RES-11221 JR Motel - 428 E. Lincoln Ave_Revoking of CUP No. 2948-14RESOLUTION NO. 11221
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE REVOHING AND REPEALING IN
ITS ENTIRETY, CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT NO.
2948-14, WHICH PERMITTED A MOTEL UPON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 428 E. LINCOLN AVENUE.
REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL
USE PEItMIT NO. 2948-14 (JR Motel)
WHEREAS, the CiTy Council has authority per Orange Municipal Code ("OMC")
Section 17.10.030.H to determine if(1) Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") No. 2948-14 has been
used in accordance with the terms of approval; (2) if any of the conditions or terms have been
violated; (3) if any other ordinance or provision of law has been violated in connection with
CUP No. 2948-14; and/or (4) if CUP No. 2948-14 was obtained under fraud or
misinformation; and the City Council has the authority to revoke and rescind CUP No. 2948-14
in entirety; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2015, upon the applicarion by Chih Chun Huang, of JR
Investment Limited Partnership ("Owner"), and after a public hearing, the Planning Commission
approved CUP No. 2948-14 to allow a 23,128 squaze foot, rivo-story with basement, 28-room
motel located at 428 E. Lincoln Avenue; and
WHEREAS, CUP No. 2948-14 included findings that the proposed motel was a good
use for the location, that a motel was a complementary use in the commercial zone, that the
motel use was consistent with the applicable zoning designation, that the motel use was in
response to services required by the community, and that the conditions imposed on the CUP
would preserve the general welfaze; and
WHEREAS, CUP No. 2948-14 contained conditions, compliance with which was an
integral part of the approval; and
WI3EREAS, the City has gathered a siguficant amount of evidence demonstrating
violations of the conditions of CUP No. 2948-14, violations oF other ordinances and provisions
of law, and operations inconsistent with a motel use, all of which have been presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council in staff reports and/or minutes dated October 7, 2019,
November 4, 2019, December 16, 2019, Mazch 2, 2020, and April 14, 2020, and aze referenced
in this resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the revocation proceeding for CUP No. 2948-14 was processed in
accordance with the provisions of the OMC; and
WHEREAS, under authoriTy of OMC Section 17.10.030.H, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on Mazch 2, 2020, to determine if(1) CUP No. 2948-14 has been used in
accordance with the terms of approval; (2) if any of the conditions or terms have been violated;
3) if any other ordinance or provision of law has been violated in connection with CUP No.
2948-14; and/or (4) if CUP No. 2948-14 was obtained under fraud or misinformation; and
WHEREAS, at their Mazch 2, 2020, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed
evidence in the staff report, evidence presented by the City Attomey's office, and heazd
testimony from the JR Motel owner/operator, his attorney and the public, after which the
Planning Commission unanimously voted (5:0) to recommend that the City Council revoke and
repeal CUP No. 2948-14 in its entueTy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly advertised public hearing on April 14,
2020, on the matter of the proposed revocation of Conditional Use Pernut No. 2948-14, upon
property described as follows:
TWO PARCELS:
PARCEL A WHICH INLCUDES ALL OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3
AND PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 24 OF FRANKLIN'S
ADDITION TO OLIVE HEIGHTS, IN THE CITY OF
ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 18, PAGE 71 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS
ANGELESCOUNTY,AND
PARCEL B WHICH INCLUDES LOTS 4, 5, 6, AND 24 OF
FRANKLIN'S ADDITION TO OLIVE HEIGHTS, IN THE
CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 1S, PAGE 71 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
AND AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 374, PAGE 30 OF
PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF
ORANGE COUNTY WITH ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 374-
301-09 AND 374-301-10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange
hereby revokes and repeals CUP No. 2948-14, in its entirety, based on the following:
SECTION 1 —FINDINGS
Pursuant to OMC Sec6on 1710.030.H, a Condifional Use Permit shall be revoked by the City
Council,upon the recommendarion of the Planning Commission, if:
It has not been used in accordance with the terms of approval;
It was obtained under fraud or misinformation; or
Resolution No. 11221 2
Any of the conditions or terms aze violated, or any ordinance or other provision of law is
violated in connection with the permit.
The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is to revoke and repeal CUP
2948-14 in its entirety.
Based on the evidence presented at the April 14, 2020 public heazing, the City Council finds the
following gounds for revocation:
1. Violafions of Terms and Conditions of Apnroval of CUP 2948-14
General Condition No. 1: "All constmction shall conform in substance and be maintained in
general conformance with plans and exhibits labeled Exhibit A in the Design Review Committee
staff report. ... Any change to the exterior of the building from the approved plans shall be
subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee."
A. From 2017 to 2019, City staff inspecrions revealed unpemutted construction in
multiple locations in the building. There was unpermitted alteration of the
building's underfloor azea to create a hallway conidor lined with refrigerators and
two new bedrooms, all supplied with unpermitted electrical, plumbing, and
mechanical service. Additionally, upper floor rooms approved as two-room suites
were subdivided and additional hallway doors were added, resulting in the
creation of two rentable rooms where only one was approved.
B. Sheet A-1 of the approved plans designate a conference room, a sitting azea, and a
registration counter in the lobby area, but the conference room is routinely used as
a dining room, the sitting azea is used as a buffet azea, and there is no registration
counter as required.
C: City staff inspections revealed an unpemutted exterior door leading from the
unpermitted basement hallway to the parking lot.
Finding: Tlre Owner's deviation from the approved p[ans and exl:ibits and tke ckange to the
exterior of tlie buildi rg constitute violations of General Candition No. 1.
General Condition No. 3: "The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws,
including all City regulations. Violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be
cause for revocation of this permit"
The following Orange Municipal Codes (OMC) have been violated:
A. OMC Section 17.10.030.G:
Approval May Be Conditional. In granting any conditional use permit, the
reviewing body may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity
with this chapter. Violation of such conditions and safeguazds, when made a part
Resolution No. 11221 3
of the terms under which the conditional use permit is ganted, shall be deemed a
violation of this Code and punishable under this Code. ... :'
Under this Section, the Owner's violation of the CUP conditions of approval as set forth
herein, including violation of General Condition No. 1 as described above, are a violation
of the Zoning Code.
B. OMC Section 15.04.010 adopts the California Building Code ("CBC") by
reference:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct,
enlazge, alter, repair, move, improve, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or
maintain any building or structure in the City, or cause the same to be done or to
perform or maintain any grading work or cause the same to be done contrary to,
or in violation of, any of the provisions of this chapter."
Secrion 105.1 of the CBC states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to ... construct, enluge, alter, repair, move,
demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install,
enlazge, alter, repair, remove, convert, convert or replace any electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this
code, or to cause any such work to be done, unless a separate permit for each
building or structure has first been obtained from the Building Official."
Under this Section, the Owner's unpermitted construction as described above, is a
violation of the CBC.
C. OMC Section 1532.010 adopts the Califomia Fire Code ("CFC") by reference.
Section 109.4 of the CFC states:
Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with
any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work
in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of
the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of
this code, shall be prosecuted in accordance with Chapter 1.08 of the Orange
Municipal Code. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a sepazate
offense."
City Fire inspectors discovered numerous violations of the CFC in 2017 and 2019,
including lack of required sprinklers, lack of evacuation plans, locked exits, covered
exits, and an illegally constructed doorway into the pazking lot.
Finding: The Owner's construction of tke additional lia![way and bedrooms in the basement,
complete with electrical, meckanical and p[umbing impravements in tke underJloor area of
the bui[ding, the addition of an exterior door from the basement hal[way to tke parking lot, the
addition ojdoorways to suites on tke upperJloors, and alterations made to exit and lrje-safety
Resolution No. 11221 4
panic hardware wiHtout a bui[ding permit constitute violations of tke Ciry's Zoning Code,
violations of California Building Code, violations of the Ca/ifornia Fire Cade, and violations
of General Condition No. 3.
General Condition No. 4: "Any modificarions to the plans ... shall be submitted for review and
approval to the Community Development Director or designee."
The Owner did not submit any of the building plan modifications to the City for approval.
Finding: Tlee Owner's failure to submit p/ans to t/re Commui:ity Development Director prior
to making modifications to the suites, tke basement, and tlre /obby area, constitutes a vialation
of Genera[Canditian No. 4.
General Condition No. 5: "... [T]his project is approved as a precise plan. After any application
has been approved, if changes aze proposed regazding the location or alteration of any use or
structure, a changed plan may be submitted to the Community Development Director for
approval."
The Owner did not submit to the City any application for changes to the approved precise plan
and made the changes without approval. The Owner did not submit to the CiTy any application
for changes from the motel use to a boazding house use and operated contrary to the approved
motel use.
Finding: The Owner's failure to submit a ckanged precise plan to the Community
Development Director prior to a[tering the approved plan, constitutes a violation of General
Condition No. S. In additiai, tlee Owner's jailure to submit notifrcation or a plan for a
change of use to tlie Commu iity Development Director prior to beginning operations as a
boarding or lodging house constitutes a violation of General Condition No. 5.
General Condition No. 61 of Attachment 1: "Construction permits, including building permits, as
required by the City of Orange shall be obtained for all construction work by Community
Development DepartmenYs Building Division and Public Works Grading Division. Failure to
obtain the required building permits will be cause for revocation of this permit"
The Owner constructed substantial alterations to the building, excavated the basement, added
bedrooms and bathrooms, installed plumbing and electrical connections, subdivided suites,
added windows and a door into the exterior and made other alterations to the approved building
and hazdwaze, all without obtaining permits.
Finding: Tlre Owner failed to obtain any construction or bui[ding permits as required by the
City, prior to constructing tke additiona[ lia[lway and bedrooms complete with e[ectrica[,
mechanical and plumbing improvemenls in tke underfloor area of tke bui[ding, adding an
exterior door from t/:e basement hallway to the parking lot, adding l:aflway doors and
subdividing suites on the upper Jloor areas, and altering exit and lije-safety panic kardware.
A[I ojtkese actions constitute a violatian of General Candition No. 6l.
Resolution No. 11221 5
2. The CUP Was Obtained Under Misinformafion
CUP 2948-14 was obtained based on the Owner's chazacterization of the proposed use as a
motel. Norivithstanding any lack of intent to misrepresent the type of use approved, the
operations of the JR Motel aze inconsistent with a motel use and aze instead consistent with a
boazding house or lodging house. A boazding house or lodging house is prohibited in the C-2
General Business) zone.
A. OMC Section 17.04.027 defines "Hotel" as: "A residential building designed or
used to be rented for transient occupancy by guests for dwelling, lodging, or
sleeping purposes containing six or more guest rooms or suites of rooms not
containing cooking facilities, ... :' OMC Section 17.04.032 states that motels aze
otherwise defined as hotels.
B. OMC Section 5.16.020.G defines "transienY' as refemng to a period of thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days or less.
C. OMC SecGon 17.04.021 and 17.04.030 define "boazding house" and `9odging
house"as:
BOARDING HOUSE - A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel,
wherein three or more rooms are rented under three or more separate
written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination
thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides witlrin
the residence."
LODGING HOUSE -A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein
lodging and meals aze provided to five or more persons for compensation,
whether direct or indirect. In determining the number of persons lodging in
a lodging house, all residents shall be counted, including an owner, agent or
manager."
D. Table 17.13.030 prohibits a boazding house or lodging house in the C-2 zone, but
allows such uses in the R-3 and R-4 zones, subject to a CUP.
The operarional chazacteristics of the JR Motel are atypical of any other hoteUmotel in the City.
These chazacteristics include:
100% of the occupancies have been for longer than 30 days (until October 2019 when
some rooms began to be reported as transient);
Three meals a day aze included;
Full laundry facilities aze included;
Transportarion to and from doctor appointments aze included;
A separate nursery room with numerous bassinettes, staff wearing scrubs and bottle
warmers are all located on-site and these services are included;
Strollers aze available to each occupant;
Resolu[ion No. 11221 6
There is no exterior sign indicating it is a hotel;
There is no regisfration desk;
There is no on-line advertising on typical hotel platforms;
There is no publically accessible phone number for reservation inquiries;
The on-line advertising that exists is directed towazd expectant mothers seeking long term
stays; and
The owner has stated that all occupants have rented rooms pursuant to written
agreements.
Finding: Tlte operational ckaracteristics of tlee JR Mote[are not in accord witk tlre definition
of`9iote["and are in accord with the definitions of"boarding leouse"and "[odging kouse"in
tltat ronn:s are rented under rental agreemei:ts, meals are provided and no transie rt
occupancy exists. Boarding/lodging kouses are not a!lowed in t/ie C2 zone. Approval ojthe
JR Mote! as a mote[ use wken, in jact, it kas at al[times been operating as a boarding house
or lodging house, was based on misinfarmation as to the actua[use i:teuded.
3. Violation of OMC Chaater 5.16—Uniform Transient Occunancv Tax (0°TOT")
A. OMC Section 5.16.030 requires the payment of TOT by each transient occupying
a hotel.
B. OMC Sec6on 5.16.020.G defines "transienY' as any person who exercises
occupancy in a hotel for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendaz days or less,
and they shall be deemed to be a transient until the period of thir[y (30) days has
expired unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the
occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy.
C. OMC Section 5.16.020.A defines "hotel" as including a hotel, motel, lodging
house and rooming house.
D. OMC Section 5.16.050 requires the operator of a hoteUmoteUlodging
house/rooming house to collect the TOT at the same time as the rent is collected.
E. OMC Section 5.16.070 requires the operator of a hotellmoteUlodging
house/rooming house to remit TOT to the CiTy.
From Mazch 2017, when the JR Motel business license was issued, until October 2019, no TOT
was paid by the JR Motel, and all gross rents were claimed as exempt. It is the only
establishment in the CiTy licensed as a hotel, which was consistently reporting and paying no
TOT. The JR Motel did pay TOT in October and November 2019, but claimed exemption for
90% and 80% of the rooms respectively. It was not until December 2019 that the JR Motel paid
TOT on the majority of the rooms. At no time has the JR Motel provided any documentation
establishing written agreements with its tenants for occupancies over 30 days nor has it made up
any TOT owed prior to October 2019.
Reso]ution No. 11221 7
Finding: TOT has been required, but not paid,jor occupancies up to .?0 days at tke JR Motel
and its claimed exemptions jor occupancies over 30 days l:ave not been supported by written
documentatina; therefore, JR Mote!has violated OMC Chapter 5.16 by failing to cal[ect and
remit TOT to the Ciry.
4. Violation of Civil Code Section 1863
California Civil Code Section 1863 states:
a) Every keeper of a hotel, inn, boardinghouse or lodginghouse, shall post in a
conspicuous place in the office or public room, and in every bedroom of said hotel,
boazdinghouse, inn, or lodginghouse, a printed copy of this section, and a statement of
rate or range of rates by the day for lodging. (b) No chazge or sum shall be collected or
received for any greater sum than is specified in subdivision(a). ... ."
The JR Motel did not have the required innkeeper's room rate signage posted in the lobby of the
motel.
Finding: The Owner did not post the required signs and has violated Civil Code Section 1863.
5.Other Considerations.
In addition to violating the CUP, the OMC, the Civil Code, and operating as a different use than
that approved, the Owner has disregarded the conditions of approval on more than one occasion,
in an egregious manner, generating a substantial amount of work for City staff in attempting to
gain compliance and remedy non-permitted work.
SECTION 2—ENVIRONMENTAL REVI W
The proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15321 (Class 21 - Enforcement Actions by
Regulatory Agencies).
ADOPTED this 14th day of Apri12020.
Mark A. Murphy, Mayor, C' o Orange
ATTEST:
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
Resolution No. 11221 8
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the CiTy Council of the City of
Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of Apri12020,by the following vote:
AYES:COiJNCILMEMBERS: Alvazez,Murphy,Nichols, Monaco
NOES:COLJNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COiJNCILMEMBERS: None
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
Resolution No. 11221 9
RESOLUTION N0. 11227
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ORANGE RECOMNI NDING ALL
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS
AND TENANTS ABIDE BY THE GOVERNOR'S
MARCH 16,2020 EXECUTIVE ORDER N-28-20.
WHEREAS, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has bewme a world-wide pandemic, in
which the federal, state, county and the City have all declazed a state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, the efforts to minimize the spread of COVID-19 have, among other things,
created for many Orange residents and businesses the loss or threatened loss of income as a result
of non-essential business closures, a significant reduction of hours and operations of those
businesses remaining open,including layoffs or the loss of hours or wages of employees or profits,
hindering the ability to keep up with rents, mortgages, utility bills, business opera6ons and other
related expenses; and
WH REAS, on Mazch 16, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-28-20,
which, among other things, allows a local agency to impose limitations on residential and
commercial evictions, recognizing that local jurisdictions may deternune, based on their own
circumstances, that additional measures to promote stability and security for its residents and
commercial establishments are beneficial; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined, based on its particulaz needs, that encouraging and
promoting stability among commercial and residential tenancies is most conducive to the public
health and welfare of the City; and
WHEREAS, the CiTy seeks to encourage and promote commercial and residential
landlords and tenants to uphold the provisions of the Executive Order, and to honor its intent and
spirit as applied to all commercial and residential tenants and landlords in the City of Orange, for
the protection of its residents and businesses during this time of crisis, which has been, and will
always be, a high priority.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange as
follows:
1. All commercial and residen6al landlords and tenants in the City of Orange are
strongly encouraged and expected to abide by the provisions of Executive Order N-28-20 and any
future related Executive Orders that benefit the vitality of the residents and business community,
specifically related to evictions,foreclosures,rent increases,utility disconnecfions,or other related
expenses.
2. The City of Orange has, at this time, refrained from mandating or exercising
regulatory authority created by Executive Order N-28-20 based on its long history of working
together and collaborating with its residential and the business community,and continues to expect
members of the community to act in the spirit and intent of Executive Order N-28-20.
3.This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption,and shall remain
in effect until the later of May 31, 2020, or the duration of the state and local State of Emergency
relaUng to COVID-19, or as deemed necessary by further action of the City Council.
ADOPTED this 14th day of Apri12020.
Mazk A. Murphy, Mayor, ity f ge
ATTEST:
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange
I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Orange at a regulaz meeting thereof held on the 14th day of Apri12020, by the following vote:
AYES:COiJNCILMEMBERS: Alvarez, Murphy,Nichols,Monaco
NOES:COLJNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COiINCILMEMBERS: None
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of range
Resolution No. 11227 2