Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdministrative Permit APX2009019 - Supporting Documentsr r Ci of Huntin ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntin tonbeachca. ov Plannin Division Buildin Division 714.536.5271 714.536.5241 June 21, 2010 REFUND RE UEST Application : Appeal of Administrative Permit No . 2009 -019 (Small fitness groups) Applicant : Anthony Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Property Owner : Tonya Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Request : To permit small group fitness classes within a single-family home. Location : 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mr. Campo: The Planning Division has reviewed your request for a refund of the appeal fee submitted on June 2, 2010 pursuant to the Planning & Building Department's refund policy. The amount of refund is based upon the amount of staff time spent processing the entitlement from the time of submittal until the applicant requests withdrawal. In this case, a refund cannot be granted because the refund request was received after a hearing was scheduled and a staff report was generated. If you should have any questions or conce rns regarding the processing of your application , please feel free to contact me at (714) 536-5561. Sincerely, Ethan Edwards, AICP Associate Planner xc: Tonya Campo, Property Owner Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Staff Report File G \Edwards\Planning Commission ' Sugar Home Occ •7736 Sugar - Refund Request Denicd.DOC 9 a Edwards, Ethan From: Anthony Campo [acampol@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:38 PM To: Edwards, Ethan Subject: RE: 7736 Sugar - Home Occupation Permit Ethan, Page 1 of 1 I wish to withdraw AP No. 09-019 application for the group fitness home occupation permit. I no longer need the permit. Thank you for your understanding. Anthony Campo Late Communication No. A-2 6/2/2010 0 0 Hedden, Rich From: Anthony Campo [acampol@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:53 PM To: Hedden, Rich Subject: Cancelation of Appeal 7736 Sugar Dr. Richard, U 0 Zp10 Bck,Nuntmgton EpT. 1PJ_PN.11tti`Q Page 1 of 1 I would like to cancel my appeal for the administrative permit for 7736 Sugar dr.. I have lease a industrial space and no longer will be using the sugar address. If possible could I get a portion if not all of my appeal fee returned. I appreciate all you help and understanding. Best Regards, Anthony Campo 6/2/2010 City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department STUDY SESSION REPORT BEACH TO: FROM: BY: DATE: Planning Commission Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Ethan Edwards, AICP, Associate Planner June 8, 2010 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR 'S DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 09-019 (FITNESS INSTRUCTION - HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT) APPLICANT/ APPELLANT: Anthony Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 PROPERTY OWNER : Tonya Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 LOCATION: 7736 Sugar Drive, 92647 (south side of Sugar Drive at the southern terminus of Rushmoor Lane) PROJECT RE UEST AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: This represents an appeal filed on April 16, 2010 by Anthony Campo of the Director's denial of Administrative Permit (AP) No. 09-019. AP No. 09-019 represents a request to permit a home occupation consisting of group fitness instruction utilizing the CrossFit, Inc. strength and conditioning exercise program. The home occupation would utilize 1,500 sq. ft of an existing garage and approximately 15,000 of the rear (including existing tennis court) and side yard areas for exercise. Exercise classes are proposed Monday through Friday at 6:00 AM, 8:00 AM, 9:00 AM, 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM and one class Saturday at 9:00 AM (Attachment No. 3). Home occupations in Residential Districts are permitted pursuant to Section 230.12, Home Occupation in R Districts, of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The Administrative Permit process requires Neighborhood Notification within a 300 ft. radius of surrounding properties. A copy of the appeal letter is provided as Attachment No. 2. BACKGROUND Between 2007 and present, the City's Code Enforcement Division has responded to multiple complaints from surrounding neighbors regarding organized fitness & gym activity occurring at the subject property and on the public right-of-way within the neighborhood. On July 27, 2009, a Final Notice was sent by Code Enforcement to the property owner regarding the continued use of the property for fitness instruction without a permit. On August 18, 2009, Code Enforcement contacted the property owner, advising of the violations and necessary corrective measures required to permit the group fitness instruction. On October 26, 2009, the applicant was issued another Notice of Violation for continued home occupation without a permit and failure to comply with applicable requirements noted below. -'- Study Session #A-2 AP No. 2009-019 was submitted on September 24, 2009 to permit a home occupation consisting of group fitness instruction. On October 16, 2009, the application was deemed incomplete because the Neighborhood Notification requirement was not fulfilled. In addition, staff informed the applicant that the proposed project does not comply with the minimum home occupation permit requirements and requested a written response describing how the project would comply. On January 13, 2010 the applicant provided a written response (see Attachment No. 5) and satisfied the Neighborhood Notification requirements on February 13, 2010. Staff reviewed all materials submitted and determined that the proposed home occupation could not be approved as proposed based on the lack of compliance with the required conditions of approval (see Attachment No. 9). Staff determined that the use is not conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling as it includes utilizing the front, side, and rear yard areas and garage. Specifically, garages cannot be used in connection with home occupations except to park business vehicles. In addition, residency could not be verified because the existing dwelling is utilized as an adult care facility licensed by the State. Further, comments received as a result of the required Neighborhood Notification were not supportive of the proposed home occupation. The comments suggested that the use would increase pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. As a result, the Director denied the request with findings on April 6, 2010 (Attachment No. 6). On April 16, 2010, an appeal of the Director's decision was filed by Mr. Campo. The reasons for the appeal include a desire to convert the garage to a second dwelling unit and consideration of the unique size of the property. CURRENT LAND USE HISTORY OF SITE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property RL-7 - (Residential Low RL (Residential Low Residential Densit - 7 du/acre Densit North (across Sugar Dr.) & Eas RL-7 - (Residential Low RL (Residential Low Residential (adjacent) of the Subject Prope Density - 7 du/acre)Density) West & South of the Subject M-sp (Mixed-use - specifi SP1 (North Huntington Mixed-use Property (across McFadden Av plan)Center SP) & 1-405 freewa APPLICATION PROCESS AND TIMELINES DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE S : February 13, 2010 April 13, 2010 The Director denied AP No. 09-019 on April 6, 2010 in compliance with mandatory processing times. The appeal is scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearing on June 22, 2010. CE A ANALYSIS/REVIEW The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act, because the proposed project consists of the permitting of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of use. PC Study Session Report 6/8/10 2 10sr4l AP 09-019 (Small Fitness Groups - Appeal SS) COMMENTS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES The Code Enforcement Division has responded to numerous complaints from the neighborhood related to traffic congestion, noise, and the business operating without a home occupation permit. Code Enforcement's Case Action Summary is provided as Attachment No. 7. PUBLIC MEETINGS COMMENTS AND CONCERNS Staff has received a petition and numerous comments from surrounding neighbors regarding concerns with the existing operations and proposed use. Copy of all public comments received to date is provided as Attachment No. 8 of this report. PLANNING ISSUES The primary issues for the Planning Commission to consider when analyzing this detrimental impacts to the general welfare of the community or property (noise & compliance with the home occupation requirements of the HBZSO (Attachment No. 9). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Appeal Letter received and dated April 16, 2010 3. Project Narrative received September 24, 2009 4. Site plan & floor plan received September 24, 2009 5. Applicant's written response January 13, 2010 6. Director's Notice of Action - AP 09-019 dated April 6, 2010 7. Code Enforcement - Case Action Summary dated May 26, 2010 8. Public Comments 9. HBZSO 230.12 (Home Occupation in R Districts) appeal are potential traffic impacts) and PC Study Session Report 6/8/10 3 10sr4l AP 09-019 (Small Fitness Groups - Appeal SS) • e S r-• - 9 r S MC! • m.+ TAIL TAIBLQT I ADAM HAMILTON I VICINITY MAP ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 2009-019 (FITNESS INSTRUCTION - 7736 SUGAR AVE) ATTACHMENT NO. E( EU ll D Ethan Edwards, AICP City of H.B. Director of Planning and Building April 16, 2010 RE: Notice of Denial Permit 2009-19, 7736 Sugar Dr. APR16 2010 Huntington Beach PLANNING; DEPT. I am writing today to appeal the decision of denial for the home occupation permit application 2009-19, 7736 Sugar dr. for the following reasons: I would like to designate the current garage as a bonus room/gaming area and guest house. I would like to use the adjacent structure as the garage. There are other properties on PCH with detached guest houses. I don't for see those residents being denied for a home occupation permit if they proposed to use the guest house as an office. I understand the code was written with the traditional Single Family Resident with attached garage, no guest house, on a 6000 sqft lot but this property is not the traditional residents. The property is over 26,000 sqft, enough for 4 of the traditional Single Family residents, the property is not zoned R1 but RL7, and can have up to 7 units build on the property. The code doesn 't state against using a guest house for home based business. I will terminate using the yard in conjunction of the activities. I will eliminate the vehicle and pedestrian traffic with another alternative. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Anthony po PYY-4YI-I 171,479-70 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Narrative of Proposed Project SEE2 4 2009 Huntington each PLANNING DEPT We are proposing to offer small Group exercise classes (4 participants) at 7736 sugar Dr. These classes solely offer the CrossFit strength and conditioning program. In this program, we have group workouts that include cardiovascular training, weight training, and calisthenics. We plan to use 1500sgft of garage space and the 15,000sqft of the lot for our training. This lot is unique because it being 26,000sqft, I only say this to explain the 15,00sqft. We plan to hold classes 6am, Sam, 9am, 5pm, 6pm Monday thru Friday and one class at 9am on sat. My girlfriend and I will be facilitating classes. We are obtaining this permit so that we can operate within the city's requirements. To the north is a street with houses, to the south is the 405 freeway, to the east is the entrance to the tract, to the west is a bend to more houses. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 SUGAR DR259.83NS.PROPERTY ADDRE55:7736 SUGAR DRHUNTINGTON BEACH, GA 92647A55ESSOR'S PARCEL NO.142-341-2qORIGINAL LOT SIZE:25510 50. FT.SITE PLANSGALE:1"=30'-0"CAL5TRLM5TIN&5TRUGTUP 2 4 2009Hun ington BeachPLANNING DEPT.IiseINGsp'PoS Z.JM w4100810-16-05RDM1of 1cn131Ir PROPERTY LINE(TYP.)- - T 71 - - - - - n*- 0) PRO Pm-SFID rMrhiINt MIF 0 top lp gfr a,arr,-?tW6=> ATTACHMENT NO. +.Z__ City of Huntington Beach 0NIM0 aflG r y jjQ4 UM De artment of Plannin =JAN 1 2010 r b ntington BeachHu Ethan Edwards, AICP PLANNING DEPT. January 13, 2010 Re: Notice of Wiling Status 7736 Sugar Dr. 1.The garage is 1500sgft and does have enough room to park cars and conduct the operations of my business. 2. 1 am the only one who will he teaching the classes. I have no employees or independent contractors. 3.1 have no merchandise, projects, operations, signs, or name plates visible outside the dwelling. The appearance of dwelling has not been altered. 4. The vehicle or pedestrian traffic will not be increased because of the proposed use. 5. I do not own any commercial equipment or vehicles. 6. Does not apply 7. There is no sales office open to visitors and there is no advertising of such. 8. All Classes are limited to 4 participants and they will carpool so 2 cars shall only he used in transportation. 9. 1 assert all these points are in compliance with the code. Sincerely, Anth9rQy Campo Acam of -,' corn 714-653-2212 ATTACHMENT NO.5 TAT:a6pd 96L£T29LLST:01 :woad TS:9T 0T02-0 -N3f 0 OA A Ci of Huntin ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntin tonbeachca. ov Plannin Division 714.536.5271 Buildin Division 714.536.5241 NOTICE OF ACTION April 6, 2010 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DATE OF ACTION: ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 2009-019 (SMALL FITNESS GROUPS) Anthony Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Tonya Campo, 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 To permit small group fitness classes within a garage. 7736 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 April 6, 2010 On April 6, 2010, the Planning and Building Department of the City of Huntington Beach took action on your request and DENIED your request with findings. Attached to this letter are findings for denial for your application. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Department of Planning and Building is final unless an appeal is filed to the Planning Commission by you or by an interested party. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning and Building Department's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. A filing fee of $494 shall also accompany the notice of appeal. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the action and grounds by which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. The last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee for the above noted application is Friday, April 16, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. -- - ATTACHMENT NO.= Administrative Permit No. 09-019 April 6, 2010 Page 2 of 3 If you have any questions, please contact Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner at (714) 536-5561 (ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org) or the Planning and Building Department's Zoning Information Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, AICP Director of Planning and Building by: Ethan Edwards, AICP Associate Planner Attachments: Finding for Denial - Administrative Permit No. 09-019 CC: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning & Building Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Terri Elliott, Principal Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Ed Kerins, Design Review Board Member Tonya Campo, Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. Administrative Permit No. 09-019 April 6, 2010 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDING FOR DENIAL - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 09-019: 1. The proposed use does not comply with the required conditions for home occupation in residential districts. The use is not conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling as it includes utilizing the yard and garage. Garages cannot be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles. Residency cannot be verified because the existing dwelling is utilized as an adult care facility and the existing accessory structures are not permitted. Further, comments received as a result of required Neighborhood Notification were not supportive of the proposed home occupation and suggests that the use would increase pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. ATTACHMENT NO.= I 0 City of Huntington Beach Code Enforcement Division 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 375-5155 Case Action Summary Case Number: 2009-0122-254 Violation Address: 7736 Sugar Dr, Huntington Beach, CA APN: 142-341-29 Date Action 01/28/2010 V 01/26/2010 V 01/26/2010 V Date: 05/26/2010 01/28/10: LO-12 final sent by Cert. mail and First class mail to both Tonya Campo (Property owner) & Anthony Campo (Business Owner) 10/26/09, second NOV (0) issued by personal service to Anthony Campo who signed for the notice. 07/17/09, NI-10 Final for running a business out of the Home without a permits. Final was issued due to this being reoccuring violation. Notice was issued Tonya A Campo by Cert. Mail Date Inspector Comments 05/24/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no Gym activity. Cont. to monitor. 05/13/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no violation, cont. to monitor. 05/11/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no gym activity. 05/04/2010 Hedden, Richard I received another complaint about Gym activity on Sugar, from Gary Gonzales. He states that they are working out in the evening and on the weekends. I advised that I will go by again and see if I see any of the activity that he is talking about. I told him that I would have to prove that this activity is business related. Gonzales became upset at me and stated that he has already done all the research and checked the Website. I told him that anyone can advertises on the intemet but that is not enough to prove a business that I would have to prove business activity and not friends working out, He told me that all I had to do was check the credit cards being processed on the web. I asked Gonzales how I check that. Gonzales stated that if I could not figure it out that maybe they should get someone smarter to do my job and hung up on me. 04/12/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/30/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/09/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/03/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no violation, one photo taken. Obs. no Gym activity. Obs. no Gym Activity, continue to monitor. On this day at approx. 2:50, I obs. no Gym activity. Obs. no gym activity, I will continue to monitor. V '- VlcC_r4TO/ N I `t O ?"res ISsc> 1,6-c r - 1 -Ias C/p Co"pLj 14 .-Cy . ATTACHMENT NO.= 02/25/2010 Redden, Richafa 02/23/2010 Hedden, Richard 02/22/2010 Massi, Richard 02/17/2010 Hedden, Richard 02/11/2010 Hedden, Richard 01 /30/2010 Massi, Richard 01/28/2010 Hedden, Richard Officer Rich Massi, members 09813D and I had an onsite meeting with Anthony & Tonya Campos about the ongoing home occupation complaints and the permit process. We explained our concerns and what we were recommending to the Planning staff. The following is what HBPD & Code Enforcement advised. 1 The Permit if issued was subject to an expedited revocation for any violations of the rules. 2 All student vehicles to be parked on the property, "No Street Parking" 3 HBPD & I have recommending a max. Of 6 students but stated that you may only allow 4 students. (6 students would better) 4 7am to 9pm Hours of operation. 5 Must live on property. 6 Must contain all activities on property, no off-site running originating from or ending on the property. 7 2-cars must be able to park in garage. 18' x 19'. 8 Business Lic. Must remain current. 9 % hour of overlap time between classes Obs. no gym activity at 3:30 PM. Supplemental 02/22/10: Spoke to c/p (Mr. Gonzalez) and gave current disposition. Mr. Gonzalez requested meeting with Officer Hedden, Scott Hess, Ethan Edwards and I regarding the status of the "Home Occupation" case. Obs. no Gym Activity, I watched from across the street for approx. 20 mins. Obs. no gym activity, I cont. to monitor. Reinspection 01/30/10, 0858 hrs.: Observed property (from Rushmoor) from 0858 to 1000 hrs. with no visible business related activity. RM The issue of the License Status of the, Alternative Senior Care facility was brought into question in the meeting between the CP Gary Gonzales and Scott Hess & Rich Massi. Officer Massi asked me to research the License Status of the Alternative Senior Care facility that is operating out of the Sugar Dr. address. I conducted research into the facility and found that the Lic. is current and the facility has been inspected by HBFD in 2008, and had passed the inspection. The state Social Services office also inspected the facility on 06/29/09 and found it to be in compliance with state requirements. LO-1 2 Final sent to Both Tonya and Anthony Campo. ATTACHMENT NO. 7.2 01/27/2010 Hedden, Richard 01/27/2010 Massi, Richard 01/26/2010 Hedden, Richard 01/05/2010 Hedden, Richard 12/03/2009 Hedden, Richard 11/04/2009 Hedden, Richard 10/26/2009 Hedden, Richard 09/15/2009 Hedden, Richard 08/18/2009 Hedden, Richard 08/14/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/22/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/17/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/14/2009 Hedden, Richard Massi, Richard Supplemental-Meeting • 01/27/10, 1600 hrs.: At the request of c/p the Planning and Building Director (Scott Hess) and myself met with c/p regarding the home occupation complaint at 7736 Sugar Drive. I conducted an inspection of the property from 8:00am to 9:30am to see if any workout / gym activity was taking place during the period of time listed on the website schedule. I obs. what appeared to be four people, (3 men & 1 woman) exit the property in workout clothing and run up Sugar to McFadden going over the freeway bridge towards Gothard. Several min. later I obs. the same four people running back over the bridge towards Sugar and return the the property. I also obs. the same four people both working out in the driveway as well as the garage. I rec. a new complaint for Crossfit activity reported to be taking place on Sat. between the hours of 9:00am and 11:00am and on the weekdays after 6:00pm. I will have the weekend officer monitor to see if any violations are taking place. Officer Massi and I were able to find a Website for, "Crossfit HB" on the computer that listed the location of the Gym as 7736 Sugar Dr. The website also provide the name of the owner of the business, "Anthony Campo" and a workout schedule showing days and times. All material was copied and added to file. Obs. no Gym activity, continue to monitor. Obs. no gym activity. I will continue to monitor. Obs. no gym activity, I will cont. to monitor. Had meeting with VP and issued NI-0 for continued cross fit activity without a permit. I had Anthony Campo sign and date the NOV. Obs. no Gym activity, I sent an email to both PO and Business Owner asking for an updated. I spoke with the PO, Ms. Campo and advised of violation and what was needed to bring into compliance. I will continue to monitor. Neg. contact with PO or Business owner. I left v-mail for PO. Obs. no violation. Continue to monitor. LO-1 2 sent to the Prop. Owner, "Tonya A Campo" by cert. mail retrun receipt. This was a Final Notice due to the past case history of violations of the same nature. Obs. no Gym activity, re-check in one week. Supplemental 02/11/10, 0805 hrs.: Spoke to c/p (Mrs. Gonzalas) and gave current disposition. Date Document Type Comments ATTACHMENT NO. 7.3 J V October 20, 2009 Mr. Ethan Edwards, Planning Department City of Huntington Beach - 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2009-0230 Dear Mr. Edwards: OCT 2 0 2009 HUflt'fgtc, r B 'crT PLA NMINI G DES T. k P LJ Lj L ..,.. . 0 2009 We, as concerned residents of the Fashion Home tract, located off McFadden/Sugar Drive in Huntington Beach, strongly object to the Planning Application No. 2009-0230 for a fitness class business at 7736 Sugar brive. This fitness class brings in an excessive amount of vehicle traffic that park on both sides of Sugar Drive. Residents have noticed that the business is apparently being run out of the existing garage at that address and were concerned regarding the legality of this issue. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance was checked and found that under Section 230.12, C. 1. It states, "A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling. No outdoor storage shall be permitt ed . Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles." In addition, 230.12 C.4. states "A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood ." This is clearly a Code violation, in that the business increases both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. There have been numerous reports by residents that part icipants of the fitness classes, on commencing their run through the neighborhood, dart out into the street without regard for vehicles entering or exiting on Sugar Drive. This has resulted in several close calls of pedestrian/vehicle accidents. This additional parking on both sides of the street, has created a safety issue in that they block the view of those exiting Rushmore Lane onto Sugar Drive. Those exiting cannot get a clear view of oncoming traffic and often start to pull out, thinking it is safe and most often it is not. WE, THE FOLLOWING SIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE FASHION HOME TRACT STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF PLANNING APPLICATION PERMIT NO. 2009-0230. ATTACHMENT NO. s.i RE ENT NAME l 2',9D /ti 11-5. Silo lsa CA -, jL 1 r3 e *ee s?to 1-) L / / L STREET ADDRESS I -,J 1) i aY z 9-7-G4 oL4 - sc .z6 SJ uG Lu (S u CaS'ad L6(1'7 -I 53 1 Q tiLC. a.,)L ATTACHMENT NO. 8.Z RESIDENT NAME STREET ADDRESS i- s 0-v A Lit -Lt Tl -u 17 ti 4JM '7 H73 Cl z 4 7 6a! gal L17 -U Ie A e a r 70 77'x/ re-viz2rST c , ,Z64 - 11 1 .R05 z -7 126 / Sc) ' C Lc 'L L _ / ! c=G/7 71 ,4.- Ume o2, Y .n SSfit' rl C iat a X322 C - ( ATTACHMENT NO. $•3 R IDENT NAME i. 100 STREET ADDRESS u L- l5 - c A- '- iS37I C0/ L- eFes;g24q ATTACHMENT NO. $•y October 18, 2009 Ethan Edwards, Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Planning Application No. 2009-0230 Dear Mr. Edwards: 'CT 19 2009 -'nfi"Oton ' -.NNJNC;DEpli I would like to express my concerns about the application from Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo for an administrative permit for small group fitness classes. They have been conducting these classes without a permit for at least a year. During that time, there have been numerous cars parked on both sides Sugar Drive. This is already a fairly narrow street and with cars are on both sides, the visibility is limited especially when making a left hand turn from Rushmoor Lane. Besides the obstructed visibility and the added traffic to our neighborhood, they appear to be in violation of some of the city codes: Ref. 230.12, C-1, C-2, C-4 and C-7: Cl- Their fitness classes are conducted in the garage and on other outside areas of the property. C2- Anthony Campo and his mother do not live at this address. C4- There is considerable increase in the number of vehicles parked along Sugar Drive. C7- Their business is listed on a website called Crossfit Surf City with the address and a map showing the Sugar Drive location (see att ached). Tonya Campo also continually parks a motor home alternately on Sugar Drive and Rushmoor Lane . It is moved periodically to stay within the parking codes, however, this adds another vehicle to our neighborhood for someone who does not even live here. Taking all of this into consideration, I would ask that their application be rejected. Sincerely, "' '- a. Diane A. Ryan ATTACHMENT NO. s AD issuance of building permits. Evidence of such filing shall be submitted to the Director within 30 days of approval. (3710-6/05) E. Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee. A parkland dedication in-lieu fee shall be assessed as set by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 230.20 and paid prior to issuance of the building permit. (3710-6ro5) 230.12 Home Occupation in R Districts A. Permit Re uired. A home occupation in an R district shall require a Home Occupation Permit, obtained by filing a completed application form with the Director. The Director shall approve the permit upon determining that the proposed home occupation complies with the requirements of this section. B. Contents of A lication. An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall contain: 1. The name, street address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. A complete description of the proposed home occupation, including number and occupation of persons employed or persons retained as independent contractors, amount of floor space occupied, provisions for storage of materials, and number and type of vehicles used. C. Re uired Conditions. Home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: 1. A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles-' 2. No one o than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on-site or report to work at the site in the conduct o a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to independent contractors. 3. There shall be no display of merchandise, projects, operations, signs or name plates of any kind visible from outside the dwelling. The appearance of the dwelling shall not be altered, or shall the business be conducted in a manner to indicate that the dwelling or its premises is used for a non-residential purpose, whether by colors, materials, construction, lighting, windows, signs, sounds or any other means whatsoever. 4. A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. 5. No commercial vehicle or equipment used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be parked overnight on an adjacent street or in any yard visible from the street. 6. No motor vehicle repair for commercial purposes shall be permitted. 7. A home occupation shall not include an office or salesroom open to visitors, and there shall be no advertising of the address of the home occupation. 8. Neighborhood Notification shall be in compliance with Chapter 241 when a home occupation involves instruction and/or service, e.g. music lessons, beauty shop, swimming lessons. Where a home occupation involves swimming instruction in an outdoor swimming pool, each swimming class shall be limited to 4 students, and no more than 2 vehicles shall be used to transport students to such classes. (3710-6/05) ,Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 ATTACHME(TN05_ 6 Crossfit Surf City: Contact R Crossfit Surf City Home Getting Started h t is Cro sfi ? Class Schedule Contact http://www.crossfitsurfcityusa.com/contact.html Getting start ed with us is simple - give us a call at 714-653-2212 to schedule your FREE private introduction to CrossFit or email us at info rossfitsurfici s co Our program requires each athlete to complete an introduction prior to enrollment . This is a one-on-one session during which you'll get a chance to learn a lot more about CrossFit Surf City and actually experience a workout for yourself . It is by appointment only and is a prerequisite for taking a group class. The introductory session allows us to get to know you, find out what your curre nt level of fitness and skill is and discover what your goals are. After your intro, you can choose one of several enrollment opti ons that give you access to classes , private skill lessons, nutrition education , workout journaling , challenges , seminars and events at our School of Elite Fitness . are51 Cir,Ledon Way Ito View Lar er Ma Darwin Ave Rockwell A O 1 of2 10/10/2009 1:59 PM Crossfit Surf City- Contact http://www.crossfitsurfcityusa.com/contact.html 0 inf cro sfi surfci s com (714) 653-2212 7736 Sugar Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6ao1o536fgc8ae97oco1157o6a573o97ob Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contact: Comments 0 You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment Posted by: I This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Post Edit Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Pos anot er comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an altern to Continue 2 of2 10/10/2009 1:59 PM S October 14, 2009 Mr. Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning Depart ment P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr. Edwards: I GCT14 2009 i iwm ,yore Leach F 1(!NiNG DEPT. I am writing again to oppose the business expansion at 7731 Sugar Drive - it is already not safe to drive in and out due to the volume of vehicles parked on both sides of the street. I was almost hit last week by a vehicle pulling out from Rushmore - she could not see me coming around the curve and thought it was safe to pull out - have heard a couple of similar stories of near misses from other neighbors. The business as it now stands is already impacting the residents of this area - the expansion of the business they are requesting would GREATLY impact the 150 homes In the Fashion area residents coming and going. Also, the people att ending the fitness class periodically run out of the drive at 7731 Sugar Drive and unfortunately do not look both ways for traffic - I have had to stop suddenly more than a couple of times, also something I have heard from other neighbors. Another problem is the motor home, which is parked on Shasta about 95 percent of the time. It takes up so much space, there is not room for two cars to pass. If you own a motor home, part of the responsibility of being an owner is paying to have it stored - you don't see any other motor homes on the street in our area - and it is not because people don't own motor homes, they are being responsible and paying to have them stored. ONCE AGAIN, I CANNOT EXPRESS HOW STRONGLY WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE FITNESS BUSINESS ON SUGAR DRIVE. Ron and Susan Mondragon 15362 Cascade Lane (714) 894-4320 I ATTACHMENT NO.-S .9 9 October 10, 2009 r i Ethan Edwards, Planning Dept. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. Calif. 92648 Z9O9Fr..«, ieCll EP-r Re: Planning Application No. 2009-0230 Dear Mr. Edwards, Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo applied for an administrative permit for 7736 Sugar Drive in Huntington Beach for a small group fitness class. They already have a business at this address which is some type of convalescent home. It was brought to our attention that they were caught by code enforcement for running a fitness class without a city permit. In reading the zoning laws in our city they have also violated other city codes; Ref. 230.12, C-1, 2, and 4: C1 - Their fitness class is conducted in the garage and on other outside areas of the property. C2 - Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo do not live at this address. C4 - As part of their physical fitness class participants run throughout the neighborhood. Their fitness class adds a huge amount of vehicle traffic on Sugar. The professional count that was taken showed Sugar Drive alone had 198 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period for only seven houses. Please keep in mind this is the street we all have to use to enter or exit our tract. Due to these facts their application should be rejected. Yours Truly, -4a&( Edith & Gary Gonzales ATTACHMENT NO. S - i o Huntington Beach Map produced by information contained in the City of Huntington Beach Information Services Department Geographic Information System. Information warranted for City use only. Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 5/15/2009 N 0 157 One inch equals 157 feet 314 SII.EE[,u+ES 6111LGIxuS xa PoFQES NE5 ATTACHMENT NO. Wis. i i W. Edwards, Ethan From: Kelley, Jason Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:31 PM To: Edwards, Ethan Subject: FW: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes FYI Jason Kelley Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach - Planning Department P. (714) 374-1553f.(714) 374-1540 kelle surfci -hb.or From: Medel, Rosemary Sent: Th ursday, October 01, 2009 2:47 PM To: Kelley, Jason Subject : FW: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes Who is the project planner on this? Please forward this email to them. Thanks, Ro s ary MedeL, Agocia Pla Ulzr City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office (714) 374-1684 Fax (714) 374-1540 From: JeanetteGag@aol.com [mailto:JeanetteGag@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:17 PM To: Medel, Rosemary Subject: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. Page 1 of 1 As a resident of Shasta Lane I would like to object to the fitness classes being held/proposed to be held at 7736 Sugar Drive. I am not against the classes but what goes along with them, parking. They need to provide the parking on their property. The parking at this time is dangerous for residents. This week I was almost hit by a car coming out of Rushmoor because they could not see my car travelling west on Sugar. I find that I cannot see cars as I am exiting Rushmoor to go east on Sugar and must creep forward usually into the path of cars going west. Please consider this problem when you make your decision on the permit. Thank you Jean Gagnon 15272 Shasta Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647. 714 894 2012 10/14/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. s. 12- To: Ethan Edwards 10/4/09 OCT 0 6 2009 R.Jrr I am writing to express my concern over what I believe to be a code violation. IIlive a : ;_I a7711 Etna Circle in Huntington Beach near Sugar Drive which is the only route into my ° = neighborhood. There apparently has been a business in the form of a gym operating out of 7736 Sugar. I just received a letter from another neighbor indicating that they are now requesting a rezoning of the property. My first concern is we are not commercially zoned in this tract it is zoned for single family dwelling, designated (RL) in the zoning map. 210.02 The RL Low Densi Residential District provides opportunities for single-family residential land use in neighborhoods, subject to appropriate standards. Cluster development is allowed. Maximum density is seven (7) units per acre. Secondly I have felt the frustration of dealing with this business for the last year, which included groups of people running up and down the middle of the street during the start of my morning commute and especially here lately the massive increase of traffic and parked cars at the mouth of my neighborhood. If you visit the area in the afternoon you will see that vision is severely impaired in and out of the secondary artery of the tract, Rushmore because these gym members are parking along the entire swath of sugar completely obstructing view. This presents a public safety concern which cannot be ignored. If they receive a granting of their expansion request it will only compound matters. Lastly I am concerned about the increase of traffic in general this new addition in my neighborhood will cause. This is a small tight knit community and with the advent of the new beach corridor project and addition of new business we are all concerned about crime and safety. Increasing the business flow increases the sheer number of people accessing our tract and most assuredly increase the crime in and around Sugar. Not only do I believe that the owner of 7736 Sugar should not be granted their request I think they should be sited for running a business in a residential. ATTACHMENT NO. 0 Edwards, Ethan From: Rich Phelan [wfo426@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:16 AM To: Edwards, Ethan Subject: 7736 Sugar Drive Group Fitness Classes Importance: High October 3, 2009 Sir: Page 1 of 2 I am writing this email with great concerns for what is happening in my community and directly across the street from where I reside. I reside at 7661 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach. As far as I know, this area is zoned as residential, not commercial, yet we have several businesses running out of this residential neighborhood, (two retirement homes, one limo service and now, fitness classes that is run out of one of the retirement homes). The biggest problem of all of the businesses in our neighborhood is this One Run by Anthony Campo who is offering small group fitness classes at 7736 Sugar Drive (retirement home address). We are hard working blue collar workers and we appreciate our weekends spending our time in our home. We like to go out for breakfast on Saturday mornings and when we return home, there is no parking on our street. There have been times that we have had to park our vehicle in the next block because of the amount of people who use the fitness classes. Oh, and by the way, they have been running this for almost two years without the benefit of a business license. The parking on Sugar Drive is almost non-existent when they are running their classes: 10/14/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. S-iH Page 2 of 2 Point one, how are they allowed to run a business out of the retirement home like this without the ability of supplying the proper parking for the people taking these classes. Point two, since when is a residential area zoned for commercial enterprises. We were not asked to sign a variance to allow for this to happen. They also continuously park their huge motorhome on Sugar Drive on the street in front of the home but far enough to have their clients to either park in front or behind it. Isn't there a vehicle code that cites vehicles of this type that extends beyond the width of a regular vehicle onto the street to be parked on a residential street? We are definitely against any and all of this group fitness classes that are being offer out of a private residence. Let them find suitable existence in an approved commercial area. If you feel the need to contact me for any further information, I can be contacted at the Balboa Bay Club at (949) 630-4320, Monday through Wednesday, or at my residence the rest of the time at (714) 893- 5 649 . Sincerely yours, Richard Phelan (Richard & Blanca Phelan, Concern resident, 7661 Sugar Drive, Huntington. Beach, CA 92647) p.s. As far as we know, we are the only people that received Mr. Campo's letter on Sugar Drive. 10/14/2009 ATTACHMENT NO. S. i s September 29, 2009 Mr. Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing to oppose the business expansion at 7731 Sugar Drive - it is already not safe to drive in and out due to vehicles parked on both sides of the street and makes it especially difficult when the motor home is parked on the street, which it is 95 percent of the time. It does not leave enough street space for two vehicles. I understand that they have a permit to park there, but it is really unsafe to vehicles coming in and out of the neighborhood. There is a sign posted coming into the tract about parking large vehicles, but apparently if you get a permit, it is OK. It is also difficult for drivers to see around the vehicles parked on both sides, when they come out on Rushmore - they have to pull out because they can't see. I have already had three close calls. With the expansion of the fitness business run out of the home on Sugar, it would put residents coming in and out at even more of a safety risk. The residents already are heavily impacted gett ing out of our tract of homes due to so much traffic in both directions on McFadden. I doubt that very many of us go left - it is just too dangerous - vehicles are coming at a fast rate of speed coming over the hill. I understand that they want to expand their business, especially in today's economic situation, but that one business at the present time is already heavily impacting the safety of 150 residential homes. AGAIN, WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE FITNESS BUSINESS ON SUGAR DRIVE. Ron and Susan Mondragon 15362 Cascade Lane (714) 894-4320 ATTACHMENT NO. -3.16 230.12 Home Occupation in R Districts A. Permit Re uired. A home occupation in an R district shall require a Home Occupation Permit, obtained by filing a completed application form with the Director. The Director shall approve the permit upon determining that the proposed home occupation complies with the requirements of this section. B. Contents of A lication. An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall contain: 1. The name, street address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. A complete description of the proposed home occupation, including number and occupation of persons employed or persons retained as independent contractors, amount of floor space occupied, provisions for storage of materials, and number and type of vehicles used. C. Re uired Conditions. Home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: 1. A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles. 2. No one other than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on-site or report to work at the site in the conduct of a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to independent contractors. 3. There shall be no display of merchandise, projects, operations, signs or name plates of any kind visible from outside the dwelling. The appearance of the dwelling shall not be altered, or shall the business be conducted in a manner to indicate that the dwelling or its premises is used for a non-residential purpose, whether by colors, materials, construction, lighting, windows, signs, sounds or any other means whatsoever. 4. A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. 5. No commercial vehicle or equipment used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be parked overnight on an adjacent street or in any yard visible from the street. 6. No motor vehicle repair for commercial purposes shall be permitted. 7. A home occupation shall not include an office or salesroom open to visitors, and there shall be no advertising of the address of the home occupation. 8. Neighborhood Notification shall be in compliance with Chapter 241 when a home occupation involves instruction and/or service, e.g. music lessons, beauty shop, swimming lessons. Where a home occupation involves swimming instruction in an outdoor swimming pool, each swimming class shall be limited to 4 students, and no more than 2 vehicles shall be used to transport students to such classes. (3710-6/05) 9. Any authorized City employee may inspect the premises of a home occupation upon 48 hours notice to ascertain compliance with these conditions and any requirements of this code. The permit for a home occupation that is not operated in compliance with these provisions shall be revoked by the Director after 30 days written notice unless the home occupation is altered to comply. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 5 of 57 6/2110 ATTACHMENT NO.g 0 OGG 7= City of Huntington Beach Code Enforcement Division V = N I V(OC_ 10rJ No7rc'(5s2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1,6-(- , L,.7Y(G au7 - q „1)avs Case Action Summary (714) 375-5155 0-/p ` cow+C +s i tv-i'y . Date: 05/26/2010Case Number: 2009-0122-254 Violation Address: 7736 Sugar Dr, Huntington Beach, CA APN: 142-341-29 Date Action 01/28/2010 V 01/28/10: LO-12 final sent by Cert. mail and First class mail to both Tonya Campo (Property owner) & Anthony Campo (Business Owner) 01/26/2010 V 10/26/09, second NOV (0) issued by personal service to Anthony Campo who signed for the notice. 01/26/2010 V 07/17/09, NI-10 Final for running a business out of the Home without a permits. Final was issued due to this being reoccuring violation. Notice was issued Tonya A Campo by Cert. Mail Date Inspector Comments 05/24/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no Gym activity. Cont. to monitor. 05/13/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no violation, cont. to monitor. 05/11/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no gym activity. 05/04/2010 Hedden, Richard I received another complaint about Gym activity on Sugar, from Gary Gonzales. He states that they are working out in the evening and on the weekends. I advised that I will go by again and see if I see any of the activity that he is talking about. I told him that I would have to prove that this activity is business related. Gonzales became upset at me and stated that he has already done all the research and checked the Website. I told him that anyone can advertises on the internet but that is not enough to prove a business that I would have to prove business activity and not friends working out, He told me that all I had to do was check the credit cards being processed on the web. I asked Gonzales how I check that. Gonzales stated that if I could not figure it out that maybe they should get someone smarter to do my job and hung up on me. Obs. no violation, one photo taken. 04/12/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/30/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/09/2010 Hedden, Richard 03/03/2010 Hedden, Richard Obs. no Gym activity. Obs. no Gym Activity, continue to monitor. On this day at approx. 2:50, I obs. no Gym activity. Obs. no gym activity, I will continue to monitor. I 02/25/2010 Hedden, Richard 02/23/2010 Hedden, Richard 02/22/2010 Massi, Richard 02/17/2010 Hedden, Richard 02/11/2010 Hedden, Richard 01/30/2010 Massi, Richard 01/28/2010 Hedden, Richard Officer Rich Mass!, members *BPD and I had an onsite meeting with Anthony & Tonya Campos about the ongoing home occupation complaints and the permit process. We explained our concerns and what we were recommending to the Planning staff. The following is what HBPD & Code Enforcement advised. I The Permit if issued was subject to an expedited revocation for any violations of the rules. 2 All student vehicles to be parked on the property, "No Street Parking" 3 HBPD & I have recommending a max. Of 6 students but stated that you may only allow 4 students. (6 students would better) 4 7am to 9pm Hours of operation. 5 Must live on property. 6 Must contain all activities on property, no off-site running originating from or ending on the property. 7 2-cars must be able to park in garage. 18' x 19'. 8 Business Lic. Must remain current. 9'/ hour of overlap time between classes Obs. no gym activity at 3:30 PM. Supplemental 02/22/10: Spoke to c/p (Mr. Gonzalez) and gave current disposition. Mr. Gonzalez requested meeting with Officer Hedden, Scott Hess, Ethan Edwards and I regarding the status of the "Home Occupation" case. Obs. no Gym Activity, I watched from across the street for approx. 20 mins. Obs. no gym activity, I cont. to monitor. Reinspection 01/30/10, 0858 hrs.: Observed property (from Rushmoor) from 0858 to 1000 hrs. with no visible business related activity. RM The issue of the License Status of the, Alternative Senior Care facility was brought into question in the meeting between the CP Gary Gonzales and Scott Hess & Rich Massi. Officer Massi asked me to research the License Status of the Alternative Senior Care facility that is operating out of the Sugar Dr. address. I conducted research into the facility and found that the Lic. is current and the facility has been inspected by HBFD in 2008, and had passed the inspection. The state Social Services office also inspected the facility on 06/29/09 and found it to be in compliance with state requirements. LO-12 Final sent to Both Tonya and Anthony Campo. 01/27/2010 Hedden, Richard 01/27/2010 Massi, Richard 01/26/2010 Hedden, Richard 01/05/2010 Hedden, Richard 12/03/2009 Hedden, Richard 11/04/2009 Hedden, Richard 10/26/2009 Hedden, Richard 09/15/2009 Hedden, Richard 08/18/2009 Hedden, Richard 08/14/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/22/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/17/2009 Hedden, Richard 07/14/2009 Hedden, Richard Mass!, Richard Supplemental-Meeting 0 01/27/10, 1600 hrs.: At the request of c/p the Planning and Building Director (Scott Hess) and myself met with c/p regarding the home occupation complaint at 7736 Sugar Drive. I conducted an inspection of the property from 8:00am to 9:30am to see if any workout / gym activity was taking place during the period of time listed on the website schedule. I obs. what appeared to be four people, (3 men & 1 woman) exit the property in workout clothing and run up Sugar to McFadden going over the freeway bridge towards Gothard. Several min. later I obs. the same four people running back over the bridge towards Sugar and return the the property. I also obs. the same four people both working out in the driveway as well as the garage. I rec. a new complaint for Crossfit activity reported to be taking place on Sat between the hours of 9:00am and 11:00am and on the weekdays after 6:00pm. I will have the weekend officer monitor to see if any violations are taking place. Officer Massi and I were able to find a Website for, "Crossfit HB" on the computer that listed the location of the Gym as 7736 Sugar Dr. The website also provide the name of the owner of the business, "Anthony Campo" and a workout schedule showing days and times. All material was copied and added to file. Obs. no Gym activity, continue to monitor. Obs. no gym activity. I will continue to monitor. Obs. no gym activity, I will cont. to monitor. Had meeting with VP and issued NI-0 for continued cross fit activity without a permit. I had Anthony Campo sign and date the NOV. Obs. no Gym activity, I sent an email to both PO and Business Owner asking for an updated. I spoke with the PO, Ms. Campo and advised of violation and what was needed to bring into compliance. I will continue to monitor. Neg. contact with PO or Business owner. I left v-mail for PO. Obs. no violation. Continue to monitor. LO-12 sent to the Prop. Owner, "Tonya A Campo" by cert. mail retrun receipt. This was a Final Notice due to the past case history of violations of the same nature. Obs. no Gym activity, re-check in one week. Supplemental 02/11/10, 0805 hrs.: Spoke to Up (Mrs. Gonzalas) and gave current disposition. Date Document Type Comments Ethan Edwards, AICP City of H.B. Director of Planning and Building April 16, 2010 RE: Notice of Denial Permit 2009-19, 7736 Sugar Dr. APR16 2010 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. I am writing today to appeal the decision of denial for the home occupation permit application 2009-19, 7736 Sugar dr. for the following reasons: I would like to designate the current garage as a bonus room/gaming area and guest house . I would like to use the adjacent structure as the garage. There are other properties on PCH with detached guest houses. I don't for see those residents being denied for a home occupation permit if they proposed to use the guest house as an office. I understand the code was written with the traditional Single Family Resident with attached garage , no guest house , on a 6000 sqft lot but this prope rty is not the traditional residents. The property is over 26,000 sqft, enough for 4 of the traditional Single Family residents, the property is not zoned R1 but RL7, and can have up to 7 units build on the property. The code doesn 't state against using a guest house for home based business. I will terminate using the yard in conjunction of the activities. I will eliminate the vehicle and pedestrian traffic with another alternative. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, Anthony po City of Huntington Beach 00'091 :00 af1Q moz ME (Ew 99 N 13 2010Department of Planning JA Huntington Beach Ethan Edwards, AICP PLANNINGDEPT. January 13, 2010 Re: Notice of Filing Status 7736 Sugar Dr. 1.The garage is 1500sgft and does have enough room to park cars and conduct the operations of my business, 2. 1 am the only one who will be teaching the classes. I have no employees or independent contractors. 3.1 have no merchandise, projects, operations, signs, or name plates visible outside the dwelling. The appearance of dwelling has not been altered. 4. The vehicle or pedestrian traffic will not be increased because of the proposed use. 5. I do not own any commercial equipment or vehicles. 6. Does not apply 7. There is no sales office open to visitors and there is no advertising of such. 8. All Classes are limited to 4 participants and they will carpool so 2 cars shall only be used in transportation. 9. 1 assert all these points are in compliance with the code. Sincerely, Anthgr%y Campo Acam of f com 714-653-2212 TAT:a6pd 96L2T2SLL8T:°1 :WOJJ TS:9T oTo2-ET-NHr 0 a Edwards, Ethan From: Edwards, Ethan Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:26 AM To: 'acampol @msn.com' Subject: 7736 Sugar- Home Occupation Attachments: 7736 Sugar - NOF incomplete.pdf Page 1 of 1 Hello Anthony, The Notice of Filing Status letter dated October 16, 2009 identified specific zoning code requirements/conditions for home occupations that your project must comply with (attached). Staff requested a written response that describes compliance with each requirement - please submit this information as soon as possible in order for us to process your application. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Ethan Edwards, AICP Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach - Planning Department P• (714) 536-5561 f. (714) 374-1540 ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org 6I Reduce Reuse Recycle 12/15/2009 0 I October 20, 2009 OCT 2 0 2009 Huntington Bach =.u PLANNING DEPT Mr. Ethan Edwards, Planning Department City of Huntington Beach - 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2009-0230 Dear Mr. Edwards: .,.., H FL 0 2009 •'aach a DE,-T. We, as concerned residents of the Fashion Home tract, located off McFadden/Sugar Drive in Huntington Beach, strongly object to the Planning Application No. 2009-0230 for a fitness class business at 7736 Sugar Drive. This fitness class brings in an excessive amount of vehicle traffic that park on both sides of Sugar Drive. Residents have noticed that the business is apparently being run out of the existing garage at that address and were concerned regarding the legality of this issue. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance was checked and found that under Section 230.12, C. 1. It states, "A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles." In addition, 230.12 C.4. states "A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood." This is clearly a Code violation, in that the business increases both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. There have been numerous reports by residents that participants of the fitness classes, on commencing their run through the neighborhood, dart out into the street without regard for vehicles entering or exiting on Sugar Drive. This has resulted in several close calls of pedestrian/vehicle accidents. This additional parking on both sides of the street, has created a safety issue in that they block the view of those exiting Rushmore Lane onto Sugar Drive. Those exiting cannot get a clear view of oncoming traffic and often start to pull out, thinking it is safe and most often it is not. WE, THE FOLLOWING SIGNED RESIDENTS OF THE FASHION HOME TRACT STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF PLANNING APPLICATION PERMIT NO. 2009-0230. RE ENT NAME STREET ADDRESS (53 ,G,MOl 4. I U,AEC b- It 3S - s2& C e- Z I-L- 'ei e e rru 5-71 w \i -)L I` )3 0 Z/L )l 1 - 5 z v, 5 u 5 o agac X607 -I i 53 I C q.?715 sql -7 0 RESIDENT NAME OAH iZ J - LL i ei -A V`qr'-e,e a4 L1 TD Qit C J 0 STREET ADDRESST cU-X67 t s C,a o C.1 t4 1 cG ° I t v1 ti 1),2 H13 C12 -47 s7Pa1 I ,9l 0 7 47 z I 7&,q 11-7 - J J0 &,-72tS 7'C 9Zb 7 11?I 7- 3/v 2rs'T 1zc15 St -116 1 Q c i1 •,,- 071 56 cf L4. -I 1 I "A i U 1 n ,7 G7 C" 1ac}-1 e R DENT NAME C vz tie STREET ADDRESS x)(o97 zs Gv X12,In Z-sh U o F F-4- b t-CA- 11-53-71 1153-7I Od- s s1 11 C,- g26q October 18, 2009 Ethan Edwards, Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Planning Application No. 2009-0230 Dear Mr . Edwards: V EF OCT 192009 r ntinc f LANNING DEFT I would like to express my concerns about the application from Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo for an administrative permit for small group fitness classes. They have been conducting these classes without a permit for at least a year. During that time, there have been numerous cars parked on both sides Sugar Drive. This is already a fairly narrow street and with cars are on both sides, the visibility is limited especially when making a left hand turn from Rushmoor Lane. Besides the obstructed visibility and the added traffic to our neighborhood, they appear to be in violation of some of the city codes: Ref. 230.12, C-1, C-2, C-4 and C-7: Cl- Their fitness classes are conducted in the garage and on other outside areas of the property. C2- Anthony Campo and his mother do not live at this address. C4- There is considerable increase in the number of vehicles parked along Sugar Drive. C7- Their business is listed on a website called Crossfit Surf City with the address and a map showing the Sugar Drive location (see attached). Tonya Campo also continually parks a motor home alternately on Sugar Drive and Rushmoor Lane . It is moved periodically to stay within the parking codes, however, this adds another vehicle to our neighborhood for someone who does not even live here. Taking all of this into consideration, I would ask that their application be rejected. Sincerely, a. Diane A. Ryan issuance of building permits. Evidence of such filing shall be submitted to the Director within 30 days of approval. (3710-6/05) E. Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee. A parkland dedication in-lieu fee shall be assessed as set by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 230.20 and paid prior to issuance of the building permit. (3710-6/05) 230.12 Home Occupation in R Districts A. Permit Re uired. A home occupation in an R district shall require a Home Occupation Permit, obtained by filing a completed application form with the Director. The Director shall approve the permit upon determining that the proposed home occupation complies with the requirements of this section. B. Contents of A lication. An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall contain: 1. The name, street address, and telephone number of the applicant; 2. A complete description of the proposed home occupation, including number and occupation of persons employed or persons retained as independent contractors, amount of floor space occupied, provisions for storage of materials, and number and type of vehicles used. C. Re uired Conditions. Home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: 1. A home occupation shall be conducted entirely within one room in a dwelling. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. Garages shall not be used in connection with such business except to park business vehicles. 2. No one of than a resident of the dwelling shall be employed on-site or report to work at the site in the conduct o a home occupation. This prohibition also applies to independent contractors. 3. There shall be no display of merchandise, projects, operations, signs or name plates of any kind visible from outside the dwelling. The appearance of the dwelling shall not be altered, or shall the business be conducted in a manner to indicate that the dwelling or its premises is used for a non-residential purpose, whether by colors, materials, construction, lighting, windows, signs, sounds or any other means whatsoever. 4. A home occupation shall not increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the neighborhood. 5. No commercial vehicle or equipment used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be parked overnight on an adjacent street or in any yard visible from the street. 6. No motor vehicle repair for commercial purposes shall be permitted. 7. A home occupation shall not include an office or salesroom open to visitors, and there shall be no advertising of the address of the home occupation. 8. Neighborhood Notification shall be in compliance with Chapter 241 when a home occupation involves instruction and/or service, e.g. music lessons, beauty shop, swimming lessons. Where a home occupation involves swimming instruction in an outdoor swimming pool, each swimming class shall be limited to 4 students, and no more than 2 vehicles shall be used to transport students to such classes. (3710-6/05) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 5 of 55 9. Any authorized City employee may inspect the premises of a home occupation upon 48 hours notice to ascertain compliance with these conditions and any requirements of this code. The permit for a home occupation that is not operated in compliance with these provisions shall be revoked by the Director after 30 days written notice unless the home occupation is altered to comply. 230.14 Affordable Housing Density Bonus. A. When a developer of a residential property which is zoned and general planned to allow five (5) or more dwelling units proposes to provide affordable housing, he or she may request a density bonus and incentives or concessions through a conditional use permit subject to the provisions contained in this section. A density bonus request pursuant to the provisions contained within this section shall not be denied unless the project is denied in its entirety. (3764-3/07) B. Affordabili re uirements. Percenta e of affordable units re uired. To qualify for a density bonus and incentives or concessions, the developer of a residential project shall elect at least one of the following: (3764-3/07) a. Provide at least ten percent (10%) of the total units of the housing development for lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5; or (3764-3/07) b. Provide at least five percent (5%) of the total units of the housing development for very low income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50105; or (3764-3/07) c. Provide a senior citizen housing development as defined in Civil Code Sections 51.3 and 51.12, or mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Civil Code Sections 798.76 or 799.5; or (3764-3/07) d. Provide at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. (3764-3/07) The density bonus shall not be included in the total number of the housing units when determining the number of housing units required to be affordable. Remaining units may be rented, sold or leased at "market" rates. (3764-3/07) 2. Duration of affordabili . An applicant shall agree to, and city shall ensure, continued affordability of all low and very low income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the density bonus for thirty (30) years or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program. (3764-3/07) Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing development pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 through participation in cost of infrastructure, write- down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost of construction, the city will assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. The affordability agreement required by Section 230.14B.4 shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. (3764-3/07) Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230 Page 6 of 55 Crossfit Surf City: Contact Crossfit Surf City Home Getting Started What is Crossfit? Class Schedule Contact http://www.crossfitsurfcityma.com/contact.hunl Getting started with us is simple - give us a call at 714-653-2212 to schedule your FREE private introduction to CrossFit or email us at info rossfitsurfici sa.com Our program requires each athlete to complete an introduction prior to enrollment. This is a one-on-one session during which you'll get a chance to learn a lot more about CrossFit Surf City and actually experience a workout for yourself. It is by appointment only and is a prerequisite for taking a group class. The introductory session allows us to get to know you, find out what your current level of fitness and skill is and discover what your goals are. After your intro, you can choose one of several enrollment options that give you access to classes, private skill lessons, nutrition education, workout journaling, challenges, seminars and events at our School of Elite Fitness . I ollege bark View Lar er Ma Vefest Or -In I N -I I 101 Rockvic:I 7, { o I m °o Darvein Avo0 Is --j I I0I s - Tai+41 G d{P!2 ood I-< -.+ Sugar A%1 McFadden Ave __ Map data909 Goode - 1 of 2 10/10/2009 1:59 PM Crossfit Surf City: Contact info crossfitsurfci sa.com (714) 653-2212 7736 Sugar Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http: //www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6aoio536fge8ae97oco1157o6a573o97ob Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contact: Comments 0 You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post http://www.crossfitsurfcityusa.com/contact.html Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment Posted by: I This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Post Edit Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again. As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments. Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate. Continue 2 of2 10/10/2009 1:59 PM 0 October 14, 2009 Mr. Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr . Edwards: OCT14 2009 Hu: ;t•, ;ton De ach FANNING DEFT. is I am writing again to oppose the business expansion at 7731 Sugar Drive - it is already not safe to drive in and out due to the volume of vehicles parked on both sides of the street. I was almost hit last week by a vehicle pulling out from Rushmore - she could not see me coming around the curve and thought it was safe to pull out - have heard a couple of similar stories of near misses from other neighbors. The business as it now stands is already impacting the residents of this area - the expansion of the business they are requesting would GREATLY impact the 150 homes In the Fashion area residents coming and going. Also, the people att ending the fitness class periodically run out of the drive at 7731 Sugar Drive and unfortunately do not look both ways for traffic - I have had to stop suddenly more than a couple of times, also something I have heard from other neighbors. Another problem is the motor home, which is parked on Shasta about 95 percent of the time. It takes up so much space, there is not room for two cars to pass. If you own a motor home, part of the responsibility of being an owner is paying to have it stored - you don't see any other motor homes on the street in our area - and it is not because people don't own motor homes, they are being responsible and paying to have them stored. ONCE AGAIN, I CANNOT EXPRESS HOW STRONGLY WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE FITNESS BUSINESS ON SUGAR DRIVE. Ron and Susan Mondragon 15362 Cascade Lane (714) 894-4320 October 10, 2009 Ethan Edwards, Planning Dept. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. Calif. 92648 Re: Planning Application No. 2009-0230 Dear Mr. Edwards, LL C r i 3 2009hu;;;,ngtcr,ti'FLANN/NGpEPT Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo applied for an administrative permit for 7736 Sugar Drive in Huntington Beach for a small group fitness class. They already have a business at this address which is some type of convalescent home. It was brought to our attention that they were caught by code enforcement for running a fitness class without a city permit. In reading the zoning laws in our city they have also violated other city codes; Ref. 230.12, C-1, 2, and 4: C1 - Their fitness class is conducted in the garage and on other outside areas of the property. C2 - Anthony Campo and his mother Tonya Campo do not live at this address. C4 - As part of their physical fitness class part icipants run throughout the neighborhood. Their fitness class adds a huge amount of vehicle traffic on Sugar. The professional count that was taken showed Sugar Drive alone had 198 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period for only seven houses. Please keep in mind this is the street we all have to use to enter or exit our tract. Due to these facts their application should be rejected. Yours Truly, Edith & Gary Gonzales Huntington Beach Map produced by information contained in the City of Huntington Beach Information Services Department Geographic Information System. Information warranted for City use only. Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 5115/2009 N 0 157 314 One inch equals 157 feet 0 i Edwards, Ethan From: Kelley, Jason Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:31 PM To: Edwards, Ethan Subject: FW: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes FYI Jason Kelley Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach - Planning Department 13• (714) 374-1553 f.(714) 374-1540 'kelle surfci -hb.or From: Medel, Rosemary Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:47 PM To: Kelley, Jason Subject: FW: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes Who is the project planner on this? Please forward this email to them. Thanks, Rey Med b,, AsocCat&iPla u r City of Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office (714) 374-1684 Fax (714) 374-1540 From: JeanetteGag@aol.com [mailto:JeanetteGag@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:17 PM To: Medel, Rosemary Subject: Anthony Campos Fitness Classes City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. Page 1 of 1 As a resident of Shasta Lane I would like to object to the fitness classes being held/proposed to be held at 7736 Sugar Drive. I am not against the classes but what goes along with them, parking. They need to provide the parking on their property. The parking at this time is dangerous for residents. This week I was almost hit by a car coming out of Rushmoor because they could not see my car travelling west on Sugar. I find that I cannot see cars as I am exiting Rushmoor to go east on Sugar and must creep forward usually into the path of cars going west. Please consider this problem when you make your decision on the permit. Thank you Jean Gagnon 15272 Shasta Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647. 714 894 2012 10/14/2009 To: Ethan Edwards 10/4109 OCT0 6 2009 H' I am writing to express my concern over what I believe to be a code violation. I-live-a't' ' :; : r r cT 7711 Etna Circle in Huntington Beach near Sugar Drive which is the only route into my neighborhood. There apparently has been a business in the form of a gym operating out of 7736 Sugar. I just received a letter from another neighbor indicating that they are now requesting a rezoning of the property. My first concern is we are not commercially zoned in this tract it is zoned for single family dwelling, designated (RL) in the zoning map. 210.02 The RL Low Densi Residential District provides opportunities for single-family residential land use in neighborhoods, subject to appropriate standards. Cluster development is allowed. Maximum density is seven (7) units per acre. Secondly I have felt the frustration of dealing with this business for the last year, which included groups of people running up and down the middle of the street during the start of my morning commute and especially here lately the massive increase of traffic and parked cars at the mouth of my neighborhood. If you visit the area in the afternoon you will see that vision is severely impaired in and out of the secondary artery of the tract, Rushmore because these gym members are parking along the entire swath of sugar completely obstructing view. This presents a public safety concern which cannot be ignored. If they receive a granting of their expansion request it will only compound matters. Lastly I am concerned about the increase of traffic in general this new addition in my neighborhood will cause. This is a small tight knit community and with the advent of the new beach corridor project and addition of new business we are all concerned about crime and safety. Increasing the business flow increases the sheer number of people accessing our tract and most assuredly increase the crime in and around Sugar. Not only do I believe that the owner of 7736 Sugar should not be granted their request I think they should be sited for running a business in a residential. Thank You, Garr Nelson Page 1 of 2 Edwards, Ethan From: Rich Phelan [wfo426@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:16 AM To: Edwards, Ethan Subject: 7736 Sugar Drive Group Fitness Classes Importance: High October 3, 2009 Sir: I am writing this email with great concerns for what is happening in my community and directly across the street from where I reside. I reside at 7661 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach. As far as I know, this area is zoned as residential, not commercial, yet we have several businesses running out of this residential neighborhood, (two retirement homes, one limo service and now, fitness classes that is run out of one of the retirement homes). The biggest problem of all of the businesses in our neighborhood is this One Run by Anthony Campo who is offering small group fitness classes at 7736 Sugar Drive (retirement home address). We are hard working blue collar workers and we appreciate our weekends spending our time in our home. We like to go out for breakfast on Saturday mornings and when we return home, there is no parking on our street. There have been times that we have had to park our vehicle in the next block because of the amount of people who use the fitness classes. Oh, and by the way, they have been running this for almost two years without the benefit of a business license. The parking on Sugar Drive is almost non-existent when they are running their classes: 10/14/2009 0 i Page 2 of 2 Point one, how are they allowed to run a business out of the retirement home like this without the ability of supplying the proper parking for the people taking these classes. Point two, since when is a residential area zoned for commercial enterprises. We were not asked to sign a variance to allow for this to happen. They also continuously park their huge motorhome on Sugar Drive on the street in front of the home but far enough to have their clients to either park in front or behind it. Isn't there a vehicle code that cites vehicles of this type that extends beyond the width of a regular vehicle onto the street to be parked on a residential street? We are definitely against any and all of this group fitness classes that are being offer out of a private residence. Let them find suitable existence in an approved commercial area. If you feel the need to contact me for any further information, I can be contacted at the Balboa Bay Club at (949) 630-4320, Monday through Wednesday, or at my residence the rest of the time at (714) 893- 5649. Sincerely yours, Richard Phelan (Richard & Blanca Phelan, Concern resident, 7661 Sugar Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92647) p.s. As far as we know, we are the only people that received Mr. Campo's letter on Sugar Drive. 10/14/2009 September 29, 2009 0 Mr. Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning Depart ment P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr. Edwards: 41 OCT072009 `' flLrJT. I am writing to oppose the business expansion at 7731 Sugar Drive - it is already not safe to drive in and out due to vehicles parked on both sides of the street and makes it especially difficult when the motor home is parked on the street, which it is 95 percent of the time. It does not leave enough street space for two vehicles. I understand that they have a permit to park there, but it is really unsafe to vehicles coming in and out of the neighborhood . There is a sign posted coming into the tract about parking large vehicles, but apparently if you get a permit, it is OK. It is also difficult for drivers to see around the vehicles parked on both sides, when they come out on Rushmore - they have to pull out because they can't see. I have already had three close calls. With the expansion of the fitness business run out of the home on Sugar, it would put residents coming in and out at even more of a safety risk. The residents already are heavily impacted gett ing out of our tract of homes due to so much traffic in both directions on McFadden. I doubt that very many of us go left - it is just too dangerous - vehicles are coming at a fast rate of speed coming over the hill. I understand that they want to expand their business, especially in today's economic situation, but that one business at the present time is already heavily impacting the safety of 150 residential homes. AGAIN, WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE FITNESS BUSINESS ON SUGAR DRIVE. ' Ron and Susan Mondragon 15362 Cascade Lane (714) 894-4320 M n"T0 @-K-79 Notification of Administrative Proposal September 24, 2009 Current Resident, SEP 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. This letter is to notify you Anthony Campo is proposing to offer small group fitness classes and one-on- one training at 7736 sugar Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. Pursuant to Section 241.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Neighborhood Notification process is required. You may review the proposed plans at the Planning Department, 2000 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA from September 24th, 2009 to October 4th, 2009 or contact the Planning Depart ment at (714) 536-5271. All comments must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the expiration date for review of the proposal. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Director of Planning becomes final, unless appealed. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal with the Planning Department within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Department's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the basis for the appeal. A filing fee shall also accompany the notice of appeal. The appeal fee is $409.00 for a single -family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his/her own property. The appeal fee is $1063.00 for all other appeals. The appeal period starts at the end of the 10-day review period. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (714) 653-2212. Sincerely, Anthony Campo WESTMINSTER NAIN PO WESTMINSTER, California 926859998 0569390481 -0096 10/28/2009 (800)275-8777 04:22:31 PM S l R iaesecept Product Sale Unit Final Description Oty Price Price 2009 Forever 1 $8.80 $8.80 Stamp PSA Dbl-Sd Bklt 44c Kwanzaa 16 $0.44*$7.04 PSA Bulk 36 $6.50 Certificate Refund PVI -$6.50 Mailing 36 $0.42 $15.12 e rt 1:$30.96 by: $30.91. count #: XXXXXXXXXXXX2314 proval #: 740938 .ansaction #: 562 903501062 r stamps at USPS.com/shop or call 0-Stamp24. Go to USPS.com/clicknshi- rint shipping labels with postage. ror other information call 1-800-ASK-USP.,. Bill#: 1000403575862 Clerk: 10 All sales final on stamps and postage Refunds for guaranteed services only Thank you for your business**************************************** **************************************** PICK UP A FREE RECYCLING ENVELOPE Take an envelope to recycle your inkjet cartridge, cell phone or small electronics free of charge! **************************************** **************************************** **************************************** HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER Go to: https://postalexperience.com/Pos TELL US ABOUT YOUR RECENT POSTAL EXPERIENCE YOUR OPINION COUNTS**************************************** **************************************** Custo-er Ccpy Huntington Beach Map produced by information contained in the City of Huntington Beach Information Services Department Geographic Information System. Information warranted for City use only. Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 2/23/2010 N 135 2700 One inch equals 135 feet ADDRESSES A STREET NAMES Al CITY BOUNDARY All STREET CENTERLINES (OCTACIass) Smartstreet Major Collector Al Primary Secondary Residential Travelway Alley ISOBATHS MF ada lea 006 r f 9 r14 A J 7736 Sugar Drive Map produced by information contained in the City of Huntington Beach Information Services Department Geographic Information System. Information warranted for City use only. Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. N 0 80 160 J, CITY BOUNDARY A' STREET CENTERLINES (OCTACIass) Smartstreet Major Collector Primary Secondary Residential Travelway Allen PARKS One inch equals 80 feet PARCELS 40 0