Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 14a - Business License Revocation at 529 Las Tunas Dr.
DATE: January 18, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Amber Abeyta, Business License Officer
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE BUSINESS PERMIT AND LICENSE REVIEW BOARD’S
DECISION TO REVOKE THE BUSINESS LICENSE FOR SAYBROOK
MEDIA GROUP INC. AT 529 LAS TUNAS DRIVE AND IF THE DECISION
IS TO UPHOLD THE BOARD’S DECISION, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.
7394
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The Appellant, Attorney Mr. Ron Betty, on behalf of Saybrook Media Group Inc., (herein
referred to as “Saybrook”), has filed an appeal of the decision made by the Business
Permit and License Review Board (“Board”) to uphold the revocation of their business
license. The City revoked Saybrook’s business license after it was determined that the
business was not in compliance with their approved use, which is general office only, and
that the business was being utilized as a residence, which is not a permitted use on this
property. This project was previously scheduled to be presented as a public hearing on
December 7, 2021; however, the applicant originally requested a continuance of two
weeks to December 21 and this was granted. Subsequently, a second continuance was
requested by the applicant at the December 21 meeting and this continuance was also
granted to the date of January 18, 2022.
In accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code (“AMC”) Section 6216.90 – Appeal to the City
Council, it is recommended that the City Council consider the findings and
recommendations of the Board and adopt them in total by adopting Resolution No. 7394
– refer to Attachment No. 1. This would have the effect of denying the appeal and
upholding the revocation of Saybrook’s business license.
BACKGROUND
After a thorough investigation, on July 28, 2021, the business license was revoked by the
Business License Officer for two reasons: (1) Saybrook had partially converted their
approved floor plan and use from required storage and office use to residential use, which
Resolution No. 7394 – Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
January 18, 2022
Page 2 of 5
is in violation of Saybrook’s business license Conditions of Approval, and (2) the
overnight stay/residential use of the subject property within the C-O Zone is prohibited
under the AMC Development Code and is in violation of Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia
Municipal Code.
Saybrook timely appealed this decision. On September 28, 2021, a public hearing was
held before the Board to consider the appeal, at which time Saybrook was provided a full
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in opposition to the revocation. Saybrook
was represented by counsel at the hearing, and several witnesses spoke on its behalf.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board unanimously voted to uphold the revocation.
The decision of the Board was 4-0, with one member absent, to deny the appeal and
revoke the business license. In addition, the decision included that Saybrook not be
allowed to apply for a new business license for the next 12 months. Please note that
Saybrook has been allowed to continue to operate their business until final action has
been taken on their Appeal.
Subsequent to the Board’s decision, Saybrook again filed a timely appeal to the City
Council. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider this appeal.
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6216.90 provides the City Council with different
procedural options to consider a decision of the Board. Specifically, the City Council may
hold a completely new hearing or may simply review the findings made by the Board. At
the conclusion of either process, the City Council may uphold, amend, modify, or reject
the findings. The relevant part of the Code reads as follows:
“…The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Board
and may adopt them in total, hold a de novo hearing, or the City Council may
amend, modify or reject the recommended decision of the Board. In addition, the
City Council may send the findings and recommendations back to the Board with
instructions to rehear any relevant matter not previously heard and then resubmit
additional amended or modified findings to the City Council. The City Council may
revoke, amend or modify the license, or impose such other or further reasonable
terms, conditions or restrictions on the terms, condition or restrictions theretofore
placed on said license as the City Council finds reasonable or necessary to ensure
that the business enterprise, occupation or activity will not be contrary to or inimical
to or jeopardize the preservation of the public peace, safety or welfare of the City
or its inhabitants, or be detrimental to other properties or businesses in its vicinity.
The City Council may also prevent the holder of a revoked or suspended license
from applying for a new license within one year or such other certain, specified,
reasonable time period as the City Council deems prudent. The decision of the
City Council shall be final.”
Resolution No. 7394 – Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
January 18, 2022
Page 3 of 5
The appeal was originally scheduled for the City Council Meeting of November 16, 2021;
however, the meeting was rescheduled to December 7, 2021, at the request of Council
Members who desired more time to be able to review the record. Since then, the
Appellant has requested two additional continuances, first to the December 21, 2021,
Council Meeting and then to the January 18, 2022, meeting. Both requests were granted.
Several letters were received following the first continuance, as well as a book from Dr.
Susan Block. These letters have been provided to City Council Members previously, but
all correspondence received since the original continuance is attached again here as
Attachment No. 5.
DISCUSSION
Given the process outlined in the Code, it is recommended that the City Council hold a de
novo hearing on this matter. Saybrook did have a full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence in opposition to the revocation at the prior hearing before the Board.
Regardless, it is recommended that Saybrook be allowed the opportunity to present
whatever additional information may be relevant to the case before the City Council.
Attached for your review is the staff report packet (attachments included) that was
presented to the Board at its September 28, 2021, meeting (Attachment No. 3), and the
transcription of the Board’s meeting minutes (Attachment No. 4). This represents the
entire record of this matter to date. The recommended process is to allow the City’s
representative to provide comments on the record and context for the Board’s decision, to
allow representatives from the Appellant’s team to present as well, and to allow time for
rebuttal.
The facts, conclusions, and recommendations submitted in the Staff Report and
attachments for the September 28, 2021, hearing remain unchanged and were further
supported by testimony and other information provided during the Board’s appeal
hearing. Pursuant to Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the Business
License Officer may suspend or revoke any business license upon receipt of any of the
following information: 1) The business has been expanded, or partially or wholly
converted to another business, without the required City approvals and permits; or 2) The
business has violated, or permitted to be violated, any federal, State, or local law
applicable to the premises or business; or 3) The business has, in the conduct of the
same or any similar business, engaged in conduct detrimental to the public welfare.
Conduct detrimental to the public welfare includes, but is not limited to, operations or
activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety, and convenience of the
public. Examples of conduct detrimental to the public welfare include but are not limited
to: (a) operating a business prohibited by local or State law, or (b) allowing activities that
are or become a public nuisance.
In this case, Saybrook’s business license has been revoked for two independent reasons:
Resolution No. 7394 – Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
January 18, 2022
Page 4 of 5
1. Saybrook’s business license was conditionally approved as an office use only. One of
the conditions of approval was that the rooms were to be maintained as office space and
storage for the office use, as outlined on the business license application, business
license certificate and floor plan refer to Attachment No. 8 of the Business License
Review Board packet. Many of the rooms were used as bedrooms for “overnight stay”;
therefore, violation of the Conditions of Approval is grounds for revocation of the business
license according to AMC Section 6216.7(3), as stated above.
2. The subject business address is Zoned C-O Professional Office. The C-O Zone is
intended to provide sites for development as administrative, financial, business,
professional, medical and governmental offices (Development Code
Section,9102.03.010.). Residential uses are prohibited in the C-O Zone (Development
Code Section 9102.03.020.). The City has a permissive zoning code, so only expressly
permitted uses are allowed. Residential uses are not listed as a permitted use in the C-O
Zone (Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table 2-8.) Therefore, they are
prohibited unless the Development Services Department Director makes a finding that
they are sufficiently similar to an expressly permitted use as to be allowed on the same
basis in accordance with Development Code Section 9102.03.020(B). No such finding
has been made. Therefore, the residential use of the subject property within the C-O
Zone is prohibited under the AMC Development Code and is in violation of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance applicable to the premises where the business covered by said license
is conducted, which is grounds for revocation of Saybrook’s business license in
accordance with AMC Section 6216.7(3).
At the September 28, 2021, hearing, the Board found that the City has met the
preponderance of evidence standard with respect to each ground above and adopted
these two reasons as findings to deny the Appeal. Additional facts to support the findings
are included in Resolution No. 7394.
Saybrook has submitted no evidence to counter the findings and determinations made by
the Business License Officer or the Review Board. Therefore, it is recommended that the
City Council make the same findings related to the two grounds for revocation listed
above, deny the appeal, and uphold the decision to revoke Saybrook’s business license.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed action does not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), and it can be seen with certainty that it will have no impact on the
environment. Thus, this matter is exempt under CEQA.
Resolution No. 7394 – Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
January 18, 2022
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council determine that this action is exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and adopt Resolution No. 7394, denying
the appeal and upholding the Business Permit and License Review Board’s decision in
the revocation of the business license for Saybrook Media Group Inc. at 529 Las Tunas
Drive.
Attachment No. 1 – Resolution No. 7394
Attachment No. 2 – Appeal Letter
Attachment No. 3 – September 28, 2021, Business Permit and License Review Board
Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment No. 4 – Minutes of the September 28, 2021, Business Permit and License
Review Board Meeting
Attachment No. 5 – Additional Correspondence Received
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 7394
1
RESOLUTION NO. 7394
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE BUSINESS PERMIT AND
LICENSE REVIEW BOARD DECISION AND UPHOLDING THE
REVOCATION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE FOR SAYBROOK MEDIA
GROUP INC. AT 529 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2020, the City issued a business license to Saybrook
Media Group Inc. (herein referred to as “Saybrook”) at 529 Las Tunas Drive, for general
office use only. The subject business address is zoned C-O Professional Office; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2021, a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) was issued to
Saybrook since they had an online advertisement for a “live-in” position and residential
use of the subject property is not allowed per the City’s zoning regulations for C-O,
Professional Office. The NOV cited that Saybrook had at least partially expanded to
another busines without the required City approval or permits. The NOV gave Saybrook
until May 3, 2021, to remove any business unrelated to the approved office use; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, a second NOV was issued to Saybrook, since the
business owner of Saybrook confirmed that the building was being used for overnight
stay and acknowledged the online advertisement for a job for a “live-in” position at their
business location, which is not allowed. The second NOV cited that Saybrook must
correct this violation immediately and that they must cease and desist use of the property
for any overnight stays since the business license was approved strictly for office use
only. Subsequently, on June 15, 2021, in response to the NOV the business owner
informed the City that Saybrook is not in violation of any City Codes; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2021, in order to confirm whether Saybrook abated the
Arcadia Municipal Code (“AMC”) violation of residential use, which is not allowed in the
2
zone for the subject property, the City served Saybrook an Inspection Warrant. An
inspection of the business was conducted that day, and it was confirmed (1) that the
business had partially converted the approved floor plan and use from required storage
and office use to residential use, which is in violation of Saybrook’s business license
conditions of approval, and (2) the overnight stay/residential use of the subject property
within the C-O zone is prohibited under the AMC Development Code and is in violation of
the City’s Zoning Ordinance applicable to the premises; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the
Business License Officer may suspend or revoke any business license upon receipt of
any of the following information: 1) The business has been expanded, or partially or wholly
converted to another business, without the required City approvals and permits; or 2) The
business has violated any conditions of said license, or has violated or permitted to be
violated any federal, State, or local law applicable to the premises or business; or 3) The
business has, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, engaged in conduct
detrimental to the public welfare. Conduct detrimental to the public welfare includes, but
is not limited to, operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety,
and convenience of the public. Examples of conduct detrimental to the public welfare
include but are not limited to: (a) operating a business prohibited by local or State law, or
(b) allowing activities that are or become a public nuisance. Though the burden of proof
is not expressly stated in the City’s ordinance, the preponderance of the evidence
standard generally applies to all civil and administrative matters unless another higher
degree of proof is imposed by statute; and
3
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the business license was revoked by the Business
License Officer for two reasons: (1) Saybrook had partially converted their approved floor
plan and use from required storage and office use to residential use which is in violation
of Saybrook’s business license conditions of approval, and (2) the overnight
stay/residential use of the subject property within the C-O zone is prohibited under the
AMC Development Code and is in violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance applicable to
the premises pursuant to Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2021, the Appellant of Saybrook’s business, Mr.
Maximilian Lobkowicz, filed an appeal within the prescribed ten-day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, a public hearing was held before the
Business Permit and License Review Board (“Board”) on said appeal, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. At
said meeting the Board made the decision in a 4 -0 vote with one (1) Board Member
absent, to deny Saybrook’s appeal and uphold the City’s Business License Officer’s
decision to revoke Saybrook’s business license, subject to the condition that Saybrook’s
employees, agents, partners, directors, officers, controlling stockholders and managers
not be allowed to apply for a new business license in the City of Arcadia for a period of
12 months from the date of this revocation; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, Attorney Mr. Ron Betty, on behalf of Saybrook,
filed an appeal to the City Council of the Board’s decision to deny Saybrook’s appeal and
uphold the City’s Business License Officer’s decision to revoke Saybrook’s business
license within the prescribed ten-day appeal period; and
4
WHEREAS, Saybrook requested and received a continuance from the originally
scheduled hearing date of December 7, 2021, and, on December 21, 2021, at the City
Council meeting, a second continuance was requested by Saybrook, which was granted
to the date of January 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the City
Council heard said appeal, at which time the appellant and the City were given an
opportunity to be fully heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Based on the Board’s findings presented to this City Council at the
above-referenced meeting on January 18, 2022, including factual data submitted by the
Business License Division in the staff report with attachments dated September 28,
2021, the City Council considered the findings and recommendations of the Board and
hereby adopts them in total in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6216.90
– Appeal to City the City Council, hereby denying the appeal and upholding the Board’s
decision in the revocation of the business license for Saybrook subject to the condition
that Saybrook’s employees, agents, partners, directors, officers, controlling stockholders
and managers not be allowed to apply for a new business license in the City of Arcadia
for a period of 12 months from the date of the revocation. In so deciding, the Council
finds and determines all of the following pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section
6216.7:
5
1. Saybrook has been expanded, or partially or wholly converted to another
business, without the required City approvals and permits, thereby violating
conditions of approval of their business license and partially converting required
storage and office space to residential use.
Facts to Support the Finding: Saybrook’s business license was conditionally
approved as an office use only. One of the conditions of approval was that certain
rooms were to be maintained as office space and storage for the office use, as
outlined on the business license application, and as listed on the business license
certificate. As evidenced by the photographs within the record, many of the rooms
required to be used for office or storage use were instead being used as bedrooms
for overnight stay; therefore, this violation of conditions of approval of said license
is grounds for revocation according to AMC Section 6216.7(3).
2. Saybrook violated, or permitted to be violated, local law applicable to the premises
or business, by using the property for residential uses prohibited in the AMC in
the C-O Professional Office zone.
Facts to Support the Finding: The subject business address is Zoned C-O
Professional Office. The C-O zone is intended to provide sites for development
as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and governmental
offices (Development Code Section, 9102.03.020.). The City has a permissive
zoning code, so only expressly permitted uses are allowed. Residential uses are
not listed as a permitted use in the C-O Zone (Development Code Section
9102.03.020, Table 2-8.). Therefore, they are prohibited unless the Development
Services Director makes a finding that they are sufficiently similar to an expressly
6
permitted use as to be allowed on the same basis in accordance with
Development Code Section 9102.03.020(B). No such finding has been made.
There is ample evidence of residential use of the property, including information
from the sex offender registrant that he resided at the property, the online
advertisement for a live in position, and evidence taken during the inspection on
July 22, 2021, that confirmed the residential use. The residential use of the subject
property within the C-O zone is prohibited under the AMC Development Code and
is in violation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance applicable to the premises where the
business covered by said license is conducted, which is grounds for revocation of
Saybrook’s business license in accordance with AMC Section 6216.7(3).
3. Saybrook engaged in conduct detrimental to the public welfare, which includes
allowing activities that are a public nuisance, by violating conditions of approval
of their business license and the AMC by partially converting required storage and
office space to residential use.
Facts to Support the Finding: The previous facts are incorporated herein. Despite
clear restrictions placed on their business license certificate, Saybrook allowed
activities on site that violated the conditions of approval of their business license.
AMC Section 6216.7. – Suspension or Revocation states, “The License Officer
may suspend or revoke any business license upon receipt of information from any
source that: . . . (3) The holder of license has violated any of the conditions of said
license, or has violated or permitted to be violated any law or laws of the United
States or the State, or any ordinance applicable to the premises where the
7
business covered by said license is conducted, or in connection with said
business.”
4. Based on the foregoing, the City of Arcadia City Council finds that AMC Section
6216.7 was violated by Saybrook, justifying its business license revocation.
SECTION 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted by the City Council this 18th day of January, 2022.
________________________
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Todd Leishman
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Office of the City Attorney
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Appeal Letter
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
September 28, 2021 Business Permit and
License Review Board
V Staff Report and
Attachments
DATE: September 28, 2021
TO: Business Permit and License Review Board
FROM: Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Amber Abeyta, Business License Officer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2081 – DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE REVOCATION OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE FOR SAYBROOK
MEDIA GROUP INC., LOCATED AT 529 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The Appellant and business owner of Saybrook Media Group Inc., (herein referred to as
“Saybrook”) Mr. Maximilian Lobkowicz, is appealing the City’s decision to revoke the
business license on July 28, 2021. The City revoked Saybrook’s business license after it
was determined that the business is not in compliance with their approved use, which is
general office only, and the business was being utilized as a residence, which is not a
permitted use on this property. On August 9, 2021, the Appellant filed an appeal - refer to
Attachment No. 1. It is recommended that the Business Permit and License Review
Board adopt Resolution No. 2081, denying the appeal and uphold the business license
revocation for the business, Saybrook, that is located at 529 Las Tunas Drive and this
business owner may not be allowed to apply for another business license within this City
for 12 months.
BACKGROUND
On January 7, 2020, the City issued a business license to Saybrook to operate an office
use which consist of archiving and cataloging years’ worth of internally generated files,
print, media and memorabilia, storing the materials and professional office usage within
the one-story building that is located at 529 Las Tunas Drive. The subject commercial
building is approximately 7,055 square feet in size, and is zoned C-O, Professional Office.
The C-O zone is intended to provide sites for development as administrative, financial,
business, professional, medical and general offices. According to the Los Angeles County
Assessor’s database, the commercial building is owned by Hot Kid LLC in c/o Anne W.
Yeh. The property owner was copied on all the Notice of Violations and correspondence
from the City related to this business.
Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
September 28, 2021
Page 2 of 5
On April 14, 2021, the Arcadia Police Department (“APD”) was contacted by an individual
(via telephone and in-person) attempting to register his residence as a sex offender who
informed APD that he lived at the business location of Saybrook’s since April 10, 2021.
According to the registrant, Saybrook also operates a phone sex business for the Dr.
Susan Block Institute (the Appellant’s wife), and that him and several others that works
for Saybrook also lived there as well. Since residential use of the subject property is not
allowed per the City’s zoning regulations for C-O, Professional Office, APD informed the
registrant that he could not register the subject property as his residence.
Subsequently, City staff found proof of an online advertisement – refer to Attachment No.
2 for a job at Saybrook for a “live-in” position. The job advertisement included
photographs of the subject property including the kitchen, shower, bedroom with a bed,
and a laundry facility.
Based on this information, it was determined that Saybrook was unlawfully using the
subject property for residential activity in violation of its zoning regulations. In addition, a
sex phone business is considered an “adult business” use that is prohibited in every zone
except the M-1 Zone and requires an Adult Business Regulatory Permit.
As a result, a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) was issued on April 20, 2021 – refer to
Attachment No. 3 citing that the business has expanded partially or wholly converted to
another business without the required City approval or permits. The NOV gave Saybrook
until May 3, 2021 to remove any business unrelated to the approved office use. The
Appellant informed the City that his wife is a therapist (the business owner of Dr. Susan
Block Institute) and was not operating her business out of this building. He admitted that
all Saybrook’s employees, including himself stay overnight at the subject site for several
days a week due to work deadlines. In addition, when the Appellant was informed of the
online advertisement for a job at Saybrook for a “live-in” position he did not deny the
online advertisement and explained that it was not intended for a permanent “live-in”
position, but a position to stay overnight for a few days out of the week. Furthermore, on
May 3, 2021, the Appellant informed the City that Saybrook is not in violation of any
Arcadia ordinances.
Since the Appellant confirmed that the building was being used for overnight stay and
acknowledged the online advertisement for a job for a “live-in” position at Saybrook,
which is not allowed, an NOV was issued by the City on June 2, 2021 to correct this
violation immediately and that they must cease and desist use of the property for any
overnight stays since the business license was approved strictly for office use only – refer
to Attachment No. 4. The NOV cited several code sections from the City’s Development
Code stating that overnight stay is not allowed on this subject site and within this office
building. On June 15, 2021, in response to the NOV the appellant informed the City that
Saybrook is not in violation of the any City’s Codes.
On July 22, 2021, in order to confirm whether Saybrook abated the AMC violation of
residential use, which isn’t allowed in the zone for the subject property, the City served
Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
September 28, 2021
Page 3 of 5
the Appellant an Inspection Warrant, and an inspection was conducted that day – refer to
Attachment No. 5. Additionally, the Warrant authorized City staff to photograph or
videotape the inspection for the purpose of preserving evidence of violations of the
Arcadia Municipal Code. During the inspection, it was discovered that the business has
ten (10) rooms that were being used as bedrooms – refer to Attachment No. 6 and
contained other evidence of unlawful residential use of the property.
As a result, Saybrook was informed by certified mail on July 28, 2021 – refer to
Attachment No. 7, that their business license was revoked.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the Business License Officer
may suspend or revoke any business license upon receipt of any of the following
information:
x The business has been expanded, or partially or wholly converted to another
business, without the required City approvals and permits; or
x The business has violated, or permitted to be violated, any federal, State, or local
law applicable to the premises or business; or
x The business has, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, engaged in
conduct detrimental to the public welfare.
a. Conduct detrimental to the public welfare includes, but is not limited to,
operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety
and convenience of the public.
b. Examples of conduct detrimental to the public welfare include, but are not
limited to: (a) operating a business prohibited by local or State law, or
(b) “allowing” activities that are or become a public nuisance.
Though the burden of proof is not expressly stated in the City’s ordinance, the
preponderance of the evidence standard generally applies to all civil and administrative
matters unless another higher degree of proof is imposed by statute.
The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard requires that City staff must persuade the
Board that, by the evidence presented in this Staff Report and any evidence presented at
the hearing, that what City staff is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true.
Stated another way, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard simply requires the
Board to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.
Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
September 28, 2021
Page 4 of 5
Under AMC Section 6216.7, the Business License Officer has broad discretion to revoke
or suspend a business license. In this case, Saybrook’s business license has been
revoked for two independent reasons:
1. Saybrook’s business license was conditionally approved as office use only. One
of the conditions of approval was that the rooms were to be maintained as office
space and storage for the office use, as outlined on the business license
application, business license certificate and floor plan refer to - Attachment No. 8.
Many of the room were used as bedrooms for “overnight stay”; therefore, violation
of the conditions of approval of said license is grounds for revocation according to
AMC Section 6216.7(3), as stated above.
2. The subject business address is zoned C-O Professional Office. The C-O zone is
intended to provide sites for development as administrative, financial, business,
professional, medical and governmental offices (Development Code Section,
9102.03.010.). Residential uses are prohibited in the C-O zone (Development
Code Section 9102.03.020.). The City has a permissive zoning code, so only
expressly permitted uses are allowed. Residential uses are not listed as a
permitted use in the C-O zone (Development Code Section 9102.03.020, Table
2-8.) Therefore, they are prohibited unless the Development Services Department
Director makes a finding that they are sufficiently similar to an expressly
permitted use as to be allowed on the same basis in accordance with
Development Code Section 9102.03.020(B). No such finding has been made.
Therefore, your residential use of the subject property within the C-O zone is
prohibited under the AMC Development Code and is in violation of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance applicable to the premises where the business covered by said
license is conducted, which is grounds for revocation of Saybrook’s business
license in accordance with AMC Section 6216.7(3).
The City has met the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard with respect to each
ground above.
Saybrook has been allowed to continue to operate their business until action has been
taken on their Appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Business Permit and License Review Board adopt Resolution
No. 2081, denying the appeal and uphold the decision to revoke the City’s business
license for Saybrook Media Group, Inc. and that Saybrook’s employees, agents, partners,
directors, officers, controlling stockholders or managers not be allowed to apply for a new
business license in the City of Arcadia for a period of 12 months from the date of this
revocation.
Business License Revocation
Saybrook Media Group, Inc. – 529 Las Tunas Drive
September 28, 2021
Page 5 of 5
If any of the Business License and Review Board Members or other interested party has
any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the September 28, 2021,
hearing, please contact Business License Officer, Amber Abeyta, at (626) 574-5437, or
by email at aabeyta@ArcadiaCA.gov .
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1 – Resolution No. 2081
Attachment No. 2 - Appeal Letter
Attachment No. 3 – Job Advertisement
Attachment No. 4 – Notice of Violation Issued April 20, 2021
Attachment No. 5 – Notice of Violation Issued June 2, 2021
Attachment No. 6 – Inspection Warrant
Attachment No. 7 – Pictures of Rooms and Business Premises
Attachment No. 8 – Business License Revocation Letter dated July 28, 2021
Attachment No. 9 – Saybrook’s Business License Application, Business License
Certificate and Floor Plan
%/5%Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 2081
%/5%Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Appeal Letter
%/5%Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Job Advertisement
%/5%Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Notice of Violation Issued April 20, 2021
%/5%Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Notice of Violation Issued June 2, 2021
%/5%Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Inspection Warrant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55575.18155\33367803.1 –1–
INSPECTION WARRANT
STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, Bar No. 089318
stephen.deitsch@bbklaw.com
BRANDON A. SANCHEZ, Bar No. 300718
brandon.sanchez@bbklaw.com
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
2855 E. Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, California 91761
Telephone: (909) 989-8584
Facsimile: (909) 944-1441
Attorneys for Applicant
CITY OF ARCADIA
EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES—NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT
GLENDALE COURTHOUSE
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSPECTION
OF:
529 LAS TUNAS DRIVE, ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA 91007
APN: 5787-024-021
Warrant No.: ____________________
[PROPOSED]
INSPECTION WARRANT
[Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1822.50–1822.60.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55575.18155\33367803.1 –2–
INSPECTION WARRANT
INSPECTION WARRANT
Upon review of the City of Arcadia’s (“City”) Application for Inspection Warrant
(“Application”), the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached thereto, the Declaration of
Business License Officer Amber Abeyta, and all other evidence available to the Court, and upon
proof being made before me this day that there is probable cause to believe that there are
building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning code violations on the property
located at 529 Las Tunas Drive, Arcadia, California 91007 (“Subject Property”)—
THIS INSPECTION WARRANT IS HEREBY DIRECTED to any Code Services
Officer, Building and Safety Inspector, Fire Inspector, Environmental Inspector, Planning or
Zoning Inspector, Animal Control Officer, Arcadia City Attorney, County Health Inspector,
Arcadia Police Officer, and any other individual acting as an agent of the City of Arcadia
(“YOU”).
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE to enter and
inspect the Subject Property as authorized by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1822.50 through
1822.60, which shall include the interior and exterior of any open fields, yards, structures,
buildings, homes, houses, sheds, garages, and rooms located on or at the Subject Property
(“Inspection”). The purpose of this Inspection will be to verify the existence, scope, and extent of
any violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code (“AMC”) or other State laws, that exist on the
Subject Property.
YOU ARE FURTHER AUTHORIZED to photograph or videotape the Inspection for the
purpose of preserving evidence of violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Any peace officer
may accompany the execution of this Inspection Warrant in order to keep the peace and to
prevent any interference with the execution of this Inspection Warrant. Any animal control officer
may accompany the execution of this Inspection Warrant in order to control or take into custody
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55575.18155\33367803.1 –3–
INSPECTION WARRANT
any uncontrolled animal on the premises.
YOU ARE FURTHER AUTHORIZED to conduct the Abatement between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
YOU ARE FURTHER AUTHORIZED to conduct the Inspection without providing
advance notice of the Inspection.
YOU ARE FURTHER AUTHORIZED to conduct the Inspection in the absence of an
owner or occupant of the Subject Property because the absence of such persons is reasonably
necessary to effectuate this Inspection Warrant.
YOU ARE FURTHER AUTHORIZED to use reasonable force, if necessary, to enter the
Subject Property, or any structures thereon, to conduct the Inspection on the Subject Property,
with the assistance of the Arcadia Police Department or a locksmith.
Unless otherwise extended or renewed, this Inspection Warrant shall be effective for a
period of 14 days from the date of signature. This Inspection Warrant shall be returned to this
Court within 30 days following expiration of the Inspection Warrant.
Dated: ________________________ ___________________________________
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
___________________
OF THE SUPERIOR C
July 13, 2021
%/5%Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Pictures of Rooms and Business Premises
Bedroom #1
Bedroom #2
Bedroom #3
Bedroom #4
Bedroom #5
Bedroom #6
Bedroom #7
Bedroom #8
Bedroom #9
Bedroom #10
Following Pictures are of Other Areas of the Business
%/5%Attachment No. 8
Attachment No. 8
Business License Revocation Letter dated
July 28, 2021
%/5%Attachment No. 9
Attachment No. 9
Saybrook’s Business License Application,
Business License Certificate and Floor Plan
·2
·3
·4
·5
·6
·7
·8
·9· · · · · · TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO-RECORDED
10· · · · · · · ·SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
11· ·ARCADIA BUSINESS PERMIT & LICENSE REVIEW BOARD
12· · · · · · · · ·SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20· · Litigation Services Job Number: 816232
21
22
23
24
25
Attachment No. 4
Page 2
·1· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Meeting is called to order. May we
·2· ·have the roll call, please?
·3· · · · FEMALE:· Boardmember Chan --
·4· · · · MR. CHAN:· Here.
·5· · · · FEMALE:· -- Boardmember Thompson --
·6· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Here.
·7· · · · FEMALE:· -- Boardmember Tsoi --
·8· · · · MR. TSOI:· Here.
·9· · · · FEMALE:· -- Vice-Chair Lin, uh, he's not present
10· ·tonight. And Chair Wilander.
11· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Here. Here. Tonight we're having
12· ·a, uh -- this is the Ar- -- Arcadia Business Permit &
13· ·License Review Board, it's a special meeting. We're
14· ·going to be looking at resolution number 2081, denying
15· ·the appeal and uphold the revocation of the business
16· ·license for Saybrook Media Group, Incorporated located
17· ·at 529 Las Tunas Drive.
18· · · · The recommendation is adopt the, um, denying the
19· ·appeal. The appellant is Saybrook Media Group,
20· ·Incorporated. Can we have the staff report, please?
21· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· Thank you. Good evening, Chair and
22· ·board members. As you mentioned, Chair Wilander,
23· ·before you tonight is an appeal of a revocation of a
24· ·business license for Saybrook Media located at 529 Las
25· ·Tunas Drive.
Page 3
·1· · · · Before I give a little bit of background on this
·2· ·business and the reason for the revocation, the main
·3· ·reason is was revoked is because the business was
·4· ·utilizing the building as a residence for overnight
·5· ·stay, which is not allowed within the zone,
·6· ·professional office. They were not in compliance with
·7· ·their approved conditions and floor plans that rooms
·8· ·to be used for office and storage only.
·9· · · · Instead these rooms were set up as bedrooms. To
10· ·give you some background on the business, the business
11· ·license was issued to Saybrook Media Group, Inc. on
12· ·January 7, 2020 for general office use, which consists
13· ·of archiving and cataloguing years' worth internally
14· ·generated files, print, media and memorabilia, storing
15· ·the materials for professional office use.
16· · · · On April 20, 2021, staff received information
17· ·from the Arcadia Police Department that Saybrook was
18· ·using their business location as a residence and to
19· ·operate a sex phone business for the Dr. Susan Block
20· ·Institute. Saybrook's business location is zoned CO
21· ·professional office, which is intended to provide
22· ·sites for development as administrative, financial,
23· ·business professional, medical and general office use.
24· · · · Residential use is not a permitted use for the CO
25· ·professional office zone. Furthermore, a sex phone
Page 4
·1· ·operation is considered an adult business, use that is
·2· ·prohibited in every zone except the M1 zone and
·3· ·requires an adult business regulatory permit.
·4· ·Therefore, a sex phone business is not an allowable
·5· ·use per the CO professional office zone.
·6· · · · In addition, the city found proof of an online
·7· ·advertisement for a job at Saybrook for a live-in
·8· ·position. The job advertisement included photographs
·9· ·of the subject property, including the kitchen, shower
10· ·with a bed and laundry facilities. As a result of the
11· ·information, staff issued Saybrook two notices of
12· ·violations.
13· · · · The first notice of violation that was issued on
14· ·April 20, 2021 cited that Saybrook had at least
15· ·partially expanded to another business without the
16· ·city required approval or permits and was unlawfully
17· ·using the subject property for residential activity,
18· ·which is not a permitted use at their business
19· ·location for the designed zone, CO professional office
20· ·zone.
21· · · · The notice of violation stated that Saybrook was
22· ·required to remove any business unrelated to the
23· ·approved office use. In response to the notice of
24· ·violation, the business owner of Saybrook, Mr.
25· ·Maximilian Lobkowicz, who is the appellant, confirmed
Page 5
·1· ·that the building was being used for overnight stay
·2· ·and acknowledged the online advertisement for a job at
·3· ·Saybrook as a live-in position.
·4· · · · However, the appellant explained that the Dr.
·5· ·Susan Block Institute was his wife's business and that
·6· ·her business was not being operated at Saybrook and
·7· ·that they were not operating a sex phone business. In
·8· ·addition, the appellant stated that Saybrook was not
·9· ·violating any city codes.
10· · · · Based on this information and since the appellant
11· ·confirmed that the building was being used for an
12· ·overnight stay and acknowledged the online
13· ·advertisement for a live-in position in Saybrook, on
14· ·June 2, 2021, a second notice of violation was issued
15· ·to Saybrook. The second notice of violation cited that
16· ·Saybrook must cease and desist use of the property for
17· ·any overnight stay since the business license was
18· ·strictly approved for office use only.
19· · · · In response to the second notice of violation,
20· ·the appellant informed the city that Saybrook is not
21· ·in violation of any city codes. On July 22nd, to
22· ·confirm whether Saybrook had abated the Arcadia
23· ·Municipal Code Violation of residential use, which as
24· ·previously stated, is not allowed in the zone set for
25· ·the subject property, the city served Saybrook with an
Page 6
·1· ·inspection warrant.
·2· · · · An inspection of the business was conducted that
·3· ·day by myself, as the business license officer, a
·4· ·staff member from the code services department, an
·5· ·attorney from the city attorney's office, Mr. Brandon
·6· ·Sanchez, a locksmith to open any locked doors, if
·7· ·necessary, and the Arcadia Police Department who
·8· ·cleared the business premises before staff entered and
·9· ·attend for safety reasons as approved per the
10· ·inspection warrant.
11· · · · During the inspection, it was discovered that
12· ·Saybrook had 10 rooms that were being used in -- as
13· ·bedrooms. This confirmed that one -- um, that Saybrook
14· ·was not resting -- not using a resting area for their
15· ·employees but it was actually someone's home.
16· · · · This discovery con- -- confirmed that one,
17· ·Saybrook partially converted their floor -- approved
18· ·floor plan in use from the required storage and office
19· ·use to overnight stay and residential use of the
20· ·subject property within the CO zone prohibited under
21· ·the AMC Development Code and is in violation of the
22· ·city zoning ordinance applicable to the premises.
23· · · · Saybrook's business license was revoked for those
24· ·two reasons.
25· · · · This concludes my presentation. Staff recommends
Page 7
·1· ·that the business permit and license review board
·2· ·adopt resolution number 2081 denying the appeal and
·3· ·upholding the revocation of the business license for
·4· ·Saybrook, Inc. and that anyone affiliated with
·5· ·Saybrook, as outlined in the resolution, shall not be
·6· ·allowed to apply for a new business license with the
·7· ·city for a period of 12 months from the date of the
·8· ·revocation.
·9· · · · I'm available for any questions as well as the
10· ·city attorney's representation, Mr. Brandon Sanchez.
11· ·Additionally, Detective Carlos Quiroz from the Arcadia
12· ·Police Department, who was here during the inspection,
13· ·is available to answer any questions you have relating
14· ·to the police department's involvement.
15· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Ms. Abeyta. I'll go
16· ·ahead and with the, um -- our board members to see if
17· ·there's, uh, questions. Mr. Tsoi, did you have any
18· ·questions?
19· · · · MR. TSOI:· No.
20· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Mr. Chan?
21· · · · MR. CHAN:· I do. Um, a question to staff, um, if
22· ·I wanted to see some of the pictures again, do I do it
23· ·now or do I do it later?
24· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· Um, if you have a question right
25· ·now, we can go ahead and put that up on the screen for
Page 8
·1· ·staff.
·2· · · · MR. CHAN:· Okay.
·3· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Go ahead and ask the question
·4· ·then, please.
·5· · · · MR. CHAN:· Okay. I don't recall seeing 10
·6· ·pictures of bedrooms, but if there are 10 pictures --
·7· ·if there was actually 10, then, um, I have no issues
·8· ·with that.
·9· · · · MS. FLORES:· Amber, it might be faster if you go
10· ·onto the Q drive. She can't access it. Oh, okay.
11· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· Do you want me to go [inaudible]?
12· · · · MS. FLORES:· Can we come back to you, Mr. Chan --
13· · · · MR. CHAN:· Sure. No problem.
14· · · · MS. FLORES:· -- while we upload that?
15· · · · MR. CHAN:· Yeah. Go ahead.
16· · · · MS. FLORES:· Okay. Thank you.
17· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Okay. Mr. Thompson, did you have
18· ·any questions?
19· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Uh, just one quick question, is it
20· ·-- is it, um, typically to have a second notice of
21· ·violation? Is that a typical or is it just required
22· ·because there was no action taken by the applicant?
23· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· It was typical to make clear the
24· ·issue that we were addressing. We wanted to be sure
25· ·that, um, the issue we were pursuing was the
Page 9
·1· ·residential use only --
·2· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay. Thank you.
·3· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· -- and the violations of the
·4· ·conditions of approval of the business license.
·5· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay. Thank you.
·6· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· And if I may, this is Brandon
·7· ·Sanchez, I'm a city prosecutor for the city, uh, just
·8· ·want to make clear that a notice of violation isn't
·9· ·required before proceeding with the business license
10· ·revocation, it was, uh, just, uh, part of the city's
11· ·routine code enforcement steps, um, but it's not
12· ·actually a statutory requirement before we get to this
13· ·stage.
14· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Thank you for that clarification.
15· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. We're -- and I -- I
16· ·don't have any questions of staff, but Ms. Flores is -
17· ·- and, uh -- is looking for the requested pictures and
18· ·we'll wait just a minute.
19· · · · MR. CHAN:· Sorry.
20· · · · MS. FLORES:· It's all right.
21· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Uh, I think it'll be helpful.
22· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Amber, I do have a question --
23· ·another question, is it okay to have a kitchen in an
24· ·office building setting?
25· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· In this particular location, because
Page 10
·1· ·the kitchen was there and it was implied that it was
·2· ·going to be used as a common area, um, the staff
·3· ·didn't feel the need the kitchen needed to be removed
·4· ·--
·5· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Mm-hmm.
·6· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· -- but it's not common for most
·7· ·businesses.
·8· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· But it's -- it's not common. But
·9· ·could a business office building have a small kitchen?
10· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· Um, that could be a possibility, but
11· ·I would ask Lisa -- Ms. Lisa Flores to elaborate since
12· ·that's a planning question.
13· · · · MS. FLORES:· I apologize -- I apologize, can you
14· ·repeat that question again? I was --
15· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· I mean, could a business --
16· ·because I've been in businesses where sometimes they
17· ·have like a mini kitchen. Uh --
18· · · · MS. FLORES:· Is, uh -- is the kitchen, is -- is
19· ·that allowed, a kitchenette?
20· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Is it allowed -- is it allowed?
21· · · · MS. FLORES:· Sure. A lot of office buildings have
22· ·that.
23· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay. So -- so that is allowed
24· ·then?
25· · · · MS. FLORES:· Right.
Page 11
·1· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay.
·2· · · · MS. FLORES:· But that's -- this is -- yeah. The
·3· ·issue is not so much the kitchen --
·4· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay.
·5· · · · MS. FLORES:· -- it's the fact that the rooms were
·6· ·utilized not as office use but as bedrooms.
·7· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay. If you can't bring up the
·8· ·pictures, that's fine, I -- I still got a memor- -- I
·9· ·still -- I can still recall them.
10· · · · MS. FLORES:· Okay. Yeah.
11· · · · MR. RUSEN:· The- -- these are the pic- --
12· · · · MS. FLORES:· It's actually under attachment
13· ·number seven. If the commission wants to refer to the
14· ·photos of the rooms, um, they're all in this -- in the
15· ·planning commission packet.
16· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Okay.
17· · · · MR. RUSEN:· Just to confirm, these are the
18· ·pictures that were attached to the staff report;
19· ·correct? These are not different pictures?
20· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yeah.
21· · · · MS. FLORES:· Yeah. That is correct.
22· · · · MR. RUSEN:· Okay. In that case, we can pull them
23· ·up later, if they can get them up, uh, during
24· ·deliberations.
25· · · · MS. FLORES:· Okay.
Page 12
·1· · · · MR. RUSEN:· You -- you can introduce them --
·2· · · · MS. WILANDER:· And --
·3· · · · MS. FLORES:· Yeah.
·4· · · · MR. RUSEN:· -- just as long as it's not new
·5· ·material.
·6· · · · MS. FLORES:· Sorry about that, it's just a big
·7· ·file. So it's going to take a long time.
·8· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Mr. Rusen [ph], for
·9· ·that help. So then we can go ahead -- let me see if
10· ·there's any members of the public who would like to
11· ·speak in opposition to the appeal.
12· · · · MR. RUSEN:· I think we -- you start with the --
13· ·the floor.
14· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Oh, I'm sorry. The public -- so
15· ·the public hearing is open. Would the appellant -- I'm
16· ·-- I'm -- I need to look at my notes better. The
17· ·public hearing is open. The appellant gets a chance to
18· ·speak first. Please sign in and state your name for
19· ·the record.
20· · · · MR. BETTIE:· Thank you. My name is Ron Bettie.
21· ·I'm appearing on behalf of Saybrook Media, the
22· ·appellant.
23· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Go ahead then, sir.
24· · · · MR. BETTIE:· Thank you. Uh, board members, this
25· ·is a situation where how do you store a bed at a
Page 13
·1· ·property. Uh, Dr. Susan Block's business is well
·2· ·known, she's been in business over 30 years operating,
·3· ·uh, part of her business as bedside chats. There's
·4· ·over 30 years of, uh, public broadcasting, records to
·5· ·support this, Internet records where she hosts these
·6· ·chats from the bedside.
·7· · · · So many of these beds are used from previous sets
·8· ·from previous events in downtown, uh, from other
·9· ·engagements of Dr. Susan Block. Notably, when the
10· ·investigation was done by the Arcadia -- city of
11· ·Arcadia Code Enforcement, no one was detained that
12· ·said they lived at the property.
13· · · · Uh, there's only been one individual that, to my
14· ·knowledge, notified, uh, the appellant as well as code
15· ·enforcement that they were trying to register to live
16· ·at the property and they were explicitly told at that
17· ·time by the appellant, no, that's not okay, you can't
18· ·live at the property. Uh, the appellant, at all times,
19· ·has maintained that no one lives at the property.
20· · · · They operate a business where they're working
21· ·24/7, they're updating a website, they're doing an
22· ·online YouTube show, but there's no phone sex business
23· ·operated at the business. Uh, no one lives at the
24· ·business, no one resides permanently at the business,
25· ·uh, which isn't to say that, you know, how does one,
Page 14
·1· ·at an office, take a break.
·2· · · · Are you allowed to sit in your chair and sleep on
·3· ·a desk? Uh, do you have a break room where you sleep
·4· ·on a couch? Or if you're a business that hosts, uh,
·5· ·chats from the bedside, can you sleep on a bed for a
·6· ·couple minutes a day? There's nothing in the code that
·7· ·addresses that. There's nothing illegal, to my mind,
·8· ·that would raise an issue.
·9· · · · Uh, really, what we have here are pictures of
10· ·beds in rooms. We don't have any evidence of anyone
11· ·actually living at the unit. We don't have any
12· ·evidence of, uh, people registering the unit as their
13· ·domicile.
14· · · · The one thing that the city points to is the ad
15· ·on the Internet for a live-work unit and I believe my
16· ·client explained pretty well, actually, in their
17· ·letter to the board that live-work, it doesn't mean,
18· ·in his mind, that you live at the property, it means
19· ·more so that, you know, you have this environment
20· ·where you're working 24/7, if you're tired, you can
21· ·sleep at the -- you know, on a couch, on a bed or your
22· ·desk for an hour or something like that, but no one's
23· ·living at the unit.
24· · · · Um, and I would actually be happy to have, uh,
25· ·Ms. Block -- Dr. Susan Block explain to you further on
Page 15
·1· ·the nature of her business that there's no phone sex
·2· ·business being operated at this property, that is
·3· ·explicitly for their Internet operations and trying to
·4· ·open a podcast, get a podcast going, uh, which I
·5· ·believe are all business uses approved by the city of
·6· ·Arcadia.
·7· · · · Uh, I could also present more evidence, if the
·8· ·board would prefer to see it, from Mr. Maximilian who
·9· ·is there on the day-to-day that is running the
10· ·business. Uh, I also have the personal assistant of
11· ·the landlord who will explain to the board that these
12· ·tenants have been nothing but a dream.
13· · · · They've paid their rent consistently, they've
14· ·always been quiet, there's never been any complaints
15· ·from any neighbors about them and that in this time
16· ·during Covid, when it's so hard to retain good
17· ·tenants, find tenants to pay the rent on time, that
18· ·these tenants -- you couldn't ask for better tenants.
19· · · · Uh, and so with that, I'd actually like to open
20· ·up to the board if there's any other questions,
21· ·anything I can answer and thank you for your time.
22· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. Uh, so I'll -- I'll go
23· ·ahead and call on other people. So is there any member
24· ·of the public who would like to speak in support of
25· ·the appeal? Please come forward and sign in and state
Page 16
·1· ·your name and address.
·2· · · · MS. LEE:· Hi. I'm, um --
·3· · · · MS. WILANDER:· So before you begin, I should
·4· ·state that you have five minutes to speak then.
·5· · · · MS. LEE:· Okay. My name is Charlene Lee [ph] and
·6· ·I work as the public -- um, private assistant, uh, for
·7· ·the landlord. She's currently, um, out of the country.
·8· ·So I am kind of showing up here, uh, on her behalf.
·9· ·Um, she rented out, uh, this unit, uh, without an
10· ·agent and I was kind of with her, because I am her
11· ·personal assistant, um, 1- -- like every step of the
12· ·way.
13· · · · Sorry, I'm very nervous. Uh, but, um, I do deal
14· ·with the tenants on a weekly basis. Um, most of the
15· ·things I do are here in Arcadia. So I pass by day and
16· ·night, um, and, uh, I just wanted to say that, you
17· ·know, I visited the property and I wish you guys can,
18· ·because, um, you'll see that it's not -- uh, it does
19· ·not feel or look like a residence, um, or is, by all
20· ·means, not a residence, because, uh, I'm living proof
21· ·that I go there, I monitor, I --
22· · · · You know, I see that they're working all the time
23· ·and you'll see like the computers set up and, you
24· ·know, everybody's -- if you ever even call into, uh,
25· ·the business, it's so well-made and professional and,
Page 17
·1· ·um, more so than many other businesses. But I just
·2· ·wanted to, uh, make a point to say also that we've
·3· ·tried, uh, to have a lot of other tenants come in
·4· ·before, um, we had the luck of finding them as
·5· ·tenants.
·6· · · · Uh, we tried having like a school, um,
·7· ·chiropractor, doctor's office, just office use and
·8· ·we've been rejected by the city of Arcadia many times
·9· ·just because of zoning, um, and everything that was
10· ·included that I heard today for the board, uh, like
11· ·the kitchen and all this, it was all, I don't want to
12· ·say grandfathered in, but it -- it came with the
13· ·purchase of the property.
14· · · · Uh, it wasn't like they built the kitchen for
15· ·their use. It wasn't like they built the rooms for
16· ·their use, um, and they've been nothing but compliant.
17· ·Uh, so I wanted to make a point to say that.
18· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you -- thank you for your,
19· ·uh, information.
20· · · · MS. LEE:· Thank you.
21· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you very much.
22· · · · MS. LEE:· Thank you.
23· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Should I ask if anybody has
24· ·questions of you? Should I ask if people -- if we have
25· ·questions of the people?
Page 18
·1· · · · MS. FLORES:· No.
·2· · · · MS. WILANDER:· I didn't think so.
·3· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· Uh, if you have questions, you can
·4· ·ask after the public hearing as well.
·5· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Susan, you'll have five minutes
·6· ·and you're speaking in favor of the, uh, appellant; is
·7· ·that correct?
·8· · · · MS. BLOCK:· It is. Thank you.
·9· · · · MS. FLORES:· Madame Chair, he is the appellant.
10· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Oh, I'm sorry.
11· · · · MS. FLORES:· The person who first spoke was
12· ·actually the appellant's attorney. Yeah.
13· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Oh.
14· · · · MS. FLORES:· So we're going to [inaudible] --
15· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. I -- I knew that the
16· ·first person wasn't the appellant. So thank you.
17· ·Susan, you do have unlimited time to go ahead and
18· ·share.
19· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Should I introduce myself?
20· · · · MS. WILANDER:· So state -- so state your name and
21· ·sign in, please.
22· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Okay. My name is Maximilian
23· ·Lobkowicz D. Lobkowicz and, uh, I'm a journalist, an
24· ·artist. I've been doing my work for 40-some odd years.
25· ·I've been on radio. Um, this whole thing is about sex
Page 19
·1· ·and being offended; okay? With fire people coming in
·2· ·and going, oh, oh, this is creeping me out and then
·3· ·running over to this woman and saying, they're
·4· ·pornographers.
·5· · · · What? My wife is a world-renowned author and
·6· ·writer, a graduate of Yale University and you want to
·7· ·defame her like that. That's not going to happen. We
·8· ·are legitimate 40 years in the business. I used to
·9· ·publish the Brentwood -- uh, the Brentwood newspaper,
10· ·I used to publish the Beverly Hills newspaper, I used
11· ·to publish the L.A. Star many many years ago when here
12· ·in Arcadia in the news racks they would throw tar on
13· ·top of it because it had to do with sex and that's all
14· ·this is about and it's about my --
15· · · · How can a city tell me that I can't work 24 hours
16· ·as a journalist? How many lawyers here have worked for
17· ·hours and hours on their cases? We've saved this
18· ·building that was a wreck and, uh, there were homeless
19· ·people living in there. Nobody ever said anything. We
20· ·went in, we cleaned it up, we didn't change any walls.
21· · · · They have never ever been refused to come in
22· ·there and they came with nine officers. It was like a
23· ·home invasion. This was an office invasion and I'm
24· ·offended and I will fight this. Obviously, she didn't
25· ·even look me up. I've gone to the Supreme Court -- I
Page 20
·1· ·will go anywhere for my ability to speak and take a
·2· ·nap in my office and by the way, I don't live there.
·3· · · · Right now I live right outside here where my
·4· ·motorhome is. I've lived in a motorhome for years and
·5· ·years and years so that I could run the business and
·6· ·not pay $4,000 or $5,000 in rent every month. I'm an
·7· ·honorable man, I've been married 30 years with my wife
·8· ·-- with my wife and she's been insulted, defamed and
·9· ·detained in front of neighbors.
10· · · · Can you imagine if they come to your house for a
11· ·building inspection with nine cops and police cars and
12· ·then they're sitting -- these people are sitting out
13· ·in front of the house like peeping toms seeing who's
14· ·coming and who's going and this is all your money,
15· ·it's all the money of the city.
16· · · · That's all I have to say, that I work hard and I
17· ·keep working hard and I will continue to work hard and
18· ·I will continue to publish and these people here
19· ·cannot tell me -- they cannot tell me that I can't do
20· ·a podcast from my office, a podcast. No big antennas,
21· ·none of that, a podcast. They say it's illegal. Thank
22· ·you.
23· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Mr. Lobkowicz. Is there
24· ·anyone else that wants to speak in support of the
25· ·appellant? Thank you. Then if you could sign in and,
Page 21
·1· ·uh, state your name and address and you'll have five
·2· ·minutes.
·3· · · · DR. BLOCK:· Hi. I'm Dr. Susan Block and I am a
·4· ·sexologist and a sex therapist. And so that's part of
·5· ·the reason that I'm here, I guess, because some people
·6· ·have a difficult time with sexuality. I have two PhDs
·7· ·and I'm a graduate of Yale University and I'm
·8· ·sexologist of the year. In fact, I brought a picture
·9· ·of that, I got a Glennie Award, and it shows me in my
10· ·usual position, which is in a bed.
11· · · · I do a lot of shows in bed. Sometimes I interview
12· ·sex workers, I am not a sex worker unless you have a
13· ·very broad definition of that. Sometimes I interview
14· ·PhDs, fellow PhDs, like a couple weeks ago I
15· ·interviewed the, uh, primatology chief from Duke
16· ·University, Dr. Brian Hare and I did it from bed,
17· ·because just like a cook does her cooking shows in a
18· ·kitchen, I do my bedside chats in a bed and I talk
19· ·about sexuality, but I also talk about politics, I
20· ·talk about culture, I talk about art.
21· · · · I'm also an artist, like my husband. I'm also a
22· ·publisher, like my husband and we do a radio show,
23· ·FDR. We had originally applied for a radio license to
24· ·do our radio podcasts, that was turned down. So these
25· ·people came up with the idea to give us a license as
Page 22
·1· ·offices in security and we thought that was fine; you
·2· ·know?
·3· · · · We'd prefer to be licensed to do shows, because,
·4· ·you know, we would like that, but it's okay, because
·5· ·we have offices as, uh, storage. So lots of storage,
·6· ·it worked, it was fine. And then they tell us we're
·7· ·running, uh, an Airbnb, a hotel, uh, some sort of sex
·8· ·business. There's nobody on campus -- we call it a
·9· ·campus sometimes.
10· · · · There's nobody on the facility that has sex with
11· ·anybody or even does sex things, it's all in
12· ·cyberspace. My method of doing sex therapy has, for 35
13· ·years, been virtual. I was one of the first to do
14· ·that, now everybody's doing it, all my coll- --
15· ·colleagues in therapy are doing it over the phone,
16· ·over Zoom.
17· · · · I've been doing that for 35 years. And so I'm
18· ·with the times. The times are that we're all wearing
19· ·masks, we're all socially distancing. A lot of our
20· ·people, our volunteers, also are concerned about
21· ·Coronavirus. And so sometimes they do spend long times
22· ·at our studios. One of them lives in a place where his
23· ·whole family has, uh, Coronavirus.
24· · · · So, yeah, we let him s- -- stay overnight
25· ·sometimes, because we don't want him going home, his
Page 23
·1· ·home is in West Covina. And so we have all these beds
·2· ·from my bedside chats and sometimes I've done shows
·3· ·where there's 10 beds in 1 big room. So we have them,
·4· ·they're stored and yes, sometimes they're used and
·5· ·yes, my husband and I are old people.
·6· · · · I don't know if anybody here is as old as us, but
·7· ·we have to take naps every once in a while. I have had
·8· ·pneumonia three times, my husband has had cancer. He
·9· ·has also had a heart atta- -- uh, not a heart attack,
10· ·but heart surgery. I hate to talk about our illnesses,
11· ·I don't usually do that, I don't usually like to
12· ·portray myself as a victim, but I think I am a victim
13· ·here and I do think I should take care of my health
14· ·and when I'm working an 18-hour day, lie down.
15· · · · I also have a -- a -- a breathing system that I
16· ·have to use sometimes and you have to use it lying
17· ·down. And by the way, when they detained me in the
18· ·parking lot, they wouldn't let me have a drink of
19· ·water or a cough drop and I need to have that, but I
20· ·wasn't allowed and, uh, other people that were in that
21· ·parking lot were not allowed to get to essential
22· ·items.
23· · · · Anyway, we love it here in Arcadia. We have been
24· ·good tenants and good neighbors and I understand that
25· ·some people feel that anyone that has something to do
Page 24
·1· ·with sexuality, and I am proud to be a sex therapist,
·2· ·I have contributed to the widely black -- well,
·3· ·encyclopedia of human sexuality, uh, 10 articles.
·4· · · · I -- I write for CounterPunch, I -- uh, I'm on
·5· ·HBO, I'm on all kinds of, uh, legitimate media, but I
·6· ·also am a bit of a renegade, not that I do anything
·7· ·illegal, but I'm an artist, like my husband, and I
·8· ·wear hats and I do a show in bed. And so for that,
·9· ·I've got inspectors like looking at everything,
10· ·opening, uh, my drawers to look at underwear and, uh -
11· ·- and -- and just inspecting way beyond and frisking
12· ·us -- frisking us in the parking lot.
13· · · · Now, I'm a sexologist, I don't mind if people
14· ·feel me up, but I do mind when it's done to my
15· ·volunteers for no reason. You could see they didn't
16· ·have any weapons and people are feeling them all over
17· ·the place in the parking lot in front of our
18· ·neighbors. We've been good neighbors, but now of
19· ·course, they're all like, well, what was happening
20· ·that day?
21· · · · So I don't know if I've gone over my time.
22· ·Anybody have any questions for me? I'm really good at
23· ·answering questions.
24· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. At this time, we'll go
25· ·-- is there anybody else -- thank you very much. Is
Page 25
·1· ·there anybody else that is speaking for the appellant?
·2· ·Thank you. Then is there any member of the public who
·3· ·would like to speak in opposition to the appeal? Uh,
·4· ·board members, do any of you have questions of the
·5· ·appellant? Mr. -- start the other direction, Mr.
·6· ·Thompson?
·7· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Uh, no -- no questions of the
·8· ·appellant. Thank you.
·9· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Mr. Chan?
10· · · · MR. CHAN:· Uh -- uh, there -- there -- there was
11· ·nobody in opposition that you want to, um --
12· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Yeah. So there was nobody in
13· ·opposition.
14· · · · MR. CHAN:· So do you want to give them a chance -
15· ·- do they want to -- if there's nothing to rebut.
16· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Well, the -- if nobody spoke in
17· ·opposition --
18· · · · MR. CHAN:· Yes. So if you want to close the
19· ·public hearing.
20· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· If I may make a quick rebuttal --
21· · · · MS. WILANDER:· You may.
22· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· -- um, to the appellant's, uh,
23· ·statement, uh, I'd like to, if we could.
24· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Certainly.
25· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· Uh, the business license wasn't
Page 26
·1· ·revoked, uh, due to there being evidence of a phone
·2· ·sex business or an adult-oriented business even though
·3· ·that was the initial indication from the person who
·4· ·came to the police department to -- to register, um,
·5· ·but the bottom line wa- -- is that what was found was,
·6· ·uh, a residential use.
·7· · · · Uh, first, there was the registrant info saying
·8· ·that he had lived there for several days before coming
·9· ·to register, then there was the advertisement for the
10· ·live-in position and when we inspected, uh, we
11· ·confirmed those, uh, indications of residential use
12· ·when there were 10 bedrooms, 9 of them, uh, well-lived
13· ·in and you can refer to the, uh, Exhibit 7 to the
14· ·staff report.
15· · · · And so the bottom line is there was -- the
16· ·business license was revoked for residential use, not
17· ·any, uh, indications of an adult u- -- uh, adult-
18· ·oriented business and even if, uh, for whatever
19· ·reason, the board finds that, uh, the appellants
20· ·weren't engaging in residential, uh -- residential
21· ·use, uh, they still deviated from their approved floor
22· ·plan, which, uh, these bedrooms, uh, were meant for
23· ·storage and office use, uh, which they were not
24· ·currently being used as.
25· · · · That's a violation of their conditions of
Page 27
·1· ·approval and that's an independent basis, uh, to
·2· ·uphold the revocation. That'd by my statement.
·3· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Uh, thank you, Mr. Sanchez. So at
·4· ·this point, uh, board -- I'm going to see if the board
·5· ·members have any questions of the appellant. Mr.
·6· ·Thompson, you said you --
·7· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Well, looks like, uh, we have
·8· ·another speaker.
·9· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Yes.
10· · · · MR. BETTIE:· Mr. Bettie, uh, attorney for
11· ·appellant.
12· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Certainly.
13· · · · MR. BETTIE:· If I could briefly, uh, there was no
14· ·deviation from the use, under the business license,
15· ·specifically, because as, uh, the appellants have
16· ·testified in support in the appeal, the beds were
17· ·placed there as part of storage as part of a
18· ·breakroom, people napped in them. That's allowed under
19· ·the business use.
20· · · · It's business and storage. Uh, there's nothing
21· ·that I've seen in the code, and I welcome, uh, state
22· ·attorney to point out otherwise, that says you can't
23· ·have a bed in a room as storage, uh, how a bed should
24· ·be used as storage, if it needs to be propped up, if
25· ·it needs to be stacked three high.
Page 28
·1· · · · Uh, there's nothing that says that you can't
·2· ·leave a bed in a room. Uh, as far as evidence of well-
·3· ·used and well-lived-in, their beds, as appellants and
·4· ·witnesses have testified to in support of the appeal,
·5· ·people napped on them sometimes. I'm not surprised, I
·6· ·don't think anyone's surprised to hear that they
·7· ·looked well-used in the sense that sheets may have
·8· ·been ruffled.
·9· · · · Uh, again, I just wanted to highlight the fact
10· ·that as state counsel has pointed out, this is
11· ·specifically on the issue of residential use and
12· ·nonconforming to the license. Uh, we haven't seen
13· ·anybody that was living at the property that's
14· ·presented any evidence that the use of property as
15· ·their domicile.
16· · · · Uh, when the search was conducted, there was no
17· ·one found that was living at the property at the time.
18· ·Uh, suffice to say I think this is a difference of
19· ·opinion. We've heard some passionate speeches tonight
20· ·from appellant and the supporters and it -- it really
21· ·comes down to, you know, you're trying to run a
22· ·business, how do you utilize your breakroom?
23· · · · Can you have couches, can you have beds, do you
24· ·sleep at your desk? Uh, what's the appropriate way to
25· ·do that? And again, there's nothing in the code that
Page 29
·1· ·says that it can't be a bed. All it says, you can't
·2· ·use it as a domicile, you can't reside at the property
·3· ·and I think just from what's been presented tonight,
·4· ·we haven't seen any evidence that it is being used as
·5· ·a domicile. And so I thank you for your time. I have
·6· ·nothing further.
·7· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, sir. Mr. Chan, did you
·8· ·have any questions of the appellant?
·9· · · · MR. CHAN:· My one question would be, uh, before
10· ·you guys moved into the city of Arcadia in 2020, where
11· ·was your business conducted at?
12· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· I'm so sorry, could you repeat
13· ·that?
14· · · · MR. CHAN:· Before you opened your business in the
15· ·city of Arcadia --
16· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Yes.
17· · · · MR. CHAN:· -- and you said you, uh -- your wife
18· ·said she's been doing this for about 35 years --
19· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Mm-hmm.
20· · · · MR. CHAN:· -- uh, where was your business
21· ·previously?
22· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Um, well, over the 30 years, it's
23· ·been in Hollywood Hills, uh, it's been downtown. Uh,
24· ·as a matter of fact, as soon as we moved downtown,
25· ·like many many years ago, we were raided by the
Page 30
·1· ·police. What are you doing?
·2· · · · MR. CHAN:· Where -- where was your last place
·3· ·before --
·4· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Englewood, California.
·5· · · · MR. CHAN:· Englewood. Okay. Thank you.
·6· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Yeah. Englewood, California. Um,
·7· ·then we were on Wilshire Boulevard, um, the hotel
·8· ·owner provided us with suites so that we could
·9· ·broadcast from there. I'm a leftie radical son-of-a-
10· ·gun and a lot of people don't like me. I've been
11· ·stabbed. So I'm very, very careful and security
12· ·conscious and, uh, over 35 years, uh, all over.
13· · · · And if you go back 40 years, we traveled all over
14· ·Europe -- all over Europe, Italy, France, England.
15· ·I've published in England, I've published in Italy
16· ·and, uh, I did radio in Italy. Um, so I've been all
17· ·over the world and I'm known for what I do, been doing
18· ·it a long long time; you know?
19· · · · A long time and I love what I do and I care about
20· ·what I do and we don't have any women with little
21· ·short skirts sitting there going, ah, ah, we don't
22· ·have that. That's in their imagination -- in their
23· ·imagination, in their heads.
24· · · · MS. ABEYTA:· Sir, please direct it to the board
25· ·and not to them, please.
Page 31
·1· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Yeah. Well, these are the people
·2· ·accusing me. So, uh, in any case, uh, that's the
·3· ·story, we've been everywhere, we've really always been
·4· ·good tenants and certainly, we have poured about, in
·5· ·the last almost three years that we've been there now,
·6· ·uh, close to $1.5 million into the community, not
·7· ·counting the landlord's money, an empty building with
·8· ·graffiti all over it and homeless people living in
·9· ·there and I'm a danger.
10· · · · Uh, I don't know, I'm so sorry to take up your
11· ·time, but thank you and I hope that you think this
12· ·over, because, uh, I have never ever, um -- no one can
13· ·tell me when I can speak, where I can speak at all or
14· ·I fight -- I fight nicely. I'm a peace [inaudible];
15· ·okay?
16· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Uh, thank you. We certainly will
17· ·take this under consideration.
18· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Thank you.
19· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, sir.
20· · · · MR. LOBKOWICZ:· Thank you so much.
21· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Then Mr. Tsoi, did you have any
22· ·questions?
23· · · · MR. TSOI:· No.
24· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Then, uh, may I have a motion to
25· ·close the public hearing?
Page 32
·1· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· No. I don't have any questions.
·2· ·I'd make a motion to close the public hearing.
·3· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. Motion and second to
·4· ·close the public hearing?
·5· · · · MR. TSOI:· I'll second.
·6· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. Mr. Tsoi and Mr. -- Mr.
·7· ·Thompson made the motion, Mr. Tsoi, the second.
·8· ·Without objection, the motion is approved. Board
·9· ·members will now discuss the item. So I'll start with
10· ·you, Mr. Tsoi, do you have any comments?
11· · · · MR. TSOI:· Yes. Um, from what I'm, uh, hearing
12· ·from the appellant and their attorney, it seems that
13· ·there's some inconsistency in what the -- the material
14· ·that's being presented to us. Um, they mention about
15· ·taking a break, you know, and use the bed to -- to
16· ·take a rest, but, um, there's 10 of them.
17· · · · Um, I've seen offices that has breakroom with a
18· ·bed, because sometimes they have a pregnant mom that
19· ·wants to lay down, take a break, but that's 1, not 10;
20· ·you know?
21· · · · So -- and then I'm looking at the background, uh,
22· ·on the staff report, the business license that was
23· ·originally applied as office use which consists of
24· ·archiving, cataloguing years' worth of internal
25· ·generated files, print media, they don't mention
Page 33
·1· ·anything about podcasting or conducting business, um,
·2· ·you know, whatever they do, um, in the bed, um, you
·3· ·know, maybe videotaping, but --
·4· · · · So there's some inconsistency that I think needs
·5· ·to be clarified, um -- um, and I think in my position,
·6· ·I have to rely on staff's report, um, and the city
·7· ·staff police, um, doing their job. So, um, I would
·8· ·feel that I have to, uh, you know, uphold the
·9· ·decision. Um, this is -- sounds really strange, it --
10· ·it doesn't add up.
11· · · · And -- and I'd -- I'd like to add that, um -- um,
12· ·city's, uh, police officers and staff, um, is just
13· ·doing their job. Um, you know, I have a friend who has
14· ·been visited by code enforcement, um, I think city has
15· ·the responsibility if there's any, uh, suspicious
16· ·that, um -- uh, an operation is deviating from, um,
17· ·the initial -- initially stated operation on a
18· ·business license, I think city staff has the right to
19· ·inspect your business.
20· · · · So I mean, they were just basically operating on
21· ·a suspicion, that's all and, you know, that's just --
22· ·they're just doing their job to protect the life
23· ·safety of the citizens.
24· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Mr. Tsoi. Mr. Chan,
25· ·comments?
Page 34
·1· · · · MR. CHAN:· I agree with Commissioner Tsoi's
·2· ·comments. You know, there seems to be inconsistencies.
·3· ·Um, I have no issues with the washer and dryer,
·4· ·because I've seen businesses with washer and dryers in
·5· ·their businesses. Um, actually, even my hairdresser,
·6· ·she has a washer and dryer, because she doesn't send
·7· ·anything out.
·8· · · · I've seen businesses with showers and I've seen
·9· ·businesses with kitchens. Um, you know, I can kind of
10· ·like see, uh, Susan -- Dr. Susan, I can't pronounce
11· ·your last name --
12· · · · DR. BLOCK:· Block.
13· · · · MR. CHAN:· Block. But, um, you know, I've got no
14· ·issues, uh, with a sex therapist or, you know -- but,
15· ·you know, some of the bedroom pictures, uh, unless
16· ·it's staged, you know, it looked like, um, something
17· ·you would find in a home with the posters and
18· ·everything. It's more home-like; you know?
19· · · · If it was staged, okay, but, you know, it's -- I
20· ·think if someone's doing broadcasts or -- or whatever,
21· ·you know, you would stage maybe one or two rooms and
22· ·just bring -- bring props in and whatever, but, you
23· ·know, I agree with Commissioner Tsoi, because what the
24· ·license was granted for and what's presently going on
25· ·they don't seem to match.
Page 35
·1· · · · Um, if the license was originally issued for you
·2· ·to do business as a sex therapist, I think it'd be a
·3· ·totally different -- different situation, but the
·4· ·license was issued for another use and, um, you know,
·5· ·unless city staff can come up or the appellant can
·6· ·come up with, uh, something else, I would have to
·7· ·agree with the, uh, city's recommendation.
·8· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Mr. Chan. Mr. Thompson.
·9· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yeah. I've reviewed the staff
10· ·report, I've listened to the testimony tonight, I have
11· ·reviewed the, uh, development code as well as the, uh
12· ·-- the appeal letter, the job advertisement, the
13· ·notice of violations and the inspection warrant and I
14· ·feel for the appellant, but, um, the city has done
15· ·significant investigation and due diligence in
16· ·reviewing this business license, which is for
17· ·professional office and storage and -- and other
18· ·related office uses and it doesn't appear that those
19· ·uses are consistent, um, with what is occurring at the
20· ·property.
21· · · · Um, I feel that the city has, um, met the -- the
22· ·burden of proof or the, um -- which in this case is to
23· ·prove it is more likely to be true than not true, that
24· ·it has met the preponderance of the evidence standard,
25· ·uh, with respect to this use, um, as -- as compared to
Page 36
·1· ·the business license. Um, and so I -- I would be in
·2· ·favor of, um -- uh -- uh, approving this ordinance.
·3· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. I'm also agreeing with
·4· ·my fellow commissioners, um, it's -- it's -- this is
·5· ·not a witch hunt, it's a concern, because the
·6· ·conditions of the, uh, business license have not been
·7· ·followed. I understand -- you know, I -- I can
·8· ·remember when I was -- was pregnant, I would go up and
·9· ·sleep on the cot at the phone company, but this -- the
10· ·-- what I'm seeing does not look like, uh, the beds
11· ·that were used for -- for a broadcast.
12· · · · It looks like, uh -- it -- it certainly appears
13· ·as if people are living there. Uh, that's not -- uh,
14· ·it's -- it's not just an occasional use, it appears.
15· ·In addition to that, there's as clear deviation from
16· ·the floor plan and all the time when we ever -- we
17· ·have an appea- -- um, an approval of a project, we
18· ·always have the floor plan and you can't just go ahead
19· ·and say, well, we've decided we don't like the floor
20· ·plan, we're changing it.
21· · · · That -- that -- that's how the business license
22· ·was granted. So the city -- I believe that city has
23· ·met the burden of proof. The job application that
24· ·talked about live-in, that was a mistake, that was a
25· ·really bad mistake, because, uh, advertising it is a
Page 37
·1· ·live-in position makes us believe that that's what the
·2· ·situation is.
·3· · · · So yes, I'm, uh, inclined to go ahead and support
·4· ·the, um, revocation of the license. So is there a
·5· ·motion on this item?
·6· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yeah. I would make a -- a motion
·7· ·to adopt resolution number 2081 denying the appeal and
·8· ·uphold the decision to revoke the city's business
·9· ·license for Saybrook Media Group, Inc. and that
10· ·Saybrook's employees, agents, partners, directors,
11· ·officers, controlling stockholders or managers not be
12· ·allowed to apply for a new business license in the
13· ·city of Arcadia for a period of 12 months from the
14· ·date of this revocation.
15· · · · MR. SANCHEZ:· Richard Thompson, that is staff's
16· ·recommendation you're moving?
17· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yes.
18· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you. Is there a second to
19· ·Mr. Thompson's motion?
20· · · · MR. TSOI:· I'll second.
21· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Thank you, Mr. Tsoi. Roll call,
22· ·please.
23· · · · FEMALE:· Boardmember Chan --
24· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yes.
25· · · · FEMALE:· -- Boardmember Thompson --
Page 38
·1· · · · MR. THOMPSON:· Yes.
·2· · · · FEMALE:· -- Boardmember Tsoi --
·3· · · · MR. TSOI:· Yes.
·4· · · · FEMALE:· -- Chair Wilander.
·5· · · · MS. WILANDER:· Yes. The motion is approved.
·6· ·There's a 10-day appeal period after the adoption of
·7· ·the resolution. Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m.
·8· ·on Friday, October 1, 2021. The board shall end
·9· ·tonight's meeting and thank you all for attending.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 39
·1
·2
·3· · · · I, Chris Naaden, a transcriber, hereby declare
·4· ·under penalty of perjury that to the best of my
·5· ·ability the above 38 pages contain a full, true and
·6· ·correct transcription of the tape-recording that I
·7· ·received regarding the event listed on the caption on
·8· ·page 1.
·9
10· · · · I further declare that I have no interest in the
11· ·event of the action.
12
13· · · · October 27, 2021
14
15
· · · · · ___________________
16· · · · Chris Naaden
17
18
19
20· ·(Arcadia Business Permit & License Review Board, 9-28-
21· ·21)
22
23
24
25
Page 40
·1· · · HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY & SECURITY: CAUTIONARY NOTICE
·2· Litigation Services is committed to compliance with applicable federal
·3· and state laws and regulations (“Privacy Laws”) governing the
·4· protection andsecurity of patient health information.Notice is
·5· herebygiven to all parties that transcripts of depositions and legal
·6· proceedings, and transcript exhibits, may contain patient health
·7· information that is protected from unauthorized access, use and
·8· disclosure by Privacy Laws. Litigation Services requires that access,
·9· maintenance, use, and disclosure (including but not limited to
10· electronic database maintenance and access, storage, distribution/
11· dissemination and communication) of transcripts/exhibits containing
12· patient information be performed in compliance with Privacy Laws.
13· No transcript or exhibit containing protected patient health
14· information may be further disclosed except as permitted by Privacy
15· Laws. Litigation Services expects that all parties, parties’
16· attorneys, and their HIPAA Business Associates and Subcontractors will
17· make every reasonable effort to protect and secure patient health
18· information, and to comply with applicable Privacy Law mandates,
19· including but not limited to restrictions on access, storage, use, and
20· disclosure (sharing) of transcripts and transcript exhibits, and
21· applying “minimum necessary” standards where appropriate. It is
22 recommended that your office review its policies regarding sharing of
23 transcripts and exhibits - including access, storage, use, and
24· disclosure - for compliance with Privacy Laws.
25· · · · © All Rights Reserved. Litigation Services (rev. 6/1/2019)
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Additional Correspondence Received
December 70th, 2027
City of Arcadia
Development Services DePartment
240 West Huntington Dr.
P.O. Box 6002!
Arcadia, CA 91066
Re: 529 Las Tunas Dr. landuse
To whom it may concern:
I was retained by the property owner of 529 Las Tunas in the City of Arcadia to review the re-use
possibilities for the property. This 7055 SF building is located at a prime location along the major City
corridor, Las Tunas Dr., and close to the major intersection of Las Tunas and South Baldwin Ave.
However, the building has experienced difficulty in re-uses and redevelopments which were limited by
the current zoning and regulation for years.
The property is zoned Professional Office (C-O) according to the most recent 2018 version zoning map.
The C-O zone is intended to provide sites for development as administrative, financial, business,
professional, medical and governmental offices. According to the 2015 Arcadia Development Code
9103.07.060 C, offices would require at least 1 off-street parking spaces per 25Osf. For the existing
7055sf office building at 529 Las Tunas, that means approximately 28 parking spaces are required.
However, the current site can only provide 19 parking spaces, which means only about 58% of the
existing building can be used as offices.
With the above acknowledging issues, the property owner and the real estate agents had a difficult time
finding office users in the past decades. Although this prime location has repeatedly attracted food,
educational, medical office, and residential users, all these uses are either required to have even more
off-street parking, or not allowed according to Arcadia Development Code.
When we look further into modifying the existing structure in order to provide more off-street parking,
the current DeveloBment Code 9102.03.030 limited this possibility. With current residential zoning at
the immediate east and north side of the site, the building is required to have a setback of 10' on the
side, and 20' in the rear. The existing building layout cannot meet these setback requirements. And any
modification or remodeling to the existing building may result in invalidating its current legal non-
conforming status.
Even the owner is willing to tear down the existing building, and spend millions of dollars to replace, the
usable SF cannot increase much with the FAR limit set at 0.5 under Development Code 9102.03'030, and
the allowed use is limited. Plus, from a develope/s perspective, it will not be an environmental friendly
approach to demolish a well-designed and maintained building that can still serve the community for
many years to come.
All the above conditions have pushed the propefi owner into a very difficult position, and the property
has been significantly underutilized or even vacant for many years. I was told the City is now pushing out
the current tenant which will make this property vacant again. According to the property owner, the
tenants have not caused her, nor any Arcadia neighbors any trouble. A vacant property will indeed
aTract much more health and safety risks for the surrounding neighborhood.
I believe it is the common goal for the City, its residents, and business owners seek the highest and best
use for each precious piece of land in the beautiful City of Arcadia. With some flexibility and creativity,
this property can provide much needgd services for the local community. We urge your understanding
and support to give this asset a new life.
Best Regards,
WeiHuang
Co-Founder
LEED AP BD+C
DRE 02051888
NOVUS REAL ESTATE
Los Angeles, USA
www,novus-intl,com
em ai | : yvh ua nE@ novu s-!_ntl.co-m
phone: +1 273327 4588