FINALLY, VARIANCE NUMBER 1 0 5 AT 2,700 CATHERINE STREET AUTHORIZED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 13 FEET TO ALLOW THE REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS A STEEP SLOPE AND A SMALL BUILDING SITE.
THESE EXAMPLES ALSO ILLUSTRATE THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE OF 15 FEET WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT RATHER EXTEND A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD APPLIED TO SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ALONG GARFIELD AVENUE AND HAVERHILL ROAD.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG WAKEFIELD COURT IN GARFIELD AVENUE APPEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUESTED PROJECT AS SHOWN IN THE AERIAL.
MANY OF THESE THROUGH LOTS WERE DIVIDED AND DEVELOPED WITH DWELLING UNITS ALONG BOTH UPPER AND LOWER STREETS.
THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS A PERMITTED USE, CONSISTENT IN SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE HOUSING ELEMENT RECOGNIZES ADUS AS A VALUABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND ENCOURAGES THEIR PRODUCTION.
THE PROPOSED SIGHTING OF THE ADU ALSO RESPECTS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TOPOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES.
STAFF, THEREFORE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE C EXEMPTION AND THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 15 FEET FROM GARFIELD AVENUE, SO AS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVALS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF NEARBY PROPERTIES.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, SPEAKER CARDS ON THIS? YES, WE DO HAVE ONE GUY, MADAR.
[00:10:01]
PUBLIC HEARING.UM, I'M THE ONE OF THE PROPERTY.
I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MIKE AND NOAH F THEIR HELP.
IT'S BEEN A LONG, LONG, LONG PROCESS FOR ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF.
UH, WE HAD SOME DIFFERENT INFORMATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE CITY BEFORE IT WAS MIS CORRECTED BY THEM.
THEY PRETTY MUCH HELPED ME A LOT, SO I DO GO WITH WHATEVER THEY SUGGESTED AFTER THEY EXPLAINED ME OVER EVERYTHING IN THIS LONG PROCESS.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYONE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
WERE THERE ANY, UH, NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING, UH, A COUPLE NEIGHBORS HAVE REACHED OUT REGARDING THE PROJECT.
UM, CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THINGS LIKE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, UM, AND OFF STREETE PARKING.
UH, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT, UM, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF STREETE PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE, ARE CONTROLLED BY STATE LAW AND, AND ACTUALLY THE SITE WOULDN'T NEED TO PROVIDE OFF STREETE PARKING.
SO, UM, I THINK IN THAT WAY, IT, IT SORT OF SUPERSEDES THE, THE BASELINE REQUIREMENT.
UM, THE OTHER THINGS, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE, UH, ADDRESSED THROUGH TYPICAL, UM, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR BUILDING ON SLOPES WITH APPROPRIATE ENGINEERING, UM, AND, AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES REQUIRED OF ALL BUILDING PROJECTS.
WELL, SCENE, THERE'S NO MORE SPEAKER CARDS.
I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MOROSE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLE.
MOTION CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE OF MEMBERS PRESENT.
LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME.
THE OTHER ONE THING I NOTICED WAS MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA HAVE ALREADY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
I I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT AT ALL.
CARE TO MAKE A MOTION, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM GARFIELD AVENUE TO 15 FEET SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION NOTED.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER EDISON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOT, PLEASE VOTE.
CAN WE START AGAIN? I JUMPED THE GUN.
[Public Hearing Item 2 ]
ALL RIGHT.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH WAS, NUMBER TWO IS THE EL CAJON IN N SUITES.
THE REQUEST IS TO CONSIDER A REVOCATION OF DEEMED APPROVED STATUS FOR A LODGING ESTABLISHMENT AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LODGING ESTABLISHMENT.
IT IS C EXEMPT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS REVOKED DEEMED APPROVED STATUS AND APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2023 DASH 0 0 3.
JUST ONE SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UH, SO AGAIN, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UH, SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS FOR LODGING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1368 EAST MAIN STREET.
UH, THE ESTABLISHMENT IS BRANDED AS EL CAJON INN SUITES.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, UH, THERE'S A PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE USE.
SO THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST MAIN STREET BETWEEN WALTER WAY AND EAST MADISON AVENUE.
UH, THE SITE IS A LITTLE MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE IN SIZE AND IS APPROVED WITH A 37 UNIT, UH, MOTEL.
UM, A TOTAL OF 37 ROOMS, UH, AND A CARETAKER UNIT.
UH, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY OPERATING ONLY UTILIZING, UH, 35 ROOMS. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SO THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT'S IN PLACE, UH, FOR THE USE.
UM, IT WAS ALSO GRANTED A VARIANCE, UH, FOR
[00:15:01]
THE, UM, NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE FOR THEIR REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO FIVE FEET.THE ADJACENT USES DO INCLUDE, UH, RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST, A BOARDING CARE FACILITY TO THE NORTH, AND THEN RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST.
AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE THE HYUNDAI CAR DEALERSHIP AS WELL AS A TRAILER COURT.
SO THE DEEMED TO APPROVE LODGING ESTABLISHMENT ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 25TH, 2019, AND IT DOES CONFER DEEMED TO PROOF STATUS ON ALL EXISTING LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS.
IT ALSO REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND CREATES A MECHANISM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THE DEEMED TO PROOF STATUS FOR PROBLEM PROPERTIES.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PROVIDE A COMMON SET OF EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS THAT ALL LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS MUST ABIDE BY TO PROVIDE GUESTS WITH CLEAN AND SAFE LODGING TO MINIMIZE NUISANCE OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, UH, COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH TEMPORARY LODGING.
SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEAN TO APPROVE LODGING ORDINANCE.
UM, THEY INCLUDE, UH, REGISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, SECURITY MEASURES, PROPERTY STANDARDS, LIMITATIONS ON NUISANCE ACTIVITIES, AND ALSO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTION.
SO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND THE REVOCATION HEARING WERE SCHEDULED FOR THE MOTEL DUE TO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF REGISTRATION REGULATIONS FOR RENTING A ROOM TO A MINOR, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED, UH, IN A GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE HEAD FOR A JUVENILE.
UM, IN ADDITION, ON THIS SLIDE, UM, STAFF CONDUCTED A REVIEW OF CALLS FOR SERVICE DURING THE YEAR 2022.
UH, 24 CALLS WERE CONFIRMED TO BE RELATED TO MEDICAL AND NUISANCE ACTIVITIES OCCURRING AT THE SITE DURING THAT YEAR.
AND THEN STAFF ALSO DID A REVIEW OF CALLS, UH, DURING 2023 UP AND THROUGH APRIL 30TH.
UH, THERE WAS ONLY 10 CALLS, UH, FOR SERVICE, UH, THAT WERE RELATED TO NUISANCE ACTIVITIES OR MEDICAL CALLS DURING THAT TIME.
SO THIS EVENING, UH, WE HAVE INVITED, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO JOIN US.
UM, AT THAT TIME, I'D LIKE TO INVITE HIM DOWN, UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY, UH, TALK ABOUT THE, UH, REGISTRATION VIOLATION AS WELL AS THE SHOOTING, AND THEN ANSWER, UH, ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO, UH, LAW ENFORCEMENT EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I'M A CAPTAIN WITH THE ELCON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UH, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR HAS ASKED ME HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2022, UH, IN WHICH A, UH, MOTHER OF A, UH, MISSING 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS DECEASED AT A HOTEL, UH, ON EAST MAIN STREET.
UH, THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH, UH, OFFICERS, UH, THAT WERE WORKING THAT DAY, WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE HOTEL AS, UH, EL CAJON AND SUITES AT 1368 EAST MAIN STREET, AS WELL AS THE ROOM IN WHICH, UH, THE JUVENILE WAS FOUND INSIDE.
UH, SHE WAS NOT DECEASED, UH, BUT SHE HAD BEEN SHOT IN THE HEAD.
UM, SO OFFICERS, UH, BEGAN, AND DETECTIVES BEGAN A VERY EXTENSIVE AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AS YOU CAN, UH, PROBABLY ASSUME, UH, AND SPOKE TO SEVERAL PEOPLE, UH, AS A RESULT OF THIS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN THAT ROOM FOR SEVERAL NIGHTS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT, IF NOT, AND IT'S BELIEVED TO BE POSSIBLY WEEKS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, UH, AS IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT, UM, THE DETECTIVES INTERVIEWED A 14 YEAR OLD JUVENILE WHO WAS STAYING IN ONE OF THE ROOMS. UH, THE JUVENILE IDENTIFIED THAT A MALE WHO WAS ALREADY REGISTERED TO A SEPARATE ROOM IN THE HOTEL WAS APPROACHED TO RENT THE ROOM FOR THE JUVENILES, UH, THAT MALE DID.
SO, UH, EVERY SUBSEQUENT DAY FOLLOWING THAT, THE 14 YEAR OLD JUVENILE, UH, WOULD PAY FOR THE ROOM THEMSELVES AT THE REGISTRY.
UM, AND THEN ALSO IN REGARDS TO A SECOND ROOM IDENTIFIED AT THAT LOCATION THAT WAS FILLED WITH JUVENILES, UH, FOR MULTIPLE NIGHTS.
UM, A 17 YEAR OLD ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE PAYING, UH, FOR THE ROOM, UH, IN VIOLATION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
UH, IT, THE ROOM WAS ALSO RENTED BY A SEPARATE ADULT WHO WAS STAYING ON SITE.
UH, SO THOSE TWO ADULTS WERE STAYING IN SEPARATE ROOMS. THEY RENTED THE ROOM ONE NIGHT, AND THEN AFTER THAT, THE JUVENILES WERE CONTINUING TO PAY FOR THE RENT AND, AND KEEP THE ROOMS OPEN, UH, FROM THAT DAY FORWARD.
SO, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC INCIDENT, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE 'EM.
I KNOW THERE'S A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE, UH, REVIEW IN YOUR, IN YOUR REPORT.
YEAH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FIRST.
UM, JUST STAYING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE DO FOR THE COMMISSION, UM,
[00:20:01]
IN REGARDS TO WHO RENTED THE ROOMS, WERE THEY ABLE TO IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY, WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAILS, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR, UH, I CAN, TAKING THE ROOMS, I CAN SPEAK DEFINITIVELY TO ONE.UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE IDENTIFIED THE MALE WHO RENTED THE SECOND ROOM.
I KNOW THAT ONE PERSON WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WAS STILL STAYING AT THE HOTEL, UM, ON A, UH, COUNTY PLACEMENT PROGRAM.
SO, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SECOND INCIDENT, YOU DON'T KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE INCIDENT.
SO WITHIN THE SECOND ROOM, YOU DON'T KNOW.
I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SAY DEFINITIVELY THAT WE IDENTIFIED THAT MALE.
THAT'S, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS THE SCOPE OF MY QUESTION.
UH, DO YOU KNOW FOR, UH, WHAT PURPOSE WERE THE ROOMS BEING RENTED BY THE JUVENILES? WHAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY WAS GOING ON IN, IN THOSE PARTICULAR ROOMS? UM, I CAN ONLY, UH, REGURGITATE WHAT, UH, WHAT I'VE READ, UH, THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION.
AND, UH, THERE WERE SEVERAL RUNAWAY, UH, JUVENILES WHO WERE STAYING IN THE HOTEL.
UM, THERE WAS SOME ILLEGAL FIREARMS IN THE HOTEL, SOME DRINKING, PARTYING, UH, THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY, SIR.
QUESTION, YOU MENTIONED THAT WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED, THE GIRL WAS STILL ALIVE.
DID SHE? I WAS, DID SHE DIE AT, OR DID SHE LIVE I'M NOT AWARE THAT SHE HAS PASSED AWAY.
I BELIEVE SHE'S STILL ALIVE, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON IT.
I DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, GREAT.
UM, AGAIN, UH, REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR THIS REVOCATION HEARING WAS RELATED TO, UH, THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRATION, THE ALLEGED, UH, VIOLATION OF THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN THE CONDUCT OF RENTING TO A JUVENILE.
AND THEN BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THAT VIOLATION, OBVIOUSLY RESULTING IN, IN A, A VERY SERIOUS INCIDENT WITH HARM, UH, TO A JUVENILE.
UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, WHEN SCHEDULING THE REVOCATION HEARING, UH, WE DID, UH, WORK WITH THE, UM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, UH, SINCE THEY DID NOT HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN PLACE, BECAUSE IF THE, UM, DEEMED APPROVED STATUS, UH, WERE TO BE REVOKED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT WOULD, UH, REMOVE THEIR ABILITY TO OPERATE.
SO, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, WE DID, UM, REQUEST THAT THEY, UM, CONSIDER SUBMITTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.
UM, THEY DID, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND FILED THAT IN MAY, EXCUSE ME, IN MARCH.
AND, UM, WE ALSO WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THEM ON AN OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS INCLUDED, UH, IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT.
I'VE SHOWN THE COVER OF THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ON THE SLIDE HERE.
UM, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A LIST OF EXTERIOR, UM, AND INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS AS NEEDED THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO.
UM, SO THE, UM, SO SINCE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THE, THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER HAVE WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO ADDRESS, UH, THESE ISSUES, UH, TAKE PROACTIVE STEPS IN ORDER TO PREPARE THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, UM, THEY BEGUN WORK ON SOME EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, WHEN I VISITED THE SITE, UH, LAST WEEK AND OVER THE WEEKEND, THEY WERE DOING SOME CONSTRUCTION ON, UM, THE, UH, WALL ALONG THE, UH, EXTERIOR PROPERTY LINE ALONG EAST MAIN STREET.
UM, THEY ARE PROPOSING, IT'S, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, SOME ROD IRON SECURITY FENCING IN ORDER TO, UH, BETTER SECURE THE SITE AND THAT THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO DO SOME LANDSCAPING.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT HERE, AND, UH, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO, UH, SPEAK TO THAT IN GREATER DETAIL.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT DID FILE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH THE CITY CLERK AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED.
UM, COPIES OF THAT INFORMATION HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, UH, AT THE DIAS, UH, TONIGHT.
UH, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD AND, UH, AND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH THAT INFORMATION.
SO, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVOKED THE LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS DEEMED TO APPROVE STATUS, AND THEN APPROVE THE C EQUA EXEMPTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2023 DASH 0 0 3, AND THEN APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, NUMBER 20 20 20 23, 3, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AND THEN, UH, DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THE NEXT 90 DAYS.
UM, THE INTENT HERE IS TO BE, HAVE A CONSISTENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE OTHER LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECENTLY SEEN.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THE INTERIOR AND EXTRA IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'VE, UM, THAT THEY'VE DESCRIBED IN THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.
SO THAT WOULD GIVE THEM TIME TO, UH, FINISH WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, AND THEN ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE USE, UM, OVER THE NEXT 90 DAYS AS
[00:25:01]
THEY COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.UM, THIS SLIDE INCLUDES SOME ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
UM, SO IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, UM, STAFF WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF INCLUDE, THE INTENT WAS TO INCLUDE, UM, THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD FOR THE PREVIOUS LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS, UM, AND HAVE THOSE INCLUDED JUST IN THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
UM, AFTER THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, I THINK STAFF WOULD BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE CLEAR IF WE INCLUDE THOSE AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SO THAT ALL THE RESOLUTIONS ARE CONSISTENT AND WE'RE PROVIDING THE SAME DIRECTION.
UM, SO, UH, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, CHOOSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UM, STAFF WOULD REQUEST THAT THESE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CONDITIONS BE, UM, ADDED.
UH, THESE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, RECENTLY.
UH, SO SIGNING AN AFFIDAVIT, ACKNOWLEDGING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEEMED APPROVED, UH, ORDINANCE, AND THEN PROVIDING THE MONTHLY REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, UH, LISTING THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY HOUSING PLACEMENT PROGRAMS, COMPLETING THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING, UH, TRAINING.
AND THEN, UH, ADDITIONALLY COMPLETING SEXUAL HARASSMENT TRAINING IF REQUIRED, AND PROVIDING, UH, COPIES OF APPLICABLE TRAINING CERTIFICATES.
SO, UH, JUST IN SUMMARY, AGAIN, SAS RECOMMENDATION TO REVOKE, UH, THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS FOR THE LODGING ESTABLISHMENT, AND THEN APPROVE THE C A EXEMPTION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, WITH THESE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CONDITIONS, AND THEN SCHEDULE A 90 DAY REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, TO EVALUATE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION.
SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER EDISON, ANY? SO IN REVIEWING THIS, EXCUSE ME, IN REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WAS A LOT OF, UM, STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS GOOD.
I USED TO RUN AROUND THAT AREA WHEN I WAS YOUNGER.
I COULD RUN THE AR THE CONDITION THAT I, I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS AN, AN AREA OF PUBLIC SAFETY AS FAR AS SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS.
I KNOW THEY HAVE THE GATE, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING AS FAR AS, OR MAYBE IT'S MAY, MAYBE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, OWN PROPERTY OWNER, BUT AS FAR AS CAMERA SECURITY DETAIL, IS THERE ANYTHING AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS AS, I MEAN, WE HAVE AESTHETICS.
I, I BELIEVE IN THAT, BUT AS FAR AS LIKE SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS, SO WE ARE NOT HAVING SO MANY CALLS FOR SERVICE.
UH, THE APPLICANT CAN LIKELY SPEAK TO THAT IN, IN BETTER DETAIL.
UH, BUT THE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN DOES STIPULATE, UM, ONSITE SECURITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE, THE INTENT IS REALLY THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IF, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO GRANT IT, TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE LEVEL OF SECURITY THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING.
UM, SO IN THE PAST, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE 24 HOURS SECURITY SERVICE, OR IS IT, UM, APPROPRIATE TO JUST HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, DURING EVENING HOURS, SAY FROM, YOU KNOW, 10:00 PM TO 6:00 AM.
UM, THEY HAVE PROPOSED SOMETHING, UH, THAT THEY THINK WILL WORK.
UH, WE DON'T SEE A LEVEL OF NUISANCE CALLS AT THIS PROPERTY THAT IS ABOVE THE, UH, THRESHOLD.
UH, THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE, UH, UPDATES TO THE DEAN APPROVED LODGING ORDINANCE OF MORE THAN ONE CALL, UH, PER ROOM PER YEAR.
UM, SO WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE, THE SECURITY ISSUES BE THERE.
AND SO THE IDEA WAS TO, UM, ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO IMPLEMENT THEIR OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND THEN WE CAN MONITOR THAT, UM, OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOPE.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M SURE WE HAVE SOME SPEAKER CARDS.
AND ARE YOU GONNA BE DOING A PRESENTATION? DO YOU NEED MORE THAN THREE MINUTES? I'M GONNA DEFINITELY NEED MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.
HOW MUCH TIME YOU THINK YOU NEED? I WILL KEEP IT AS SUCCINCT AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IT'S COMING IN AT 20 MINUTES WHEN I WAS PRACTICING.
WHY DON'T EVERYTHING I CAN TO SPEED IT UP? YEAH.
WHY DON'T WE START AT LIKE, UH, 10 AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS FROM THERE.
WE DON'T WANNA CATCH I GOT A BLINK LIGHT OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, IF WE, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
AND NOW THAT I'VE HEARD STAFF'S PRESENTATION, I CAN KIND OF SKIP THROUGH SOME THINGS.
OH, THE 10 MINUTES IS ALREADY STARTING.
MY NAME IS SALLY SCHIFFMAN, S C H I F M A N.
UM, I'M WITH H WWL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, AND I AM REPRESENTING, UH, MR. NEISH PATEL, THE OWNER OF THE EL CAJON INN AND SUITES, AS WELL AS MR. SUNNY
[00:30:01]
PATEL, WHO IS THE RESIDENT MANAGER.UH, WE ALSO HAVE WITH US TONIGHT, MR. NEISH PATEL'S LEGAL REPRESENTATION, MR. ROBERT GARMO.
UH, WE'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HELP.
OOH, OVER THE, OH, BOY, THAT'S GONNA GO QUICK.
UH, WE'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HELP OVER THE LAST FIVE MONTHS AS WE'VE KIND OF NAVIGATED THIS PROCESS AND WHAT HAS BECOME A CHANGING POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS.
UM, I'M GONNA BE TALKING TO QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS, SO I'LL TRY TO MAKE IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
FIRST, VERY SIMPLE, UH, CLARIFICATION ON ROOM COUNT, THERE ARE 37 PHYSICAL SPACES ON THE PROPERTY.
35 ARE RENTED AS ROOMS. ONE'S A MAINTENANCE ROOM, ONE'S A LAUNDRY ROOM.
THERE'S A ONSITE MANAGER'S SUITE.
AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SPOKEN OF TONIGHT, UM, THE EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED TO THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2022.
UM, WE WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS EVENT WAS OF COURSE, TERRIBLE.
UM, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WE WISH IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
UNFORTUNATELY, GUN VIOLENCE IS VERY PROMINENT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, NO COMMUNITY SEEMS TO BE SPARED FROM IT.
AND IT WAS THIS TRAGIC EVENT THAT HAS BECOME THE CATALYST FOR WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES TONIGHT.
IN RESPONSE TO THAT EVENT, UM, MY CLIENT WAS ISSUED HIS, HIS FIRST LETTER OF NOTE, UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATED DECEMBER 22ND, 2022.
AND IT WAS IN THIS LETTER THAT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO CODE SECTION 17,000 200 1207, UH, F WAS IDENTIFIED.
NOW, THIS IS THE SECTION RELATED TO NUISANCE ACTIVITY.
IT LISTS OUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF NUISANCE ACTIVITY, AND THEN IT STATES THAT DEEMED APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL NOT RESULT IN THOSE SET ACTIVITIES ON THEIR PROPERTY OR CONTRIBUTE TO SUCH ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA.
IT, THE LETTER THEN WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS THAT WAS IN FRONT OF US, THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WOULD RESULT IN A SERIES OF DIFFERENT EVER-EVOLVING, UM, CITY INTERVENTIONS, STARTING WITH THE TRAINING FOR MOTEL MANAGEMENT, UH, SUGGESTIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES LIKE LIGHTING AND SECURITY SYSTEMS, UM, ADDITIONAL WARNINGS IF THAT TRAINING AND AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WERE NOT EFFECTIVE OR WORSE DISREGARDED.
AND THEN POT, THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL CITATIONS AND ULTIMATELY, THE HEARING THAT WE FIND OURSELVES AT TONIGHT.
UM, I DO WANNA JUST REITERATE THAT THIS WAS THE PROCESS THAT WAS LAID OUT FOR US AT THE VERY BEGINNING, AND IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE END POINT THAT WOULD LAND US IN FRONT OF THE HEARING.
THE LETTER WENT ON TO DISCLOSE, UM, AT THAT TIME THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD COMPLETED A REVIEW OF THE CALLS FOR SERVICE AND FOUND THAT 24 CALLS HAD BEEN MADE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
AND THEN THE LETTER REQUESTED THAT THE OWNER PREPARE A REMEDY OR WHAT WE'RE CALLING AN ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS THE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES.
UM, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE DISCREPANCY IN THE CALL NUMBER.
SO YOU'RE GONNA SEE THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION THAT THE NUMBERS ARE FLUCTUATING A LITTLE BIT.
UH, IT'S POSSIBLE IF STAFF CAN PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, DETAIL AS TO THAT, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
THE, MY CLIENT AND HIS TEAM DID MEET WITH THE CITY ON JANUARY 9TH, AND ON THE 11TH, A COUPLE DAYS LATER, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FORMALLY DOCUMENTING THAT MEETING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
AND IT WAS IN THIS LETTER THAT HE THEN LAID OUT, UM, SUGGESTED EFFORTS TO REMEDY THE VIOLATION IN THIS LETTER.
WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT THERE WERE 67 CALLS FOR SERVICE DURING THAT CALENDAR YEAR.
UM, 15 OF THESE WERE MEDICAL RELATED.
AND SO IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THOSE, THAT REMAINS 52 CALLS.
18 OF THESE WERE FOR VARYING DISTURBANCE ISSUES, SO FIGHTING BATTERY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ET CETERA.
SIX WERE DRUG RELATED, AND THE REMAINING, UH, CALLS WERE NOT SPECIFIED, I BELIEVE, NOAH, THAT THAT MAY BE WHERE THE 24 CALLS COME IN.
SO THOSE 24 CALLS ARE RELATED TO, LET'S CALL THEM, UM, PERHAPS PREVENTABLE.
THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THE CITY LETTER.
UM, THE LETTER DID STATE THAT THOSE 4 24 CALLS WERE IN LAW, ALL LIKELIHOOD PREVENTABLE.
AND I THINK WE'D ALL LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT ARGUING FIGHTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BATTERY DRUG USE IS PREVENTABLE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK WHETHER IT'S FAIR TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF PREVENTING SUCH BEHAVIORS IN OTHERS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER.
THE LETTER THEN GOES ON TO REITERATE THE EXPECTATION
[00:35:01]
OF MEETING THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND CONCLUDES WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING IMPROVED LIGHTING AND SECURITY MEASURES, AND THEN FORMALLY REQUEST THIS ACTION PLAN, AND THAT IT INCLUDE MODIFIED OPERATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND OR PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY.UM, JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, JANUARY 13TH, A NEW SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM WAS CONTRACTED AND HAS SINCE BEEN PUT IN, UH, THERE ARE 18 CAMERAS.
THERE WAS ALREADY A SYSTEM IN PLACE.
IT WAS, UM, LET'S SAY OUTDATED.
SO THERE WERE 18 NEW CAMERAS INSTALLED AROUND THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A NEW MONITORING AND RECORDING SYSTEM.
UM, THAT BRINGS EVERYTHING UP TO, YOU KNOW, CURRENT STANDARDS.
UM, AND THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE.
UM, WE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHERE THESE CAMERAS ARE, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S AVAILABLE SHOULD THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NEED IT.
THEY ALSO HAS ACCESS TO THOSE RECORDINGS, SHOULD THEY NEED IT.
ON JANUARY 25TH, A RESPONSE WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY FROM THE CI UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY IN RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 11TH, UM, LETTER.
IN THAT LETTER, UM, IT WAS STATED CLEARLY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APP, UH, MANAGER BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD BEEN AND CONTINUED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND THE LETTER THEN FURTHER BROKE DOWN THOSE 52 CALLS FOR, UM, SERVICE THAT WERE CONSIDERED NUISANCE.
EIGHT OF THOSE CALLS, UH, WERE FROM ONE FAMILY, AND THIS WAS A PROBLEM FAMILY.
BY THE TIME THIS LETTER WENT OUT, THAT FAMILY HAD ALREADY LEFT THE ESTABLISHMENT, AND THEY WERE PLACED ON THE DO NOT RENT LIST THAT WAS IN PLACE.
SO THAT FAMILY HAS NOT BEEN BACK.
AND EIGHT OF THOSE CALLS, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN COUNTED, ARE NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
ONE OF THE CALLS WAS PLACED BY A GUEST WHEN SHE AND HER DAUGHTER WERE IN AN ARGUMENT, AND THE DAUGHTER LOCKED HER OUT OF THE ROOM.
AND THEN THERE WERE THE 18 CALLS THAT WERE PLACED BY HOTEL MANAGEMENT, AND THEY WERE THE SO-CALLED DISTURBANCE CALLS THAT WERE ALLUDED TO IN THE JANUARY 11TH MEETING.
AND THAT LEFT 26, LET'S CALL THEM UNPREVENTABLE OR LEGITIMATE OR VALID CALLS.
UM, THIS EQUATES TO WHEN WE TOOK LOOK AT JUST THOSE REAL SERIOUS CALLS.
IT'S 0.74 CALLS PER ROOM PER YEAR.
SO THIS IS WELL BELOW THE, THE USED STANDARD OF ONE CALL PER ROOM PER YEAR.
IT WAS ALSO NOTED IN THAT LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY THAT, YOU KNOW, ASKING BUSINESS OWNERS TO RESTRICT THE CALLS TO SERVICE COULD REALLY HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT IN NOTIFYING THE POLICE OF REAL SERIOUS EITHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR MEDICAL ISSUES.
AND, UM, THE ATTORNEY DID REQUEST THAT THOSE CALLS TO SERVICE NOT BE USED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN DETERMINING NUISANCE ACTIVITY.
AND IN FACT, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOES LIST, UM, AN UNDER THE EFFORT TO REMEDY WHEN ISSUES ARISE AT THESE PROPERTIES.
IT DOES LIST TIMELY CALLS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
SO WE ARE ASKING OPERATORS TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN THEY NEED IT, BUT THEN WE'RE USING THOSE CALLS AGAINST THEM.
THIS LETTER ALSO, UH, INCLUDED THE FIRST ACTION PLAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY.
IT INCLUDED THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY CAMERAS UPGRADED FROM WHAT WAS IN PLACE, ADDITIONAL LIGHTING ON THE SITE, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN INSTALLED, ADDED TO WHAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE, A UNIFORMED, UH, GUARD WALKING THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENT MANAGER.
UM, A NEW GUEST REGISTER FORM WAS PREPARED TO REPLACE THE PREVIOUS FILE CARD SYSTEM.
NEW AND UPDATED SIGNAGE WAS PLACED AROUND THE PROPERTY.
THIS WAS DONE IN COORDINATION AND COOPERATION WITH E C P D, AND THERE WAS A RENEWED COMMITMENT FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, STAFF TRAINING.
AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER THAT REGULAR, MAYBE MONTHLY MEETINGS, OR AT LEAST SOME SORT OF REGULAR COMMUNICATION BE ESTABLISHED WITH THE, UH, POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GO OVER MONTHLY INCIDENTS SO THAT THEY COULD STAY IN FRONT OF IT.
HOW ABOUT, UH, FIVE MORE MINUTES.
WILL THAT WRAP YOU UP OR YOU THINK YOU NEED MORE? I'M GONNA NEED MORE, BUT I WILL SPEED UP MY TIMELINE.
AND THEN I KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS WELL, SO TOTALLY.
[00:40:01]
ANOTHER 10.ON JANUARY 27TH, THE SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS, UM, OBTAINED.
AND AT THIS POINT WE WERE ALSO TOLD THAT THE SECOND VIOLATION WAS TO CODE SECTION 17,000 200 1207, UH, UM, YES.
OH SEVEN OH, WHICH IS REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND THIS WAS IN, UH, RESPONSE TO THE ALLEGED RENTING OF THE ROOM TO A MINOR BY FEBRUARY 7TH.
UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY HAD GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
AT THIS POINT, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE KIND OF AN ESCALATION OF THE SITUATION.
UM, AND AT THIS POINT, WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS HEARING, THE INTENT OF THIS HEARING WAS GOING TO BE TO REVOKE THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS, AND WE WERE ALSO ASKED TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS A BACKUP OPTION.
UM, REGARDLESS OF THIS KIND OF LOOMING THREAT, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUED MOVING FORWARD IN COOPERATION WITH THE CITY.
UM, FEBRUARY 15TH, UH, FEBRUARY 10TH, A NEW LIGHTING, UM, SYSTEM WAS CONTRACTED FOR AND HAS SINCE BEEN INSTALLED.
AND FEBRUARY 15TH AND 16TH, ANOTHER MEETING WAS HAD WITH THE CITY, AT WHICH POINT THE ACTION PLAN WAS REVIEWED, ADJUSTED, AND MOVED FORWARD WITH.
AND BY MARCH 1ST, I WAS RETAINED TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR USE PERMIT.
SO EVERYTHING WAS MOVING AHEAD QUITE QUICKLY.
UM, MARCH 6TH, AGAIN, MR. PATEL'S WORKING WITH MR. ALVI CONSISTENTLY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW HERE.
MARCH 14TH, EAGLES POINT SECURITY WAS RETAINED.
THEY STARTED DOING NIGHT PATROLS.
THEY, UH, THEY WALKED THE SITE FOUR TIMES EVERY NIGHT, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
AND THEN, THIS IS OF COURSE, IN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENT MANAGER THAT'S THERE DURING THE DAY, MARCH 19TH, A NEW FENCE CONTRACT WAS ESTABLISHED.
THE FENCE, AS THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE GONE BY THE SITE, THE FENCE IS BEING INSTALLED.
IT'S 230 FEET OF FENCING ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE.
AND BY MARCH 27TH, WE DO, OH, WHOA, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S HAPPENING.
MARCH 27TH, THE PROGRESS REPORT IS GIVEN IN A NEW REQUEST TO MEET WITH E C P D IS REQUESTED.
UM, THIS MEETING NEVER OCCURRED, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE CALL RECORD FROM THIS LAST YEAR.
THIS IS WHERE WE GET THE 10 CALLS.
EIGHT OF THESE WERE EITHER NON CODED OR MEDICAL CALLS THAT LEFT 10 VALID CALLS TO THE SITE.
UM, GIVEN THAT NUMBER IN COMPARISON TO LAST YEAR, THE SITE IS ACTUALLY ON TRACK TO HAVE A 40% REDUCTION IN CALLS TO SERVICE THIS YEAR.
AND THAT'S A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN ALREADY.
SO THE NEW LIGHTING, THE NEW SECURITY, UM, THE NEW SECURITY SYSTEM, SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, ET CETERA, I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS.
MARCH 30TH, THE USE PERMITS SUBMITTED BY THE END OF APRIL.
WE GET FEEDBACK FROM STAFF, WE MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
EVERYTHING IS SUBMITTED MAY 5TH, THE HEARING IS PUBLISHED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S DOING THAT.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT MAKING THIS FASTER.
I REALIZE THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION.
UM, WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GO THROUGH THAT TIMELINE.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER HAS BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH STAFF.
THE INTENT IS TO GET THIS SITE, UM, BACK TO WHERE YOU GUYS FEEL THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE, THE WAY THAT THE OWNER AND OPERATOR ALREADY FELT IT WAS.
SO NOW, BEFORE YOU, YOU GUYS HAVE THE, UH, CHOICE, DO YOU REVOKE THIS PERMIT OR DO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN THEIR DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS? JUMPING FORWARD A LITTLE BIT, AGAIN, HERE'S YOUR, UH, ORDINANCE SECTION ON EFFORTS TO REMEDY.
AND, AND AGAIN, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, CALLS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE LISTED AS A LEGITIMATE AND USEFUL REMEDY TO A SITUATION ON SITE.
THE SECOND BULLET POINT HERE IS, UM,
UM, THE IMPORTANT CAVEAT HERE IS THAT THE CODE ITSELF SAYS THIS SHOULD ONLY BE DONE IF THE PERSON FEELS SAFE DOING
[00:45:01]
SO.SO THOSE NUISANCE CALLS THE 18 CALLS, IT'S ARGUABLY VALID FOR SOMEONE TO CALL THE POLICE IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE THREATENED OR THEIR GUESTS ARE THREATENED.
AND AGAIN, THOSE CALLS SHOULDN'T BE HELD AGAINST THEM.
AND THEN, UH, THERE ARE FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
DOES THE OPERATION, UM, OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE? IS THE OWNER OPERATOR UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO ABATE THE NUISANCE? AND IS THE NUISANCE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE TIMING THAT IT KEEPS DOING THAT.
UH, AS TO THE FIRST VIOLATION, VIOLATION OF CODE SECTION 17, 212 7 0 B, REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALLEGEDLY RENTING TO A MINOR, AS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED TO CITY STAFF.
UM, AND WE'D LIKE THE RECORD TO SHOW TONIGHT, THE SITE MANAGER MAINTAINS THAT THEY DID NOT RENT, RENT A ROOM TO A MINOR.
THEY RENTED THE ROOM TO AN ADULT.
UM, THAT ADULT WAS INCLUDED ON THE REGISTER, THE GUEST REGISTER THAT WAS ON FILE.
AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE TO CONTINUE TO ENSURE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT CODE SECTION BE MET.
UM, THE GUEST REGISTER HAS BEEN UPDATED.
UM, IT DOES NOW INCLUDE SPECIFIC STATEMENTS THAT INCLUDE, UM, NO ONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 IS PERMITTED TO RENT A ROOM.
AND THAT ANYBODY ON THE PREMISES THAT IS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ACTION ADDRESSES THE VIOLATION CONCERN.
THE SECOND VIOLATION IS OF CODE SECTION 17 200, 1207 0 F, WHICH IDENTIFIES THOSE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES AND STATES THAT ESTABLISHMENTS SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO, OR, UH, BE THE SOURCE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.
THIS IS WHERE I'D REALLY LIKE TO GO BACK TO THOSE FINDINGS.
SO FIRST, DOES THE OPERATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE? THE OWNER'S ALREADY REQUESTED THAT CALLS FOR SERVICE NOT BE USED AGAINST THE PROPERTY.
UM, BY EQUATING CALLS TO SERVICE TO NUISANCE ACTIVITY, THE CITY REALLY DOES RUN THE RISK OF DISCOURAGING CITIZENS FROM REPORTING CRIME OR REQUESTING HELP.
WE CAN ALL RATIONALLY AGREE THAT RESTRICTING OR DISCOURAGING ANYBODY FROM CALLING THE POLICE WHEN THERE'S AN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR MEDICAL EMERGENCY IS NOT REALLY THE INTENT OF THE CITY OR THE CODE WHEN ASKING THAT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THESE ACTIVITIES.
HOWEVER, SINCE THIS IS THE METRIC THAT THE CITY USES, UM, AS DEMONSTRATED, WE HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE IS, UH, EVEN LAST YEAR THERE WERE 26 LEGITIMATE CALLS.
THAT'S 0.74 CALLS PER ROOM PER YEAR.
UH, WE'RE ON TRACK FOR 40% LESS THIS YEAR, AND THAT IS BELOW THE STANDARD USED.
WE WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT IS NOT A NUISANCE.
THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT SELL DRUGS OR ALCOHOL.
IT DOES NOT EMPLOY PROSTITUTES.
IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR OR ENCOURAGE LOITERING.
IT DOES NOT FACILITATE HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR CONDONE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR ALLOW FOR THE STORAGE OF STOLEN GOODS.
UM, THE OWNER AND THE RESIDENT MANAGER CERTAINLY DON'T EXCUSE, AND BY NO MEANS ENCOURAGE NUISANCE ACTIVITY ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS AND HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH SOME GUESTS HERE AND AT OTHER HOTELS IN THE CITY.
BUT THE OWNER AND THE MANAGER ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE CITY TO CONTINUE REDUCING UNWANTED ACTIVITIES AT AND AROUND THE PROPERTY.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
IS THE OWNER AN OPERATOR UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ABATE THE NUISANCE? WHILE WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD SET FORTH IN THE CODE, UH, WE'VE DEFINITELY MADE IT CLEAR TONIGHT THAT MSEL IS ABLE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON, UH, WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED OF HIM AS TO THE ABATEMENT OF THOSE NUISANCE ACTIVITIES.
UH, IT'S ADMITTEDLY HARDER, BUT IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
UM, THE MANAGER AND STAFF WILL BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL TRAINING IN OPERATIONS AND SECURITY AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FROM, UH, FOR THE SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THEY'VE HIRED PRIVATE SECURITY, THEY'VE INSTALLED AN UPDATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, THEY'VE INCREASED LIGHTING AND INSTALLED SITE FENCING, AND THEY CONTINUE TO COOPERATE AND COMMUNICATE WITH ECP D.
AND FINALLY, IS THE NUISANCE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY? WE'VE SEEN THE NEWS STORIES AND WE'VE READ THE ARTICLES FROM THE LAST ALMOST NINE MONTHS NOW.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE POLITICAL
[00:50:01]
PRESSURE THAT CITY STAFF AND DECISION MAKERS ARE FACING RIGHT NOW AS IT COMES TO THESE HOTEL VOUCHERS AND HOW MANY MAY BE ISSUED TO INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY OF EL CAJON.WE KNOW THAT PUBLIC SAFETY AND SUPPORT SERVICES ARE STRAINED, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT CITY OFFICIALS FEEL THAT THEY'RE PERHAPS CARRYING AN EXTRA BURDEN IN THE COUNTY, BUT WE MAINTAIN THAT WE CAN HARDLY PINPOINT THE PROBLEM TO ONE ESTABLISHMENT OR ONE LOCATION, OR ONE OPERATOR.
UM, THE CITY HAS ALREADY REVOKED THE STATUS OF TWO DEEMED APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS.
UM, FOUR OR FIVE MORE ESTABLISHMENTS MAY COME BEFORE YOU AFTER THE ONE TONIGHT.
AND PERHAPS THERE IS A NUISANCE THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TIED TO THESE, THE INFLUX OF HOTEL VOUCHERS.
UM, BUT THIS NUISANCE DOES NOT STEM FROM THE EL CAJON INN SUITES, AND WE ASK THAT YOU NOT IMPOSE BURDENS ON INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNERS SUCH AS MR. PATEL, THAT THE CITY ITSELF CANNOT SHOULDER RIGHT NOW.
AND WE ASK THAT YOU NOT PUNISH BUSINESS OWNERS FOR STRUGGLING PUBLIC POLICIES.
THE CITY, UM, THE OWNER AND THE MANAGER HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH CITY STAFF SINCE THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED.
UH, COUNTLESS LETTERS, PROGRESS REPORT, MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS, EMAILS.
THE OWNER HAS INSTALLED AN UPGRADED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, PRIVATE SECURITY, NEW FENCING, NEW LANDSCAPING.
OKAY, MR. SCHIFFMAN, YOUR TIME IS UP.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE NOT SHARED WITH US THAT YOU STILL WANT TO BRING FORTH OR HAVE YOU GOT ALL THE SURE.
THE LAST THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A DIFFERENT REQUEST FOR TONIGHT THAN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, WE ASK THAT RATHER THAN REVOKE THE DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS, THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN THEIR STATUS AND THAT THEREFORE YOU WOULD NOT NEED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO I FEEL LIKE MAYBE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION WITH THE DEEMED APPROVED VERSUS A C U P.
ANYBODY THAT COMES INTO THIS, TO THE CITY WHO WANTS TO RUN A BUSINESS OR A MOTEL, THEY GO FORWARD AND THEY GET A C P.
MANY OF THESE DID NOT HAVE CUS DUE TO THE FACT OF THEIR AGE.
AND SO THE DEEMED TO PROOF STATUS WAS PUT IN PLACE FOR THOSE GUIDELINES.
THE C P DOES THE EXACT SAME THING.
IT, IT GIVES GUIDELINES, IT ACTUALLY CLEARS THINGS UP, MAKES THINGS A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR YOU TO WORK WITH THE CITY, FOR YOU TO WORK WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND EVERYONE HAS A, UH, SET EXPECTATIONS.
AND THOSE SET EXPECTATIONS ARE IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THERE'S NOT ONE BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN THAT DOESN'T HAVE A C U P.
SO THE DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS WA WAS A WAY TO GRANT OWNERS THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO, TO HAVE BUSINESS WITH, WITH A SET OF GUIDELINES.
AND IF THOSE GUIDELINES WERE NOT MET, THEN WE WERE GONNA BRING ANY BUSINESS BACK TO FOLLOW UNDER A C U P.
SO, TO, TO, TO, TO KEEP THE DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS AND NOT A C P I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT, WHAT THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS FOR YOU GUYS.
WHAT, WHAT IS THE, THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT HAVING A C P VERSUS A DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS FORM? UM, SO
IF THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE, WHY IMPOSE IT? MM-HMM.
SO THERE ARE A SET OF STANDARDS, UM, THOSE STANDARDS WERE EITHER BEING MET OR IN WORKING WITH STAFF ARE BEING BROUGHT UP TO THE STANDARD THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE IN IMPOSING THE USE PERMIT AND NOT IMPOSING THE USE PERMIT.
AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT IT NOT BE IMPOSED.
UM, NEXT QUESTION, AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHEN THERE WERE UNDERAGE KIDS, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVING PARTIES AND DOING THINGS, DID ANYONE CALL THE AUTHORITIES AT THAT TIME TO SAY, HEY, THERE MIGHT BE SOME ACTIVITIES GOING ON HERE WITH UNDERAGE CHILDREN THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE TAKEN A LOOK AT? WAS THERE ANY CALLS I WOULD NEED TO DEFER TO THE PROPERTY MANAGER.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO THE YEAH.
UM, FROM WHAT THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS STATED IS THAT, UH, I WAS A 14 YEAR OLD BOY, I BELIEVE WENT TO THE ROOM AND PAID CASH IN ORDER TO RENEW FOR THE NEXT NIGHT.
UH, IS THERE SOMETHING IMPLEMENTED WHERE THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN? I WOULD ALSO HAVE TO DEFER TO PROPERTY MANAGER.
I SAW A COUPLE TIMES THAT HERE REGARDING THE KEYS AND HOW THEY WERE ISSUED, THE KEYS THEY HAVE IS A, IS IT LIKE A FOB SYSTEM THEY HAVE THAT THEY CAN TURN ON AN OFFER AS AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL KEY THAT THEY GIVE? IS IT SOME SORT OF UPDATED SYSTEM? IT'S A PHYSICAL KEY TO GET INTO THE ROOMS? YES.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY MAYBE DO A FOB SYSTEM
[00:55:01]
OR SOMETHING THEY COULD TURN ON AND OFF? CUZ THAT SEEMS KIND OF A SECURITY ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE ISSUING KEYS AND PEOPLE CAN GO MAKE COPIES OF KEYS AND GO BACK.I KNOW THAT THEY CHANGE IT, YOU KNOW, QUITE OFTEN, BUT I THINK A FOB SYSTEM WOULD BE EASIER JUST TO QUICKLY DISENGAGE THAT ROOM AND CHANGE IT TO ANOTHER COVE FOR SOMEONE ELSE.
IT'S JUST A POTENTIAL SITUATION.
I, I DO NOT KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE BOB SYSTEMS ARE TO INSTALL AND ON ALL THE ROOMS. UM, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INVESTED OVER $50,000 IN JUST THE LAST FIVE MONTHS TO, TO DO SOME, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS.
AND, AND WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I'M JUST SAYING FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.
SO THEN IT'S AN, AN ISSUE, YOU KNOW, FOR KEYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
COMMISSIONER SEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXTENSIVE REPORT.
I, I TOOK THE NOTES AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU WERE VERY THOROUGH.
UM, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT JUST OUTTA RESPECT FOR EVERYBODY'S TIME AND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE DO HERE.
UH, WHAT PREVENTATIVE MEASURES WERE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE, UH, DECEMBER 12TH INCIDENT? WERE, WERE THERE ANY RED FLAGS FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES TO THIS SPECIFIC INCIDENT? CORRECT.
THE DECEMBER, I BELIEVE AT DECEMBER 12TH, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE PROPERTY MANAGER.
UM, AS FAR AS ALL, ARE THEY GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT? CHAIR? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKER CARDS? WE DO.
UH, I THINK I'LL JUST DEFER THOSE.
UH, I DO APPRECIATE, UM, THE THOROUGHNESS OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID TONIGHT.
I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE OWNER.
UH, I WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED, UH, PRIOR TO THIS HEARING BEING SET TO QUOTE UNQUOTE ABATE THE NUISANCE THAT WAS ALLEGED.
UM, THE, UH, THE OWNER HAS RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL TO BRIEF THE ISSUE OF THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUTE.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ THREE EXCERPTS FROM THAT JUST SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR.
AND SO THIS IS, UH, IN YOUR, UH, BRIEF LETTER.
SO ON PAGE FOUR, THE DEEMED APPROVED LODGING ESTABLISHMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF UH, COUNCIL ON JUNE 25TH, 2019, IS BEING APPLIED IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER IN VIOLATION OF THE US CONSTITUTION.
AND THE F F H A DISCRIMINATORY AND OVER ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE CITY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF ON PAGE NINE STATES THAT IT GIVES GREAT DISCRETION WITHOUT PROPER LIMITATION TO, TO THE CITY.
AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO REVOKE THE YOUTH STATUTES AT IS, AT IS IT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE AND IT'S VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT A MUNICIPALITY ON THIS, ON PAGE SEVEN IN ABETTING, A CLAIMED PUBLIC NUISANCE WILL FIRST ATTEMPT TO REVOL RESOLVE THE ISSUE INFORMALLY.
AND IF REQUIRED TO DO SO, FORMALLY REQUIRED IS, UH, TO PROVIDE, UH, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, UH, AS WELL.
UM, PRIOR TO DECEMBER, 2019, NOT ONE SINGLE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT SAYS, OH, HEY, YOU GUYS ARE VIOLATING SOMETHING.
THE FIRST LETTER THAT WAS ALL THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT BEFORE WERE ABOUT THE USE OF THE VOUCHERS.
WELL, THE FIRST LETTER THAT CAME IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS DECEMBER 22ND, DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THAT DECEMBER 12TH INCIDENT AT ALL.
IT JUST SAYS, OH, THERE'S SOME NUISANCE GOING ON.
IT WAS A GENUINE LETTER THAT THEN SAID, HEY, THERE WAS A MAJOR INCIDENT ON DECEMBER, UH, 12TH OR 14TH, WHATEVER THAT WAS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT RENT TO MINORS.
THEY RENTED TO TWO OCCUPANTS THAT WERE ADULTS THAT WERE RENTING TWO PRO OTHER ROOMS. THEY, THEY DO NOT RENT.
IT'S, IT'S NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT? YOU SAID THERE'S TWO ADULTS THAT RENTED TWO ROOMS OR TWO ADULTS THAT RENTED MULTIPLE ROOMS? NO, TWO ADULTS.
THEY HAD THEIR OWN SEPARATE ROOM.
AND THEN THEY ADD, THEY EACH SAID, HEY, WE HAVE FAMILY COMING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN.
[01:00:01]
THEY RENTED ROOMS, ANOTHER ROOM EACH OKAY.I'M NOT SURE IF THEY PAID FOR A DAY OR TWO OR THREE IN ADVANCE.
THE OWNER CAN TELL YOU THAT, BUT THEN THEY PAID FOR IT AFTER THE FACT.
WHO PAID FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS? I'M NOT REALLY SURE.
AND I'M NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, MAKE STATEMENTS THAT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT.
UH, THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH A DEEMED APPROVED STATU, UH, STATUTE.
IT WAS THE, THE NUMBERS HAVE GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS SINCE THE NEW MANAGER, SONNY PATEL HAS TAKEN OVER.
THEY'VE MADE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CITY OF EL CAJON SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TOO MANY CALLS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNER, MR. PATEL OWNS THREE HOTELS IN EL CAJON.
HE OWNS A, A, A PIECE OF THE ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
HIS INTENT IS HE IS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CITY OF EL CAJON.
HE WANTS WHAT THE BEST FOR, FOR THE CITY OF ALCON.
SO THIS, THIS, YOU KNOW, ALLEGATION THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THAT ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE AND MINORS WERE RENTING ROOMS AND PARTING WAS GOING ON.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN SUNNY PATEL HAD TO GO, UH, UH, UNDERTAKE A, A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AND HE WAS GONE FOR A FEW DAYS.
BUT THAT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE THAT CAN, THAT CAN HAPPEN.
IT, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FOUND O OVERDOSED IN, IN THE HYATT.
NO ONE CAN STOP STUFF LIKE THAT.
UH, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH GUN VIOLENCE.
AND YOU KNOW, FOR ME, I'VE BEEN IN, I'VE BEEN IN THE CITY OF ELCON NOW FOR ABOUT LIVING AND USED TO, MY OFFICE WAS ACROSS THE STREET FOR 28 YEARS NOW.
IT USED TO BE THAT WHEN THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT, THE POLICE OFFICERS HAD A PROBLEM WITH A, WITH A PROPERTY, THEY WOULD NOTIFY THEM, HEY, YOU HAVE A PRO.
IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING NOW WITH THIS DEEMED APPROVED IS HEAVY HANDEDNESS.
YOU KNOW, WELL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, C U P AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, REVOKING DEEMED APPROVED? IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
IT'S NOT PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
WE ARE BEING TOLD BY MR. ALVI HERE, AND BY, BY ENFORCEMENT, THAT HEY, IN 90 DAYS WE'RE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, UH, LOOKING DOWN YOUR THROAT, YOU KNOW, STARING AT YOU TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE.
EVERY UH, UH, YOU KNOW, T CROSSED AND I DOTTED.
AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE OVERREACHING THAT THE ATTORNEY STALKING ABOUT AND THE VAGUENESS, WELL WE THINK, YOU KNOW, 10 CALLS ARE TOO MUCH.
WELL, WE THINK THAT YOU SHOULD DO THIS.
AND WITH THAT, IT'S TOO VAGUE.
LIKE, WHAT SHOULD HE DO? THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.
YOU SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS WHAT WE ALL WANT.
100% COMPLIANCE IS NOT POSSIBLE.
IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.
IF SAY WE WANT A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLIANCE, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
NOW SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WILL HAPPEN AND IT IS HAPPENING.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO, TO REVOKE THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS AS IT'S GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING WITH OPERATIONS.
IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE OWNER.
IT'S GONNA DO THIS BIG BROTHER OVERSIGHT THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN 90 DAYS.
WELL, WE'RE NOT HAPPY HERE THAT WE HAVE BEEN BEGGING THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER TO HAVE MORE PRODUCTIVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
HEY, LET US KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT AND LET US KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WRONG.
I MEAN, IT USED TO BE THAT THERE WERE BACK AND FORTH.
I LED SEVERAL YEARS BACK TO WHERE THE CITY OF ELCON HAD A, AN AMAZING, UH, MEETING WITH ALL THE, WELL THE HOTEL OWNERS AND EDUCATIONAL CLASSES BACK AND FORTH AS A PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS OWNERS.
IT SEEMS NOW THIS IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE ME AGAINST YOU.
SO, UM, THE DEEMED TO APPROVE WAS PUT IN IN 2019, RIGHT? UM, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CUS HAVE BEEN REVOKED IN THE CITY OF EL CAJON IN THE LAST 50 YEARS? NO.
SO THE HEAVY HANDEDNESS, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP DIALOGUE, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, DO YOU THINK ANYONE CHANGES WITHOUT A LITTLE BIT OF COERCION AS FAR AS, HEY, YOU BETTER CLEAN YOUR ROOM, OR ELSE, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING HERE.
WHAT I'M SEEING HAPPENING HERE, IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TYPE OF PLACEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE CITY.
WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH IS PROPER MANAGEMENT, IN MY OPINION.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A C U P REVOKED.
AND IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN ON MY WATCH, I'LL TELL YOU THAT MUCH.
BUT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD ALL WORK TOGETHER.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, COMMUNICATION STARTS HERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, MAYBE IT SHOULD HAVE STARTED A YEAR OR TWO AGO.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A, UH, PROGRAM BETWEEN OWNERS IN THE CITY.
WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE PROGRAM FOR THE HOTELS, UM, THAT EVERYONE PARTICIPATES IN?
[01:05:03]
OH, HOME START OR CRIME? OH, CRIME FREE.WELL, WE HAVE THE CRIME FREE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, BUT IT'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO WE'VE SEEN IT WORK AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE, THIS ISN'T THE TYPE OF CITY, WE'RE NOT BIG BROTHER HERE.
YOU KNOW, WE WANT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, BUT THIS WAS A MAJOR INCIDENT.
I MEAN, THIS WAS A MAJOR INCIDENT AND HAD HAD THAT GIRL NOT BEEN SHOT, WOULD WE, WHAT WOULD BE GOING ON TODAY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
WHAT WOULD BE GOING ON AT THAT ESTABLISHMENT STATUS QUO? WOULD THERE BE SECURITY CAMERAS GOING IN? WOULD THERE BE NEW GATES? WOULD THERE BE ANY, OR WOULD IT JUST CONTINUE TILL SOMEBODY ELSE GOT HURT? I MEAN, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
WELL, I, I'M, I'M WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMISSIONER, THE STATUS QUO WAS 24 CALLS IN 2022.
THAT, WHICH IS FAR LESS THAN 35.
THE, THE, YOU KNOW, NO ONE CAN DENY THAT PART OF IT.
AND TO SAY, COMMUNICATIONS, WE'VE BEEN BEGGING FOR COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY.
NOTHING WAS SENT TO THE PRIMARY.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.
NOTHING WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, ALERTING THEM, SCOLDING THEM, YELLING AT THEM TO SAY, HEY, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER UNTIL DECEMBER 20, 22, 5 MONTHS AGO.
AND TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DOING IT IN, IN TO RETALIATE FOR THE VOUCHERS AND ALL THAT.
LOOK, I'M NOT GONNA LA BLAME ON WHETHER THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE OR NOT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS, BUT IF IT'S NOT THE REASON, IF IT'S THAT ONE SINGLE INCIDENT, WHERE WAS THE COMMUNICATION BEFORE THAT INCIDENT TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION.
THAT VIOLATION IS VERY SERIOUS.
AND AGAIN, IT, THEY DO NOT RENT TO MINORS.
NOW, YOU KNOW, DOES IT SLIP HERE AND THERE? DOES, YOU KNOW, FA BY THE WAY, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE LOTS OF FAMILIES THAT LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY, LOTS OF CHILDREN THAT LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A PARENT CAN SEND THEIR 14, 15 YEAR OLD KID TO SAY, HERE'S A COUPLE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO GO PAY.
I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THAT DOESN'T STATE THAT THEY'RE RENTING TO MINORS.
THAT THAT'S A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, REACH.
SO FIRST, THANK YOU FOR COMING.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO AGREE 100%.
THIS ISN'T, UH, A CITY VERSUS BUSINESSES, BY ALL MEANS.
THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU WANT.
UM, THIS IS PART OF THE DIALOGUE.
UM, AT NO POINT DID ANY COMMISSIONER UP HERE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT VO THIS ISN'T ABOUT VOUCHERS.
THIS, THIS, THIS IS A DI THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ROOM.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN INCIDENT THAT HA OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 12TH, WHERE A MINOR WAS, HAD NO BUSINESS IN THERE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS THAT, THAT I'VE READ FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT HAD NO BUSINESS IN THERE THAT WOUND UP, TO USE THE WORD TRAGIC IS PROBABLY AN UNDERSTATEMENT.
UH, I, AT LEAST FROM THE COMMISSIONERS UP HERE, THAT THIS ISN'T AN ADVERSARIAL BY ANY MEANS.
THIS IS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
WHEN YOU MENTIONED THERE'S NO DIALECT WITH DIALOGUE BETWEEN EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND YOU, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT IOTTA IS ON THE OWNER NOW.
WE ALL AGREE THAT THE, THE, THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS IS TO CREATE REVENUE.
WE KNOW THAT, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE PURPOSE OF A BUSINESS IS TO CREATE A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE CITY.
AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I HEAR, YOU KNOW, IS, IS THERE GONNA BE A MINOR THAT'S GONNA BE IN THERE FROM TIME TO TIME? YEAH.
AND WHAT MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, CUZ I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A TIT FOR TAP BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S PRODUCTIVE.
WHEN I READ THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS THAT SOMEBODY RENTED THE ROOMS FOR THESE YOUTH.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT MECHANISM MECHANISMS HAVE MECHANISMS, EXCUSE ME,
WHAT NAME CAN BE PUT INTO THERE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? WELL, SO FIRST OF ALL, WE DO HAVE THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT RENTED THE ROOMS CUZ THEY HAD BEEN RENTING THE, THE OTHER ROOMS. OKAY.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE PRESENTED THAT TO THE POLICE.
SO WHEN YOU SAY THE STAFF REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THERE ARE MINORS IN THERE, THERE ARE MINORS IN THERE.
SO THE, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE ARE, I THINK THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO, UH, SONNY PATEL, THERE WERE LIKE 15 MINORS IN THERE.
THREE OR FOUR, FIVE FAMILIES WITH TWO OR THREE KIDS EACH.
THE ISSUE ISN'T WITH MINORS IN THE ROOM.
THE, THE ISSUE ISN'T WITH MINORS IN THE ROOM.
[01:10:01]
IS THERE SUPERVISION OF THE MINORS IN THE ROOM? I THINK THAT IS A BETTER QUESTION.RIGHT? AND I THINK TO THE SECOND QUESTION, AND I THINK THAT'S A VALID QUESTION THAT YOU POSE, IS, WELL, WHAT STANDARDS AND WHAT ARE WE DOING TODAY TO PREVENT ANY INCIDENT THAT'S OCCURRING? I THINK THAT'S THE REALLY, THE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE.
AND THAT, SO THE, UH, TO REGISTER NOW AT THE PROPERTY, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT IS GOING TO BE STAYING IN THE ROOM HAS TO PROVIDE EITHER AN ID, A NAME, IF IT'S CHILDREN, THE, THE PARENTS' ID, AND SO FORTH, SO THAT THEY KNOW WHO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE ROOM ARE.
SO MY QUESTION IS, PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT, WAS THAT IN PLACE? IT, I THINK TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IT WAS A, IT'S A YES OR NO.
AND, AND THE REASON I SAY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IS BECAUSE IT IS VERY DI DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT AND OVERSEE THAT WHO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE IN A ROOM, THE, THE FEE IS MORE THAN THERE'S ONE PERSON IN A ROOM, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND SO A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ANOTHER PERSON IN THEM WITH 'EM.
THEY MIGHT BE IN A CAR AND SO FORTH.
SO FOR THE MANAGER TO HAVE TO WALK AROUND ALL THE TIME AND SUPERVISE THAT, IT'S KIND OF TOO, YOU KNOW, ENCUMBERSOME.
UM, BUT YES, THERE WAS IN PLACE A REGISTRY WITH ALL GUESTS.
UH, THEY HAD A, A DO NOT RE UH, UH, RENTAL LIST.
THEY HAD, UH, UH, LOTS OF HOTEL PROCEDURES TO GO THROUGH, UH, WITH ALL THE GUESTS.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE WERE ONLY 24 INCIDENCES, YOU KNOW, IN A, IN A FULL YEAR.
WELL, THE FINAL THING, I JUST WANT TO FORGIVE ME, CHAIR, THE FINAL THING I JUST WANT TO SAY, THIS ISN'T AN ADVERSARIAL, I, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS ABOUT VAL.
THIS IS ABOUT A, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND AN APPROVED STATUS.
THAT'S, THAT'S OUR SCOPE FOR TODAY.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ASSIST YOU WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO'S IN THE ROOM.
WOULD YOU AGREE? I I WOULD SAY IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF TIMES WE DO KNOW WHO IS IN THE ROOM.
IN ALL THE, THE POINT OF THE, THE, JUST MY FINAL POINT, CUZ I DON'T WANNA MONOPOLIZE TIME.
UM, THE, THE BUSINESS IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO HAVE ROOMS FOR RENT.
YOU, IT COMES WITH RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF KNOWING WHO'S IN THERE.
AND IF YOU HAVE INCIDENTS AND YOU CALL EL CAJON POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOW ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO HELP YOU IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE COULD BE 10 TO 15 MINORS IN A ROOM, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW YOU.
I GUESS WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT.
WELL, I MEAN, THERE ARE REGISTERED GUESTS, OR THERE ARE, THERE ARE, UH, OCCUPANTS AND THERE ARE VISITORS, RIGHT? THERE'S REGISTERED GUESTS AND VISITORS AND RUNNING A TIGHT SHIP IS, IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT HERE IS TO RUN A VERY TIGHT SHIP TO SAY, WE WANT TO KNOW WHO EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS PROPERTY IS.
AND THAT, THAT IS REALLY WHAT, AND I'VE HAD DOZENS AND DOZENS OF, OF CONVERSATIONS WITH OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT.
THAT IS THEIR, THEIR INTENT IS TO, THEY WANNA KNOW WHO IS IN THERE IN CASE SOMEBODY BURNS THE PROPERTY DOWN, BREAKS THE ANYTHING DOWN.
SO IT ISN'T THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THERE IS A PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP HERE.
OWNERSHIP, LIKE I SAID, OWNS MULTIPLE HOTELS IN ELCON AND WANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY STRUCTURALLY, AESTHETICALLY, OPERATIONALLY, IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE WAY.
THEY WANNA PARTNER UP WITH THE CITY TO FIND COMMON SOLUTIONS TO DRUGS AND, YOU KNOW, CRIMES AND ALL THAT OTHER GOOD STUFF.
RIGHT? SO I DON'T WANNA SEE IT ADVERSARIAL, HONESTLY, I, IT'S, IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY AND IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE BUSINESS OWNER.
AND SO WHEN THIS HEARING WAS SET IN PLACE, AS OPPOSED TO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, HEY, THERE, THESE VIOLATIONS TAKE CARE OF 'EM.
AND WE RESPONDED AND, AND SAID, OKAY, WE HAVE AN ACTION PLAN, A HOTEL ACTION PLAN.
A DAY LATER IT SAYS, NOPE, WE'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THIS ACTION PLAN.
I THINK THAT'S ADVERSARIAL IN MY OPINION.
IT COULD HAVE SAID, WELL I'M SORRY, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU COULD WORK ON THAT AND THIS AND THAT, BUT NOPE, WE DON'T LIKE IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT ADVERSARIAL FROM WHERE WE'RE STANDING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GARMO? CUZ WE'RE OUT OF TIME FOR HIM.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION JUST TO TRY TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION HERE.
CAUSE I KNOW THAT THE OFFICER STATED THAT ONE OF THE, UH, ROOMS THAT WAS RENTED WAS RENTED BY A PERSON WHO DID HAVE ONE OF THOSE LITTLE VOUCHERS, WHICH IS FINE.
YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE RUNNING IT FOR FAMILY.
BUT IF THEY DID HAVE A VOUCHER, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WOULD HAVE THEN AN, YOU KNOW, RENT ANOTHER ROOM FOR FAMILY IF THEY HAD THAT THEY WERE THERE ON A VOUCHER SYSTEM.
[01:15:01]
BAD.I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE VOUCHERS OR NOT EVERYONE DESERVES A ROOM, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE POLICIES IN PLACE.
THAT COMMON SENSE IS THERE, THAT IF SOMEONE IS THERE ON A VOUCHER AND THEY'RE RENTING ANOTHER ROOM, WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO RENT THAT OTHER ROOM? AND IF THEY ARE, THEN GREAT THERE IS FAMILY COMING, THEN LET'S JUST HAVE THE REGISTERED GUESTS THERE SO WE CAN WRITE EVERYTHING, ANYTHING DOWN SO WE KNOW WHO'S THERE JUST FOR A SAFETY FACTOR, THAT'S ALL.
AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE ADVERSARIAL OR, OR WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE PROCESSES IN PLACE.
SO, YOU KNOW, HE CAN HAVE A GREAT ESTABLISHMENT WHERE MONEY'S COMING IN AND THERE'S LESS CALLS AND LESS.
IT'S, IT'S JUST LIKE GUIDELINES.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CONTROL THE SYSTEM.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE FOR YOU AND, AND FOR THE CITY OF EL CAJON FOR THAT MATTER.
SO, YEAH, AND I THINK, AGAIN, I JUST, I DON'T WANNA MISSPEAK THE, THE ADDITIONAL ROOMS. MM-HMM.
NO, I UNDERSTAND THEY WERE PAID, PAID BY VOUCHERS.
BUT I I, WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO THE OFFICER, HE SAID THAT THE, THE ONE THAT WAS RENTED, THE, THE PERSON WHO RENTED THE ROOM WAS ON A VOUCHER.
BUT I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT, HE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE VOUCHER, THE ROOM THAT THEY, THE SECOND ROOM THAT THEY RENTED WAS NOT, YEAH, HE PURCHASED.
UM, BARBARA, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
SO, UM, THE DEEMED HE, HE HAD CITED SOME STUFF REGARDING DEEMED APPROVED, AND I KNOW THAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS.
IS THERE ANY, UM, UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE WITH THE DEEMED APPROVED? AND ALSO, ISN'T THIS HEARING CONSIDERED DUE PROCESS? UH, ABSOLUTELY.
TH THIS IS DUE PROCESS RIGHT NOW, THIS, UH, UH, HEARING REGARDING WHAT'S KNOWN AS A REGULATORY TAKING THAT'S, UM, TAKING A PROPERTY WITHOUT ENTERING IT OR MOVING IT OVER TO SOMETHING ELSE, IT WOULD BE DEPRIVING AN OWNER OF MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS, UH, THIS APPLICANT HAS, IS BEING GIVEN A CHANCE TO GET A C U P AND CONTINUE OPERATION.
THERE IS NO TAKING, SO ANY KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL TAKING, UH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, UH, ARGUMENT IS UN RIPE.
IT'S NOT READY YET BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANYTHING.
THEY STILL HAVE PEOPLE IN THE ROOMS. UH, THEY ALSO BRING UP IN PASSING AN EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT THAT, THAT THIS PARTICULAR OFFICER IS, UH, EXCUSE ME, THIS PARTICULAR, UM, OWNER IS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
EVERYBODY HAS DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS.
EVERYBODY AND SOME OF THOSE DEEMED APPROVED HAVE A CUP, A C U P AS WELL.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT DOESN'T HOLD WATER.
THERE ARE ASSERTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY WITHOUT ANY SPECIFICS.
AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT, UH, ARGUMENTS I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THIS WAS A CALL FOR SERVICE, UM, FROM OUTSIDE.
ONE OF THE, UH, CASES THAT MR. UM, WISER, UH, CITED.
L A V GAUGE, IN FACT SAYS THAT THE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER FREQUENTLY DOES IMPAIR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS BALANCING THAT, UH, IMPAIRMENT ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND THE CASE THAT WASN'T CITED IN THIS LETTER THAT'S LEADING ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEEMED TO PROVE STATUS IS HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION OF OAKLAND VERSUS CITY OF OAKLAND, IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND JUST LIKE HERE, THE ASSOCIATION'S FACIAL TAKINGS CLAIM WAS ON RIPE.
THE ORDINANCE, UH, CHANGING NON-CONFORMING USE TO DEEMED APPROVED, UH, WAS CONSTITUTIONAL SO THAT THE, UH, OPERATORS HAD TO COMPLY WITH NEW MAINTENANCE AND HABITABILITY STANDARDS IN ORDER TO RETAIN THEIR STATUS.
THE CITY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE ASSOCIATION WITH INDIVIDUALIZED NOTICE OR HEARING.
UH, THE CITY ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRED DEEMED TO APPROVE HOTELS TO COMPLY WITH NEW MAINTENANCE INHABITABILITY STANDARDS WAS RATIONALLY RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, AND THUS DID NOT VIOLATE, UH, EQUAL PROTECTION.
THE ASSOCIATION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ORDINANCES WERE IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE IN ALL APPLICATIONS AS IS REQUIRED TO CHALLENGE FACIAL VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE ORDINANCES ON VAGUENESS GROUNDS.
AND THE ABSENCE OF AN INTENTIONAL, UM, LET'S SAY BAD FEELING TOWARDS THIS PARTICULAR OPERATOR, UH, DOESN'T MATTER.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.
WHAT'S TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT BALANCE BETWEEN, UM, REGULATING ACTIVITIES THAT ARE INHERENTLY, CAN INHERENTLY LED TO LEAD,
[01:20:01]
SORRY, LEAD TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OR NUISANCE TYPE ACTIVITIES, AND BALANCE THAT AGAINST THE, THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS OF, OF BENEFIT.AND SEVERAL CASES THAT MR. WEISNER CITED, UH, ACTUALLY SAID THAT, UH, ALL ECONOMIC INTEREST, UH, BENEFIT OF THE USE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN BEFORE THERE'S A DEPRIVATION.
SO THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AT ALL HERE.
UH, TO BARBARA, ON, ON THIS REPORT HERE, I READ, UH, THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE, AND IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS, EXCUSE ME, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE LETTER? YES, THE LETTER.
YEAH, IT TALKS ABOUT PROTECTIVE CLASS.
UH, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S KIND A RED HERRING HERE.
THE PROTECTIVE CLASS THAT, UH, WOULD, WOULD, THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UH, WITH, UH, THE 42 US C 36 0 4, WHICH IS CITED HERE, ARE RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
IT DOESN'T MENTION HOMELESSNESS.
UH, ANY OTHER SPEAKER CARDS? YES, I DO HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKER CARDS FROM THE, UM, LES PATEL AND SUNNY PATEL.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WANTED TO SPEAK.
DID, DID YOU BOTH WANNA SPEAK OR ONE PERSON ON BEHALF? OKAY, GREAT.
LET'S, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE TIME.
I'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES AND THEN, UH, FOR BOTH OF YOU, THAT WAY YOU CAN SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.
YEAH, I HAD NO ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO SPEAK.
UM, JUST FILL OUT THE CARD JUST IN CASE.
AND I SEE THAT YOU HAD QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE OPERATION SIDE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS PRIOR TO DECEMBER 12 INCIDENT, EVERYTHING LOOKS OKAY AFTER THE DECEMBER 12 INCIDENT.
CERTAINLY EVERYTHING HAS IMPROVED NOW.
SO JUST ABOUT ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT TODAY IS, IS AROUND THAT DECEMBER 12TH INCIDENT AND SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.
SO IF I CAN TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES, LOOKING AT THE TIME IS GOING REALLY LATE.
SO THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
THE FIRST ROOM WAS RENTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS 56 YEARS OLD, MALE LIVING WITH HIS WIFE, AND A DOG HAS BEEN LIVING IN ANOTHER ROOM, RENTING THAT ROOM BY PAYING HIMSELF FOR ABOUT FEW WEEKS.
HE'S THE ONE WHO CAME TO THE DESK.
UM, AS ROBERT HAD SAID, I WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME, BUT THE STAFF REPORT TELLS ME.
SO WHEN HE CAME TO THE DESK, HE USED HIS IDENTIFICATION.
HE RENTED THE ROOM STATING THAT HE HAD SOME, SOME FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WERE GOING TO COME BY, AND HE HAD NEEDED ANOTHER ROOM SINCE HIS ROOM WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, LOT MORE PEOPLE.
WE ALSO HAVE A RULE OF MAXIMUM OF FOUR PEOPLE ALLOWED IN A ROOM IF IT HAS TWO BEDS.
SO THAT IS THE, THAT IS HOW HE RENTED THAT ROOM.
NOW, UH, I BELIEVE THAT ROOM WAS BEING PAID, UH, COUPLE OF DAYS AT A TIME, TWO NIGHTS IN ADVANCE, OR THREE NIGHTS IN ADVANCE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO TWO OR THREE TIMES THE ROOM WAS PAID OVER THAT WEEK.
UM, SO IT'S NOT EVERY DAY THIS WAS HAPPENING.
NOW, THAT PERSON WHO RENTED THE ROOM, IT'S POSSIBLE HE MAY NOT HAVE COME BACK AND PAY SINCE HIS FAMILY WAS IN THE ROOM.
AND MAYBE, UH, THE ROOMS THAT WAS OCCUPIED, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MINERS MIGHT HAVE COME AT THE DESK AND PAID, WHICH IS NOT USUAL PRACTICE.
BUT ONCE IN A WHILE, THAT HAPPENS.
SO THAT I'M SUSPECTING THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AFTER ABOUT COUPLE OF TIMES IT WAS PAID AND RENTED, THE PERSON WHO RENTED THE ROOM WAS ACTUALLY WARNED BY OUR STAFF THAT YOU ARE VIOLATING THE, UM, UNREGISTERED PEOPLE ON THE PREMISES.
ONE OF THE RULES THAT WE HAVE IS WE NEVER ALLOWED ANYBODY WHO IS NOT REGISTERED EVEN TO BE ON THE PREMISES, REGISTERED GUEST ONLY.
OURS MIGHT BE THE ONLY ESTABLISHMENT WHO IS DOING THAT.
THAT IF YOU'RE A REGISTERED GUEST, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED.
AND IF ANYBODY HAS TO COME IN AND SEE YOU, YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE THE PREMISES AND SEE EVEN, UH, TO GOING OFF LITTLE BIT.
UH, UBER DRIVERS, LYFT DRIVERS, OR ANY DOOR DASH OR ANYBODY, TAXIS COMES IN, WE TELL THEM TO PARK IN THE MIDDLE, NOT IN ONE OF THE PARKING SPOTS, PICK UP AND LEAVE.
SO THAT IS HOW WE ARE ENFORCING THAT ALL THE TIME FROM LAST TWO YEARS AT LEAST.
SO NOW GOING BACK TO WHEN THIS COUPLE OF TIMES, UH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE MORE
[01:25:01]
PEOPLE THAN FOUR IN THIS PARTICULAR ROOM THAT WAS RENTED, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PERSON WHO HAD RENTED THE ROOM WITH HIS IDENTIFICATION, THE 56 YEAR OLD MALE.SO HE DECIDED, OR I DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, BUT ONE OF HIS FRIENDS WHO WAS LIVING IN ANOTHER ROOM WHO WAS A 41 YEAR OLD MALE LIVING WITH HIS WIFE AND TWO LITTLE CHILDREN, HE ALSO WAS NOT ON A VOUCHER PROGRAM.
HE USED TO BE ON A VOUCHER PROGRAM BEFORE, BUT FOR THE LAST ABOUT MAYBE, UH, 10, 11 DAYS OR SOMETHING, LIKE HE WAS A SELF-PAY CUSTOMER ALSO.
AND HE DECIDED TO USE HIS IDENTIFICATION TO RENT ANOTHER ROOM SO THAT THEY CAN AT LEAST, UH, COMPLY WITH, UH, NO UNCONDITIONAL PEOPLE OR MORE PEOPLE RULE.
SO THAT IS WHAT WAS DONE BY THE STAFF MEMBER AT THE TIME.
THAT'S HOW THE SECOND ROOM WAS RENTED.
AND THAT IS HOW THE WHOLE HISTORY ABOUT THE TWO ROOMS RENTED BY THE TWO OTHER PEOPLE WERE THERE.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? REAL, REAL QUICK? UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IS, WHAT RESONATES WITH ME IS YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED.
YOU SAID YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, HOW THE OTHER ROOM GOT RENTED? NO, NO.
UH, IF THE, UH, THE PERSON WHO HAD RENTED THE FIRST ROOM WAS, UH, ASKING THE OTHER PERSON TO RENT THE SECOND ROOM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT WE, AND SO JUST TO, JUST TO JUST OUTTA RESPECT FOR YOUR TIME.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE, THE SITUATION HAPPENED AND THAT'S CONCERNING.
NO, I AM, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I DO NOT KNOW THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THEM.
HOW THAT SECOND PERSON WHO ALSO WAS AN ADULT MALE WAS RENTING THE ROOM, STAYING WITH HIS FAMILY, DECIDED TO COME AND RENT A SECOND ROOM.
SO THAT MORE PEOPLE COULD BE PLACED THERE.
HE USED HIS IDENTIFICATION PROPER, UH, REGISTRATION, PROCESS RESTRICTION WAS DONE PROPERLY UNDER HIS NAME.
AND BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD RENTED THOSE ROOMS, UH, AFTER THE DECEMBER 12TH INCIDENT, BOTH OF THEM WERE STILL IN HOUSE.
THEY WERE ALSO STILL RENTING THOSE TWO ROOMS AND EVERYTHING WAS PROVIDED TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THE, THEY RENTED THE TWO ROOMS FOR FAMILY.
NOW, IF YOU HAVE REGISTERED GUESTS, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU KNOW, IN THE SYSTEM, DID THEY GIVE ANY NAMES TO WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INTO THOSE ROOMS THAT THEY WERE RENTING, OR, OR DID THEY JUST GET A KEY FOR THESE PEOPLE IN THESE ROOMS AND THERE WAS NO NAMES GIVEN AS TO WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO RESIDE IN THESE ROOMS? HE JUST RENTED THE ROOM AND SAID THAT THEY HAD FAMILY MEMBERS WHO WERE COMING, UH, TO THE TOWN FOR A FEW DAYS, AND THEN THEY NEEDED THE ROOM.
SO, SO THEY GOT THE KEY AND THEN, SO THEY WERE THE ONE WHO WERE GIVEN THE KEY? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
UH, MR. PATEL, YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING? NO, I DO.
ANY OTHER, NO MORE CARDS THEN.
SEEING THAT THERE'S NO MORE CARDS, UH, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION SHOULD MADE BY COMMISSIONER MOROSE, SAY BY COMMISSIONER RUDD, PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF MEMBERS PRESENT.
SO, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, ONE THING, ONE THING I DID NOTICE IS THAT, UM, STAFF OBVIOUSLY PUT A C U P APPLICATION IN PLACE PRIOR TO THIS HEARING SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOSS OF REVENUE OR A LOSS OF BUSINESS, OR THAT THE BUSINESS WOULDN'T HAVE TO CEASE.
IN FACT, I'VE, THIS IS OUR THIRD, I THINK OUR THIRD HEARING NOW, AND I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT PATTERN.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT A HEAVY, HEAVY-HANDED CITY.
WE DON'T WANNA STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS MM-HMM.
SO, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT STAFF FOLLOWED THE RIGHT COURSE IN MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS A C U P IN PLACE OR ONE THAT WE COULD VOTE ON TONIGHT.
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
I, I, I DON'T THINK, JUST TO COUNTER WHAT WAS SAID TONIGHT, WE'RE NOT AN ADVERSARIAL CITY.
I, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE.
I THINK OUR CITY IS ONE OF GROWTH.
I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERNS AND THERE'S SOME ROOM FOR CORRECTION.
I THINK THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ROOM FOR CORRECTION.
UM, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS, UH, AGREEABLE TO MAYBE SOME OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THE STAFF MAY PRESENT, I THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND A, UM, A HAPPY MEDIUM.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, CAN I JUST CLARIFY? YEAH.
UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
UM, I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF WAS COOPERATING WITH THE, UH, OPERATOR
[01:30:01]
AND APPLICANT, UM, SINCE DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF DIDN'T WANT TO DO WAS JUMP TO A CONCLUSION.
UM, SO WE, UH, ALLOWED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PURSUE THEIR INVESTIGATION AND TO MOVE FORWARD AND, AND GET THE RELEVANT FACTS SO THAT WE COULD, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE TAKING THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION.
SO WE DID START, UM, AS THE TIMELINE, UH, WAS DESCRIBED, UH, WITH THE LETTERS, AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
UM, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS STATED, UH, WE DID, UH, WORK WITH THEM AT THAT TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SIMULTANEOUSLY SO THAT THERE WERE OPTIONS IN PLACE, UH, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
UM, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT I WANT TO CLARIFY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS IS REALLY JUST A BASELINE.
UH, SO THE BASELINE IS LIKE THE MINIMUM REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM OTHER, UH, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
SO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UH, GIVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SO I THINK DURING THE, UH, TESTIMONY, YOU HEARD TONIGHT, THERE WAS UNKNOWN INFORMATION ABOUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE STAYING, THE GUESTS THAT WERE STAYING THERE, WHO WAS DOING WHAT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WORKED ON IN THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS A MORE ROBUST, UH, REGISTRATION SYSTEM ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS.
AND SO THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IS TO APPLY THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILED CONDITIONS TO THIS OPERATION TO MAKE SURE, UM, THAT IT'S OPERATING IN A COMPATIBLE FASHION WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES AND, AND NOT HAVING, UM, A, AN, AN EXCESSIVE DEMAND ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR CALLS FOR SERVICE.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE WANNA SAY IS THAT WE DON'T, WE WANT, UH, SOMEONE TO CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY, BUT WE ALSO WANT THEM TO BE RESPONSIBLE, UH, FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY, UM, ON THEIR PROPERTY.
WE DON'T WANNA BE USING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, AS A SECURITY GUARD OR PERF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, IT'S A SITUATION THAT COMES UP FREQUENTLY WHEN MAYBE WE HAVE A VACANT HOUSE, UH, WHERE WE HAVE, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE TRESPASSING AND SO FORTH.
IT'S, WE CAN'T HAVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTING AS THEIR SECURITY GUARD.
IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN AND, UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE SECURITY IS PRESENT ON THEIR PROPERTY.
SO I, I THINK JUST IN SUMMARY, THE, THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS BECAUSE WE DID SEE THAT FAILURE IN THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT THEY HAD HERE, AND WE WANTED, AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT IT WARRANTS ADDITIONAL DETAILS IN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO HOLD, HOLD THE PROPERTY OWNER ACCOUNTABLE MOVING FORWARD.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO JUST RETAIN THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS AND NOT IMPLEMENT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THEY COULD GO BACK TO THOSE PROCEDURES THAT THEY HAD IN PLACE, UM, YOU KNOW, EARLIER THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR.
AND THE CITY WOULDN'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO REQUIRE ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE DEEMED APPROVED, UM, STATUS REGULATIONS.
SO IT'S REALLY THAT TOOL THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROPERLY REGULATED, OPERATING A COMPATIBLE FASHION WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES, AND THAT, UM, THAT THE CONDITIONS THERE ARE, ARE APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN IT, THE INTENT ISN'T TO BE LOOKING DOWN.
UM, THE THROAT, I THINK WAS THE, UH, COMMENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IT'S TO LOOK AND, AND TO EVALUATE THOSE, UM, THE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN, SEE HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS, UM, ENSURE THAT THOSE CALLS FOR SERVICE, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO BE REDUCED AND, AND THEN TO REPORT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE A DETERMIN ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE C P.
SO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEEMED APPROVED STATUS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
WELL, AND, AND FROM THE LAST FEW THAT WE'VE DONE, I MEAN, THE 90 DAYS IS NOT SET IN STONE.
IF THEY COME TO YOU AND SAY, AFTER 90 DAYS, HEY, WE NEED A LITTLE MORE DIME.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.
GRANTING MORE TIME IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.
I THINK OUR INTENT IS TO, UM, WITHIN 90 DAYS TO REPORT BACK, UM, FOR THE OTHER, UM, ACTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S TAKEN, AT A MINIMUM, WE WOULD, UH, PROVIDE AN UPDATE AS TO THE PROGRESS ON, UH, THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE, UM, LET'S SAY THE FENCING CONTRACTOR, THERE WAS A SUPPLY SHORTAGE IN BOLTS AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO PUT UP THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THEY'RE DILIGENTLY PURSUING, IMPLEMENTING WHAT THEY'VE STATED, WE WOULD REPORT THAT TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO MONITOR, CONTINUING TO HAVE THAT ONGOING CONVERSATION, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT AND OPERATOR, UM, AND THEN REPORTING TO THE COMMISSION.
SO YOU'RE AWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO, I, I HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, MS UH, SADLY SCHIFFMAN MADE A STATEMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE PUNISHING THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL.
AND, UH, NOAH JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISHED, REITERATED THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY PUNISHING
[01:35:01]
A ANYONE, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME IS THAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN WITHIN THEIR POWER AND AUTHORITY.THEN IF ANYTHING HAPPENS OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL DELINEATED, WE KNOW WHICH IS BEYOND, UH, BEYOND THEIR CONTROL, AND WHICH IS, SO THERE'S A ANOTHER PROBLEM ELSE ELSEWHERE.
SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE PUTTING THE LASSO AROUND THE SITUATION WHERE THERE'S NO LOOSE ENDS, WHERE WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A PROPERTY OWNER'S FAULT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT.
SO THAT WE DON'T COME INTO THIS ADVERSARIAL POSITION.
I THINK WHAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS, UM, MAKE, MAKING THINGS MORE CONCRETE AND MORE CENTERED ON THE, ON THE, UH, WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO WITH THEIR PARTICULAR, UH, PROPERTY, RATHER THAN ELIMINATE THE RIGHTS.
THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY CAN DO AT THAT POINT.
IT WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF IT WAS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL.
WELL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? UM, YOU KNOW WHAT? PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED? UM, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP.
I'LL GIVE YOU, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE MINUTE.
THIS IS DIRECTED TO, UH, UH,
YOU MENTIONED, WELL, LET'S SAY IT, INSTEAD OF REVOCATION, YOU MENTIONED MAYBE A HAPPY MEDIUM.
IS THERE, OR I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE, THE WORDS YOU USED OR HAPPY SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE INSTEAD OF A REVOCATION, DO YOU GUYS HAVE THE POWER TO NOT RE UH, REPLICATE THE STATUS, BUT IMPOSE SOME RESTRICTIONS? SO IF, IF C P IS HERE, REVOCATION IS HERE, IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND? WELL, LET ME COUNTER THAT.
WHAT, WHAT OBJECTIONS DO YOU HAVE TO A C U P? IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT'S NEVER ENOUGH.
THAT'S MY, I THINK THE GENERICALLY SPEAKING IS TO SAY, WELL, UH, YOU KNOW, CRIME CONTINUES TO HAPPEN OR THIS HAPPENS.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT'S A SNOWBALL EFFECT.
WELL, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT, SO THEREFORE YOU'RE IN VIOLATION.
I THINK THAT'S THE MAJOR OBJECTIONS WE HAVE.
I THINK RESPECTFULLY, I THINK THAT YOU, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK FROM MY PART.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO CLOSE BUSINESSES.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE GOAL.
THE SCOPE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS TO ENSURE THAT BUSINESSES AND PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PLACE, THAT HAVE A POSITIVE, UH, AVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY CREATE REVENUE AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, OUR POSITIVE OUTLOOK IN THE COMMUNITY, WE ARE NOT HERE TO CLOSE AND GET RID OF.
CUS THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION STANDS.
WHAT, WHAT OBJECTIONS WOULD YOU HAVE SHOULD A C U P BE BROUGHT IN PLACE? I, I'M, I'M HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THAT ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN RID OF ANY CS, RIGHT? SO I DON'T, I'M I'M KIND OF CONFUSED WHY THE CONCERN, I THINK THE CONCERN IS OBVIOUS.
IT'S, UH, A PROPERTY OWNER IS LOSING GRANDFATHER PROTECTIONS, OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, SUBJECT TO MORE CONDITIONS.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO BERATED BERATED HORSE, AND I KNOW THAT THE HOUR IS LATE.
WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS FROM, FROM MY EXPERIENCE IN MY 47 YEARS LIVING IN THE CITY OF EL CAJON AND MY EXPERIENCE LIVING IN, WORKING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OUR GOAL IS TO WORK WITH BUSINESSES TO KEEP THEM IN PLACE, NOT TO SHUT THEM DOWN.
IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO CLOSE DOWN BUSINESSES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT BAROMETERS ARE IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SAFE, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IS GETTING THEIR INTEREST UPHELD, AND AT THE SAME TIME ENSURING THAT THE BUSINESS HAS A FAIR SHOT AND A, AND A FAIR SHAKE.
AND NOT HAVING TO, I I'M THE LAST PERSON TO SAY THAT WE NEED MORE OVERSIGHT.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE NEED TO JUST CLEAN THINGS UP.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SHUT DOWN A BUSINESS.
THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS I, I, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION TRYING TO SAY, OH, YOU GOTTA HAVE THIS, THIS MATRIX THAT IS UNOBTAINABLE.
THAT DOESN'T EVEN HELP THE COMMUNITY.
I JUST WANT TO ENSURE YOU, AT LEAST I WILL SPEAK FROM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW.
AND THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE ELCON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S NOT FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
THE CITY IS, IS HERE TO ENSURE THAT BUSINESSES ARE IN PLACE TO CREATE REVENUE, TO BE A POSITIVE OUTLOOK FOR THE COMMUNITY.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO SHUT BUSINESSES DOWN.
SOMETIMES THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEANUP.
[01:40:01]
A LITTLE BIT, UH, MORE, MORE OVERSIGHT IN, IN AN ASPECT OF ENSURING THAT COMPLIANCE IS AN, AND ORDINANCES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE ARE BEING FOLLOWED.I'M NOT HERE TO SHUT DOWN A BUSINESS, I DON'T BELIEVE, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN.
I THE AT LEAST TWICE IT HAS, THERE HASN'T BEEN A CB IT'S BEEN SHUT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T HAPPEN, BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE TRYING, THIS IS PART OF DUE PROCESS.
COULD I, UH, QUICKLY INTERJECT, UM, UH, MR. GARMO MENTIONED GRANDFATHERING.
I THINK HE'S REFERRING TO LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS OF SOME OF THE HOTELS AND MOTELS PRIOR TO THE DEEMED APPROVED WERE LEGAL NONCONFORMING.
UH, THAT STATUS WENT AWAY IN 2019.
IT DOESN'T CONFER ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS AT ALL ON THE OPERATORS.
SO THE DE DEEMED APPROVED IS, AS MR. ALVI SAID, THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM.
AND A LOT OF BUSINESSES, INCLUDING ANY NEW HOTEL OR MOTEL, HAS TO HAVE A C U P, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND, MADE BY COMMISSIONER, AROSE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SOLE, AT LEAST THAT'S WHO I HEARD FIRST.
WELL, I'M, UM, I, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
NOW, UM, THERE WAS ALSO SOME OTHER DETAILED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT NOAH WAS MENTIONING.
DID THOSE NEED TO BE IN THE MOTION IF, IF HE WANTED TO OR CAN BE SUITED AS THE CONDITIONS STATED BY? YES.
UM, SO IF THE COMMISSION WAS OPEN, UH, FOR THE CONSISTENCY PURPOSE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, IT COULD BE, UH, THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED CONDITIONS AS REFERENCED BY STAFF IN THE PRESENTATION.
I MOVE TO ADOPT THE NEXT RESOLUTION IN ORDER REVOKING DEEMED THE PROOF STATUS APPROVING A C Q A EXEMPTION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2023 DASH 0 0 3, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
AND ALSO ADDING THE CONDITION THAT THE, UH, STAFF HAS DETERMINED A DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A REVIEW OF CONDITION, USE PERMIT NUMBER 20 23 0 0 3 WITHIN THE NEXT 90 DAYS.
I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SOT SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAROSE.
SO, BUSINESS AS USUAL, GENTLEMEN, YOU JUST CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THERE'S NOTHING, NOTHING'S BEING INFRINGED HERE.
WE'RE JUST, YOU GUYS CONTINUE WORKING ON IT.
AND I KNOW THAT STAFF WILL CONTINUE WORKING.
I MEAN, WE HAVE HAD DEEMED APPROVED ON THE LIQUOR STORES OVER 80 OF THEM NOW FOR ABOUT FIVE, SIX YEARS.
AND THERE'S NEVER BEEN ONE REVOCATION, NEVER ANYTHING.
[6. OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION]
ALL RIGHT.ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION? STAFF? UH, NO.
ADD, NO ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM STAFF, ANY STAFF COMMUNICATION? NONE.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MOROSE.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER P*****K RUD, PLEASE VOTE AND MEETING IS ADJOURNED.