Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear-Appeals-Foothill Proj Mngmt (Performance Sales Phas �3 ffe55-P/aYini.�q /99 STho Sam—Jf�aYinin CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: 2efpproved C ndition II A p2 d ❑ Denied it Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: July 19, 1999 Department ID Number: PL 99-40a l o L) , on��i�iar,�c s e .eyern z �pppea SCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH //FOX- Foe774 //✓ REQUEST FOR ACTION I lA7 CftmerlT n/a. l) 7b Th`e 9,9,Q es7' f�R covnCiL Ae r1dn .Dn-repo —7DLy I R, SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator AltJ �is-�- y _ ``� PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director SUBJECT: DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (APPEAL) (PERFORMANCE SALES AND LEASING). Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mehdi Bolouriad, business owner of Performance Sales and Leasing, of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62. This application represents a request to establish an automobile dealership on the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. The appeal for the conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with the appeal for Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85, which is located on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue but is operated as a single business entity. The proposed automobile dealership at this location includes a new two (2) story 2,437 square foot building and exterior parking for 19 display vehicles. The subject conditional use permit is a result of actions taken by the Code Enforcement Division. The Planning Commission denied the request and is recommending denial (Recommended ` Action) because they determined that the proposed use was incompatible with the surrounding uses and the growing business should relocate to an area where there would be less impacts to adjacent businesses. Staff is recommending denial because of incompatibility to surrounding uses and safety concerns for dealership staff and customers who are required to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both lots. PL99-40A -2- July 12, 1999 :53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a The appeal asserts the project should be approved (Alternative Action No. 1) for the following reasons: 1) The project is compatible with surrounding uses; 2) Off-loading of vehicles will occur entirely on the subject property; and 3) Safety concerns regarding dealership staff and customers having to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both dealership lots can be mitigated. Fundinq Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 with Findings for Denial (Attachment No. 1)". Planninq Commission Action on April 27, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85), WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER, BIDDLE, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LAIRD MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 (In conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85) to the August 2, 1999 meeting and direct staff to prepare Findings and Conditions of Approval" (Applicant's Request). PL99-40A -3- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Mehdi Bolouriad, 19475 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard (southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 5, 1999 July 5, 1999 (For PC Hearing) The Planning Commission reviewed and denied the request on April 27, 1999, which is in compliance with the mandatory processing date to the Planning Commission. The request was subsequently appealed on May 7, 1999. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 represents a request by Mehdi Bolouriad to permit construction of a new automobile sales building. The proposed two (2) story 2,437 square foot building includes 850 square feet of interior sales space, 122 square feet of office space, 1,250 square feet of storage space on the second story, and exterior parking for 19 display vehicles and 14 customer/ sales staff on an 18,200 square foot lot. This conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 (19475 Beach Blvd.) and will be presented concurrently. The applicant requests to operate the car sales lot from two separate properties located on the northwest and southwest corners of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. B. BACKGROUND The applicant applied for and was granted a certificate of occupancy for Performance Sales and Leasing located at 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) on July 21, 1997. The certificate of occupancy stipulated that the applicant could not display more than two (2) for-sale vehicles on site at any one time. An initial code enforcement citation was issued to the applicant on March 16, 1998 for the display of eighteen (18) vehicles. The citation required the applicant to remove the excess vehicles within five (5) calendar days or apply for a conditional use permit as required for establishment of car dealerships per Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Due to non-compliance of the initial citation, three subsequent citations and a letter from the City Attorney's office were issued before submittal of the conditional use permit application requesting establishment of an auto dealership. PL99-40A -4- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a On July 20, 1998, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application for the establishment of a car dealership at 19501 Beach Boulevard (southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue). The applicant's intention was to expand the existing dealership from the northwest corner to the southwest corner. The building and site plans submitted with the conditional use permit application reflected use of the existing gas station building (at the southwest corner) and incorrectly stated the lot's property lines, as well as being grossly inadequate regarding scale, circulation, and site and building design. On November 30, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for expansion and establishment of a car dealership on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue at 19475 Beach Boulevard. The applicant requested demolition of the existing single-story office building and construction of a new two-story dealership building. Again, the plans were inadequate in regard to dimensions, on-site circulation, and site and building design. After several meetings with the applicant's agent and insistence by staff to hire a qualified licensed architect, a more acceptable set of revised plans for 19475 and 19501 Beach Boulevard were submitted March 9, 1999. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On April 27, 1999 The Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 as well as the accompanying Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85. The Commission indicated that the proposed site was not in compliance with the General Plan. In addition, it is not the place for the type of growing successful business like the applicant seems to have and that another location would be better suited for the proposed use with less impacts to the surrounding area. The applicant and applicant's representative, Corrie Kates of Foothill Project Management, spoke at the meeting in support of the project. Steve Schumm, a dentist who operates his business in the adjacent office suite at 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) spoke in opposition of the project. His concerns include the car carrier delivery truck parking on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and its adverse impact on safety and traffic, jaywalking between the two (2) dealership lots, the high profile vehicles for sale that presently block visibility to surrounding businesses, and the negative impacts that would be caused by the noise, parking, and aesthetics of the proposed dealership. Leslie Zahedi, owner of the Huntington Suites Motel, located at 727 Yorktown Avenue and adjacent to the lot at the northwest corner, spoke in opposition of the project. Her concerns included the car carrier delivery truck parking on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and its adverse impacts on safety and the limited access to her business it provides when parked in the middle of Yorktown Avenue, and inadequate parking for the use, stating that dealership customers often park in the motel's parking lot. PL99-40A -5- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a Two (2) letters, submitted to the Planning Commission during the meeting, and signed by all the tenants operating businesses in the retail center adjacent to the proposed project to the west, were read aloud. The letters advised concern over the high profile of vehicles for sale, which blocks visibility to the tenants businesses, and the applicant's record of parking overstocked vehicles on the retail center's already inadequate parking lot. D. APPEAL: An appeal to the Planning Commission's denial was filed by the business owner's representative on May 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 2) pursuant to Section 248.20 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A summary of the appeal is as follows: ■ The opportunity to properly present the goals and the vision of the project was not given at the Planning Commission meeting. ■ Staff did not develop conditions to respond to known concerns or to recommend a continuance to further review the concerns. ■ The opportunity to consider and propose alternatives so as to provide possible solutions was not given. ■ The Planning Commissioner who also acted on the Design Review Board application for the subject property prejudged the project and led the Commission to its ultimate decision. Based on Section 248.20.D of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Conditional Use Permit is reviewed by the City Council as a new matter. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 1999 (Attachment No. 3). The major issues with respect to this request include compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, land use compatibility, safety concerns for auto dealership staff and customers who are required to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both lots, inadequate lot size to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck, and traffic/circulation issues. General Plan and Land Use Compatibility The General Plan encourages the development of an "Automobile Overlay District" that consolidates existing automobile dealerships and accommodates additional dealerships within the same district. The General Plan's "Automobile Overlay District" is located on the north side of Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The intent of the General Plan is to afford opportunities for existing and newly proposed automobile dealerships to consolidate within the automobile overlay district provided for in the General Plan. The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan. PL99-40A -6- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a Appeal Issues: The applicant has known for several weeks in advance of the Planning Commission meeting of staffs concerns and recommendation for denial. The staff report was prepared and available five (5) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant and applicant's representative both spoke during the meeting and indicated their concerns regarding the issues brought forth by staff, the staff report, and public testimony. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon inconsistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as well as technical site design issues. Given the size of the subject lots and physical separation between the Phase I lot and Phase II lot, staff determined that there were no sufficient design solutions. F. SUMMARY Staff is continuing to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on General Plan, land use compatibility, safety, and traffic concerns as follows: ■ The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan, which states "new and existing automobile dealerships be consolidated within the Automobile District Overlay." ■ Due to the relatively small size of the lot, access to seven (7) of the 14 customer parking spaces must be taken through the retail center adjacent to the south. The retail tenants have concerns with the applicant using parking spaces reserved for the retail center as overflow parking. Further, due to the dealership's proposed two-story building and the high profile of the vehicles being offered for sale, visibility to the adjacent retail suites is substantially reduced. The retail tenants attended the Planning Commission meeting and forwarded their concern regarding compatibility issues in a letter signed by all the tenants. ■ Because the dealership is divided into two (2) non-contiguous parcels, customers and dealership staff are required to cross Yorktown Avenue in order to access all vehicles being of offered for sale. Undue risk is incurred due to the separation of dealership lots. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act states " for urbanized areas, projects are categorically exempt when commercial buildings are built on sites zoned for such use, and if they are designed so that occupant load is of 30 persons or less if not constructed in conjunction with the building of four or more structures and if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." PL99-40A -8- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a Attachmentls): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Findings for Denial for CUP No. 98-62 (Staff and Planning _ . . .......___ Commission Recommendation 2 Letter of Appeal from Corrie D. Kates (Applicant's representative) dated May 7, 1999 3 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments dated April 27, 1999 4 Letters opposing the project from retail tenants adjacent to the subject property. 5 Site Plan and Elevations dated March 26, 1999 MSF:HZ:SH:JT:kjl PL99-40A -9- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM ................. ...................................................... A � .... . .................. E .............. ..... .................... .......... ..... ...... ... .. ... . .... . ......... . ..... ... ....... ..... ......... NT . ......... FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS May 7, 1999 � c Mr. Joseph Thompson, Planner City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department y; 200 Main Street , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c_ Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial on April 271h, 1999 for CUP 98-62 at APN No. 025-191-36, addressed as 19501 Beach Blvd and for CUP 98-85 at APN No. 025-180-21 , addressed as 19475 Beach Blvd Dear Joe: The issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting were good topics for discussion and can be resolved with proper mitigation measures as adopted as part of the Conditional Use Permits for the proposed use. We were very disappointed that we were not allowed to rebut the concerns raised by speakers and the Planning Commission. It seemed as if they had predetermined their decision and were closed to solutions. Detailed below is our justification for the appeal and recommended mitigation measures to allow to coexistence of the commercial retail tenants, the hotel and the dentist located at 19475 Beach Boulevard Overview of the Process While the City paints a poor picture of the process, we see it as a transition for the betterment of the community and the City. First proposal In the first proposal the applicant was requesting to maintain the exiting gasoline building for temporary stora a and vehicle accessory installations. 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277) Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 2 of 14 The reason the building had remained was that the property owner did not desire to demolish the existing building. However after a meeting with the City that included the property owner, we were all advised that the City wanted the building demolished. Therefore, concept 2 was submitted. Second Proposal With the gasoline station being demolished, we submitted a concept proposal that would mirror the existing retail center. Our thinking at the time was to have an architectural style that blends with the exiting environment, rather than a total departure from the exiting form. However, the City advised us that the concept was not acceptable. We were advised to mirror the existing dealerships in form and that is what the City is looking for. After consulting with the Huntington Beach in-house architect (Amie) we were advised that a modern architecture was what the City wanted in this location. Therefore, we then engaged our in-house architectural consultant to develop a more comprehensive design. Final Proposal This lead to the third and final conceptual design that was accepted by the City and approved in concept by the Design Review Board (DRB) minus a few corrections such as inclosing the exterior stairwell and additional landscape berming along Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue and to provide a material sample board. We stated at the meeting that we would be more than happy to modify the design to conform to the City's request. However, the DRB wished to continue the item following the Planning Commissions actions. The third conceptual proposal also included both corners of Yorktown and Beach Boulevard. The reason both sites are now considered is because the business owner was able to obtain an "Option from the property owner to purchase the property and expand the business. Design Review Board It would appear that the PC member representative of the DRB had a couple bad experiences with the property while the use is being processed. Therefore, it seemed that we were pre-judged and that the PC DRB representative was leading the Design Review Board. Planning Commission We feel we were not allowed to voice our goals and the vision to the Commission. When the PC or the audience raised questions we were not given the opportunity to discuss and provide solutions. It seemed that the Commissioner that sits on the Design Review Board also led the Commission Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 3 of 14 and that we were pre-judged without proper advisement and the ability to develop solutions. Nor did the staff develop conditions to respond to the known concerns, or to recommend a continuance to review the additional concerns. It seemed that the PC had closed their minds with regard to the proposed development. Staff Review and Report When we initially started the review process staff was excited and helpful to assist the applicant through this long process. We are also very complimentary to the staff for the help and assistance through the process. However, it would seem that a couple of weeks prior to the meeting that something changed and staff was now going to recommend denial. We are not certain, but we feel as if one of the commissioners led staff to deny versus giving sound solutions to the concerns that would mitigate any issues. We were not afforded the opportunity to consider and propose alternatives so as to provide possible solution scenarios. Then if these were not technically advisable then we would accept a denial. But we were not given that opportunity. Detailed below are the concerns and solutions for the inception of the proposed development. Commissioner Biddle Commissioner Biddle had concerns with regard to soil clean up. This can be handled as a condition of approval and will be part of the demolition and construction process. Letter from Tenants at commercial center Detailed below are the questions raised by the commercial center tenants as it relates to the,site addressed as 19501 Beach Boulevard. Question Display area is limited. Answer/Solution That is true for.the current facility. However with the new design and the demolition of the building it will allow for improved circulation, parking, and display area. Thereby, there will be adequate on-site customer, employee and display parking. The City can also impose a condition of approval that will allow a maximum number of display vehicles as part of the CUP process. Question Performance is using the commercial center for parking their vehicles Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 4 of 14 Answer/Solution All vehicles for the auto sales business are kept on their property and they do not use there parking spaces. Currently there exists reciprocal access for both property's since there is one property owner and the two properties share driveways. Question There is not enough parking currently in the shopping center Answer/Solution The proposal will increase the number of available spaces even though technically the commercial center has adequate parking and they should not be parking on somebody else's property unless allowed. Additionally, as with any shopping center it is the business owner's responsibility to require their employees to park in remote locations so as to leave the closest parking available for customers. As with this existing commercial center there are approximately a dozen remote stalls available for employee parking that is rarely utilized. Question There has been no consideration for employee parking for the proposed use. Answer/Solution Both sites have been adequately designed to accommodate customer, employee and display vehicle parking spaces. Detailed below are the total stalls provided. Parking type Site 1-19501 Beach Blvd Site 2-19475 Beach Blvd Customer 13 13 Display 19 17 Total 32 30 Question Vehicles have been towed because of these disputes Answer/Solution No vehicles have been towed that are related to the Performance Auto Sales and Leasing. Question The development will block the views of our businesses. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 5 of 14 Answer/Solution The signage for the center tenants is well above the line of site for potential customers. Additionally, if the service station was rebuilt the roof and fueling pumps would block views to the retail center. Conclusion The tenants were miss-informed. The new development will actually increase the number of spaces available to the entire center. Additionally, the proposed site located at 19501 Beach Boulevard is a separate parcel that stands alone. The City did not incorporate this fact into their report. The circulation and parking issues are not relevant to the proposed development. The issues raised about views are erroneous. The tenants do not own views to beach Boulevard. The proposed development will assist the economic vitality of the existing commercial center by creating foot traffic. Questions raised by the Dentist The dentist states that he was not advised of the proposed use. As part of the public record, the City was provided with the Occupant/Tenant listing as well as Property Ownership's for the public hearing noticing labels. Additionally, as stated by the proposed business owner, the lease is up for renewal. We feel that this is a private matter with regard to rental/lease contracts and not the City's concern. The dentist would have ample time to plan for relocation. Question Concerned about deliveries Answer/Solution The property owner has stated that he will not be renewing the dentist lease. The dentist can relocate to an available space in the neighboring center(s). The applicant does not have control over the property owner desire for selling the property to the applicant. Question Concerned with the closure of the driveways Answer/Solution Closure of the driveways is required by the City and is part of the Conditional Use Permit. The closure of the driveways will remove existing conditions that will improve site circulation and the ingress and egress of vehicles from the properties. Question Concerned about appropriate signage Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 6 of 14 Answer The applicant will submit a completed sign program for the development. Until approvals are completed for the proposed development, the applicant does not want to prepare signage plans until approved. All signs proposed will meet the City adopted sign criteria. Question Concerned about deliveries Answer/Solution When the development is completed there will be adequate on-site circulation to allow vehicle deliveries. Question Concerned about vehicle size and the blocking of views to the commercial center Answer/Solution The signage for the center tenants is well above the line of site for potential customers. Additionally, if the service station was rebuilt the roof and fueling pumps would block views to the retail center. Question Concerned that there is a parking problem. Answer/Solution The proposed development will create additional parking that is not currently available. The proposal is to demolish the two buildings and provide an improved-on-site parking. and circulation pattern. This is being completed by: the closure of four (4) driveways and relocating building(s) so as to improve the circulation and parking for customers, employees and display vehicles. Question Concerned that the property is not connected to sewers Answer/Solution All new development will be required to connect to domestic sewers. Question Dentist said his lease is not up until September 2000 Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 8 of 14 install a small median in the center to direct traffic and discourage jaywalking from any source. Question Concerned about delivery times Answer/Solution The Commission seemed not to want to consider solutions. The solution is to condition the development with appropriate delivery times as seen with other developments throughout the City within commercial developments. Question Concerned that Parking is a problem. Additionally, that the applicant uses the hotel parking area. Answer/Solution The proposed development provides for its own parking facilities. According to the applicant they maintain all vehicles on their property and do not park in the hotel parking area. Question Concerned about construction noise Answer/Solution Once again construction is temporary. The City has specific codes that control construction noise and the time of operation. We would expect to have appropriate conditions of approval that will restrict the construction hours. The applicant will comply with all development standards set-forth. Conclusion There were no issues raised that could not be met by the proposed development or with appropriate conditions of approval. In every case an appropriate condition of approval could be placed on the proposed use. Zoning Compliance The proposed development meets and or exceeds all development standards within the City. With the one concern raised about drive aisle width. There is adequate property to adjust the drive aisle width to 26 feet versus 25 feet. The plans can be modified and a condition of approval can be added for assurance to the City for compliance. Conclusion The proposed development meets and or exceeds all standards as set-forth in the Huntington Beach Zoning Code. As noted above, the site dynamics Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 10 of 14 Conclusion • There will be two sales offices, one at each building. This will reduce the number of persons traversing across Yorktown Avenue. • There will be more than adequate patron/employee parking at both sites • The General Plan is a living document that is meant to guide and is not intended to be the final decision for land use. The General Plan does not state nor does the Zoning Code have a prohibition against this use as proposed for the site(s). Jaywalking / Safety Concerns There were concerns raised about jaywalking and public safety. Detailed below are the answers/solutions for the proposed development. • Infrastructure improvements over the past several months have caused much disruption. • The sidewalk was closed for pedestrian movement • The project proposal is subject to a CUP and specific conditions of approval • We would recommend adding a condition for pedestrian signage to use signalized / controlled intersections for pedestrian movement. Pedestrians will always cross the street whether they are going to the Liqueur Store, the Bus Stop or looking for vehicle(s). • Each site will contain its owns sales team. Completed sales can be executed at each site without crossing the street. Concerns about unloading of vehicles • Many auto dealers unload vehicles in the street. That does not make it safe or correct. This is also enforceable through conditions of approval and through code enforcement. Once a person is ticketed for such a violation then they would re-route their drop-offs. • Additionally, once the site is improved there will be plenty of room for on- site drop-off of vehicles. • Appropriate conditions of approval can be implemented such as limiting the size of delivery vehicles or restrict the use to on-site deliveries. Revenue Generation The revenue generated by the old Gasoline Station would never reach the revenues that the proposed facility is generating to the City and the State. Additionally the Dentist shop tenant can be relocated within the current retail center at Yorktown and Beach Boulevard because there is a vacancy. The revenues generated by the medical office are minimal. The revenues generated by the proposed development will be substantial. Detailed below are those revenues generated to date. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 11 of 14 1 st Qtr 1999 Revenue Sales Tax Sales Tax to City Ending March 1999 $ 4,825,000.00 $ 373,939.50 $ 75,000.00 2nd Qtr 1999 Starting Aril $ 1,568,318.00 $ 121,520.00 $ 24,300.00 4 Mrs 1998 Calander Yr $ 10,430,190.00 $ 801,360.00 $ 160,270.00 Totals $ 16,823,508.00 $ 1,296,819.50 $ 259,570.00 Average Mo Revenues $ 1,085,387.61 $ 83,665.77 $ 16,746.45 This proposed use will be an attractive use and will not burden the City. As the use grows so will the income to the City. At such time that the business needs to move the proposed buildings will be an attractive office professional building due to easy convertibility because of the small-scaled nature of the development. As with larger dealerships up and down Beach Boulevard, when these buildings become vacated the larger buildings are vacant longer and become a nuisance to the City. Whereas this building would convert to an office professional building easily. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 & 98-85: 1 . Install pedestrian oriented signage that will rely that it is unsafe to jaywalk. This direction signage shall be incorporated into the overall landscape plan that-is subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 2. Redesign the exterior stairwells so as to be interior stairwells. Revised plans are subject to the review and approval of the of the City Design Review Board. 3. Obtain a circulation study from a qualified traffic engineer that will provide a report that the proper turning movements can be made by the . delivery trucks. If large loaders cannot successful maneuver on-site and safely leave the site than smaller deliver vehicles will be required. This study must be submitted prior to Building permit issuance. 4. Construction hours shall conform to the adopted municipal code section. Violation of the noise section of the municipal code will subject to fine. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 12 of 14 5. Site 1 known as CUP 98-62 (Performance Sales — Phase 1), APN No.025- 191-36, 19501 Beach Blvd will be limited to 19 display vehicles. Site 2 known as CUP 98-85 (Performance Sales — Phase II), APN No.025-180- 21 , 19475 Beach Blvd will be limited to 17 display vehicles. Violation of this condition will lead to revocation of CUP 98-65 and CUP 98-85. 6. The proposed driveway isle where appropriate will be redesigned to a minimum width of 27 feet and will comply with the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 & 98-85: 1 .The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for nineteen (19) at one site and seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction with a 2,437 and a 1 ,741 square foot two-story building will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations with its own sales team and the ability complete a sale at each location will reducing the need for customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. Further, that the proposed building will assist in reducing street noise to the hotel development and re-orient the building design to allow for increase views into the existing shopping center. Additionally, a service station roof that sits approximately 18 feet high and pumps would sit higher than the high profile (seven (7) feet) vehicles that are being sold, visibility to the retail center located directly behind the subject site will not be greatly reduced. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 and 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot(s) will increase pedestrian traffic to the retail center and will be compatible with surrounding uses. Additionally, the building profile will be consistent with the two (2) story building and will ad diversity to the area with regard to the new design as recommended by the City to improve the image to the area. Even though the intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. The long-term usage of the building type can double as a future professional office building. The parking area and building massing would be consistent with a small residentially scaled development. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 13 of 14 3. The site design and circulation will allow for safe ingress and egress from either property. The removal of the inferior driveways will improve off- site circulation of pedestrians, vehicles and improved safety for the Bus stop with the removal of a service station entrance within 5 to 10 feet of the intersection of Yorktown and Beach Boulevard. The proposed development will allow for on-site delivery of vehicles. Additionally, with the added condition of approval the City can require smaller delivery vehicle if deemed necessary. 4. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and a specific condition has been added to ensure plan development revisions that will increase the driveway isle widths from 26 foot to 27 foot drive aisle widths will meet the minimum requirements as stated in the HBZSO. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will not adversely affect the General Plan. It will meet the intent and is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8. 1 . 1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. In that, the proposed development will create interrelated activities for sales in commerce within the adjoining commercial center. The scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding buildings and is related to retail s as is permitted in the base zone for which the proposed development is proposed. B . (LU 15.4) Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. In that, the proposed development is a new dealership and will add to the sales force along Beach Boulevard. The Scale and massing of the area development are such that lend itself to locating a smaller scaled dealership as proposed to the area. Additionally, at such time that the dealership relocates to a larger site as his business grows, the development lends itself to a high end small scale office professional building in the area that will service the retail businesses. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 14 of 14 C. (CE 2.3. 1) Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. In that the proposed development will remove four (4) existing driveways that are unsafe for vehicular and pedestrian movements along Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Additionally, the development will increase the roadway width by approximately 10 feet along Yorktown that will improve vehicular circulation to the area and assist in reducing jaywalking in the area to the increased road width. Additionally, the existing signalized intersection has appropriate pedestrian controls to assist pedestrians and with the added directional signage will discourage jaywalking in the area Summary The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and meets or exceeds all development standards as set-forth in the Zoning Code. We have developed additional conditions of approval to mitigate issues raised during the Commission Hearing. There will be two sales teams so patrons will not necessarily need to use the pedestrian and vehicle controlled 'A intersection. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and when developed all deliveries can be met on-site. Lastly, the proposed improvement plans can be modified to meet the minimum driveway aisle width. I look forward to discussing solutions for the proposed development. If there are any question I can be reached at (714) 434-9228. Sincerely, Corrie D. Kates Foothill Project Management, LLC - President Cc: Property Owner (s) Applicant SJG:CDK ..................................... ................. ............... ..................... .................................................................... .... . . ....... . ..... ....................... ........ ... .... ::::::::::.......................... ......... ................. ........ ............... .................... ........ ..... ..................................................... .......... a a m.q q ................................................ ..................... ....... ........ ....... .................................... ..... ............ .... ........................... ................................... ..... ... ............ ............. ................................... ..... . ............................ ........................... ... ..... ... .... ............................ �Mvm ... :.............................. MEN ... ... ...... .......... ............................. ................................... ............... ................................ .... ........... .. .... ... ..... ......................... ... ..... ............................ ............................ ... ..... ............-.............. .................... ........ .. .... . ........................... ............................ ..... ........................... .............-.-........... TACH T 3*........ ... ...... ..........-............... -.. ... .... ............ ....... ..... ..... ............. ,17..W... ... .......................... ........ .......... ............................................ ....................... .......... ........ .......... ..... ................................... .......... . .............................. ........................................... .......... ...... ..........................--............. ............................................. . .......... ................... ��$ �. a «. � a<.4`,='�t=A x fix«.»-: •; --... :�`. _ - €.,:�`� i 3a��� _t- Y HuntIn ton Beac De artment of Com�munir Deveto. men TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning DlWcft BY: Joe Thompson,Planning Aide DATE: April 27, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (Performance Sales,Phase I) LOCATION: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 represents a request by Mehdi Bolouriad to permit construction of a new automobile sales building. The proposed two (2) story 2,437 square foot building includes 850 square feet of interior sales space, 122 square feet of office space, 1,250 square feet of storage space on the second story, and exterior parking for 19 display vehicles and 14 customer/sales staff on an 18,200 square foot lot. This conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 (19475 Beach Blvd.) and will be presented concurrently. The applicant requests to operate the car sales lot from two separate properties located on the northwest and southwest corners of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan,which encourages clustering of new and existing automobile dealerships within a defined automobile district. • Because the proposed dealership is divided into two (2) separate locations,undue risk is suffered by customers and the dealership sales staff when crossing Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles being offered for sale. • The site does not have adequate square footage to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck,which must off-load vehicles onto the Yorktown Avenue median. • Minimum required drive aisle width has not been provided. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." �1 iA iav t= �- The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 and direct staff accordingly." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Mehdi Bolouriad, 19475 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Marco Velastegui, P.O. Box 5293, Huntington Beach, CA 92615 REQUEST: Demolish an existing service station building and establish an automobile sales lot with a . new two (2) story 2,437 square foot building. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 5, 1999 July 5, 1999 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: ( '' J ::::::::::.:::::::::.::€�riLAN.:::::::::::::.::::.::::::::..... ........:..E�..::.:.......:...................................::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::: ..:.........::::::..:::::::.::::::::::::..................::.:.:::::.:.:.....:........................................................................................................................................................................... Subject Property: CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Former gas station lot General) being used as a car sales lot North of Subject Property CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Car sales lot and across Yorktown Ave. Generalprofessional office East of Subject Property CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Carls's Jr. Restaurant across Beach Blvd. General South of Subject CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Retail Center Property: General) West of Subject Property: CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Retail Center General PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 represents a request to demolish an existing service station building and establish an automobile sales lot with a new two (2) story 2,437 square foot building pursuant to Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The proposed 2,437 square foot two story building will be located on the south and west property lines (zero setback) and will be approximately 70 feet away from the retail strip center buildings to the south and west. The building includes 850 square feet of interior sales space, 122 square feet of office space and 1,250 square feet of storage space on the second floor on a 18,200 square foot lot. The second story is accessed by an exterior stairway located on the west side of the building. All pre-owned vehicles ATTA�ILI, 1.. U. ____z- Staff Report—4/27/99 2 (99sr17) r � offered for sale will be displayed outside and there will be no interior display of vehicles. Nineteen (19) display vehicle parking spaces have been provided. The 850 square feet of interior sales space will be utilized to display optional or add-on equipment provided by the dealership. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 2,776 square feet of landscaping to the site, install stamped concrete at the site entrances, and close the existing driveways closest to the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Although the automobile dealership is a single entity, the physical arrangement of the dealership is divided into two (2) lots owned by two (2) different property owners and separated by Yorktown Avenue. , The applicant has defined the southern location as Phase One development, and the northern location as Phase Two. Subsequently, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for Phase One is being processed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for Phase Two, located to the north, directly across Yorktown Avenue at 19475 Beach Boulevard. The physical arrangement of the dealership requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. In addition, the automobile carrier truck, delivering additional pre-owned vehicles to be sold must park on the Yorktown painted median, which is located between the north and south dealership locations. Newly arrived automobiles are backed away form the truck and driven to either one of the two locations. The applicant has advised that no repair of newly arrived pre-owned vehicles or existing display vehicles will occur on- site. Proiect His The applicant applied for and was granted a certificate of occupancy for Performance Sales and Leasing located at 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) on July 21, 1997. The certificate of occupancy stipulated that the applicant could not display more than three (3) for-sale vehicles on site at any one time. Initially, a code enforcement citation was issued to the applicant on March 16, 1998 for the display of eighteen(18) vehicles. The citation required the applicant to remove the excess vehicles within five (5) calendar days or apply for a conditional use permit as required for establishment of car dealerships per Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (More than three vehicles displayed). Due to non-compliance of the initial citation, a second citation was issued on June 18, 1998 requiring the removal of eighteen(18)vehicles within seven(7) calendar days. Due to non-compliance of the second citation, a third citation was issued and forwarded to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. The City Attorney issued a letter to the applicant shortly thereafter, advising the City's intention to prosecute. On July 20, 1998, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application for the establishment of a car dealership at 19501 Beach Boulevard (southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue). The applicant's intention was to move the existing dealership from the northwest corner to the southwest corner. The building and site plans submitted with the conditional use permit application reflected use of the existing gas station building (at the southwest corner) and incorrectly stated the lot's property lines, as well as being grossly inadequate regarding scale, circulation, and site and building design. A correction letter was mailed to the applicant on August 11, 1998 advising of the inadequacies. On August 21, 1998, staff received revised plans, however, many of the issues stated in the correction letter had not been addressed. Staff Report—4/27/99 3 ATT�+ HW_f� I ��u' 99sr17 P ( ) On November 30, 1998,the applicant submitted an application for expansion and establishment of a car dealership on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue at 19475 Beach Boulevard. The applicant requested demolition of the existing single-story office building and construction of a new two-story dealership building. Again, the plans were inadequate in regard to dimensions, on-site circulation, and site and building design. After several meetings with the applicant's agent and insistence by staff to hire a qualified licensed architect, another revised set of plans for 19475 and 19501 Beach Boulevard were submitted March 9, 1999. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and the Land Use Element designation of Commercial General on the subject property, including: A. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. B. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the CG(Commercial General)Zone. Minimum drive aisle width and parking stall length requirements are subject to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed project does not comply with minimum drive aisle width or parking stall length. The following is a zoning conformance matrix, which compares the proposed project with Section 231.04 (Parking Standards); and Section 211.06 (CG Districts Development Standards) of the HBZSO. Ex ................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............................................................................. 211.06 Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 18,200 square feet 211.06 Maximum .35 (6,370 sq. ft). .13 (2,437 sq. ft. building) Density/Intensity AR 211.06 Minimum Frontage 100 ft. 130 ft. 211.06 Maximum Height 50 feet/2 stories (measured 27 ft. /2 stories from top of curb 211.06 Setback (Front Yard) 10 feet 75 ft. building Beach Blvd. ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report—4/27/99 4 (99sr17) 211.06 Setback (Side Yard) 10 feet 71 ft. building Yorktown Ave. 211.06 Setback (Rear Yard) Zero lot line 28 ft. alley 231.04 Parking 11 spaces 14 spaces 231.14 Drive Aisle Width 26 ft. min. 25 ft. 211.06 Landscaping All setback areas fronting on or 15% (2,776 sq. ft.) visible from an adjacent street— All setback areas are 8% (1,456 sq. ft.)Planters landscaped. All planters , adjacent to streets minimum 10 adjacent to streets are min. feet in width. 10 feet in width Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act states" for urbanized areas, projects are categorically exempt when commercial buildings are built on sites zoned for such use, and if they are designed so that occupant load is of 30 persons or less if not constructed in conjunction with the building of four or more structures and if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Desi n Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed the project on Thursday, April 8, 1999 and continued the item, requiring the applicant to provide a colors and materials palette The item was continued until the first scheduled meeting after Planning Commission has acted on the development proposal. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Building, Public Works, Fire, and Police have recommended conditions should the . Planning Commission approve the proposed conditional use permit that would be incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Economic Development Department has no concerns. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on April 15, 1999, and notices were sent to tenants and property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, the applicant, and interested parties. As of April 20, 1999, one verbal comment was received, not in support of the proposed project. ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report—4/27/99 5 (99sr17) ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project and has identified the primary issues that are discussed below. Land Use/General Plan Compatibility Due to the relatively small size of the lot(18,200 square feet), as compared to new-car dealerships (ranging from approximately 175,000 square feet [DeLillo Chevrolet] to 280,000 square feet [York Ford]), and used car-dealerships (73,610 square feet [Action Motors] and 43,142 [Enterprise Car Sales]) in the City, inadequate space is available on-site to accommodate the automobile delivery truck. Currently, the automobile carrier truck, delivering additional pre-owned vehicles being offered for sale, must park on the Yorktown painted median between the north and south dealership locations. Newly arrived automobiles are off-loaded from the truck directly on the Yorktown Avenue median and driven to either of the two locations. Fourteen (14) customer parking spaces are provided. Currently, there is a sales staff of two employees. The applicant has not provided the projected number of sales and administrative staff they will have when the new buildings are constructed. The General Plan encourages the development of an"Automobile Overlay District"that consolidates existing automobile dealerships and accommodates additional dealerships within the same district. Viable commercial districts necessitate the clustering of compatible uses in limited areas, rather than dispersing them along different parts of a commercial corridor. The General Plan's "Automobile Overlay District" is located on the north side of Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The intent of the General Plan is to afford opportunities for existing and newly proposed automobile dealerships to consolidate within the automobile overlay district provided for in the General Plan. The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan. In addition to General Plan incompatibility, the subject lot is incompatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity. Phase 1 of the proposed automobile dealership is bounded on the south and west by an existing retail center containing two (2) separate buildings with four(4) retail suites in each building. The proposed two-story building has a 25 feet frontage along Beach Boulevard, is 27 feet high and is located generally in the middle of the lot. In addition, the dealership specializes in selling primarily sport utility vehicles (SUV's), which inherently have high profiles. Due to the increased building height and the high profile of the vehicles being offered for sale, visibility to both of the retail center buildings is greatly reduced. Complaints have been received by some of the retail owners stating due to the reduced visibility, a loss in business has resulted. Currently the loss in visibility is due to the high profile of the SUVs only. The building of the proposed structure will only further decrease this visibility. Safety As previously mentioned, the subject dealership is located on two (2) corner lots separated by Yorktown Avenue. Although each location includes a sales office within their respective two-story buildings, this arrangement requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue in order to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. The dealership's physical arrangement, therefore, poses undue risk to anyone having to leave one location to access the other. Additionally, the �TTAC��A C��J. 3 Staff Report—4/27/99 6 (99sr17) automobile carrier delivery truck poses an undue risk to vehicular traffic on Yorktown Avenue. Staff has viewed the truck off-loading automobiles during mid-afternoon, when traffic is especially heavy. Traffic/Circulation In addition to the nineteen parking spaces for display vehicles, fourteen (14) customer-parking spaces will be provided. Due to the small size of the lot, access to seven (7) of the customer parking spaces located at the back of the building and one (1) space located on the east side of the lot adjacent to Beach Boulevard are required to be taken through the retail strip center parking lot to the south. If the.building were to be moved back against the southern lot line, the dealership would not have adequate available space to accommodate the minimum number of customer parking spaces without reducing the number desired display vehicle parking spaces. The owner of the retail strip center also owns the subject property. The subject site is not in code compliance regarding the minimum drive aisle width on the north side of the lot adjacent to Yorktown Avenue and the minimum parking stall length for all display vehicles abutting the landscape planters along both Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Reduction in drive aisle width is likely due to the substandard size of the dealership compared with other dealerships in the City. The relatively substandard lot size also results in a reduced lot frontage which when compared to other standard dealerships impacts ingress and egress for test driven vehicles. SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit, based on the following • The project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, which encourages clustering of new and existing automobile dealerships within a defined automobile district. • Because the proposed dealership is divided into two(2) separate locations, undue risk is suffered by customers and the dealership sales staff when crossing Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles being offered for sale. • The site does not have adequate square footage to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck, which must off-load vehicles onto the Yorktown Avenue painted median. • Minimum required drive aisle width has not been provided. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Denial 2. Vicinity Map 3. Site plan and elevations received and dated March 26, 1999 4. Narrative HZ:JT:kjl ATTAC'r1LNT N�• Staff Report—4/27/99 7 (99sr17) PROJECT SITE iZLArtt su TAIMEW ,. ! r. w AVE. � ! BAD�i�DK GRAM . QVIfh k AVE. •�i�p NIL IAV t` LLU TTIER /• G� A A AVE PolK CI rGRKTGwn �1 v TFd 8 r [/ SA..D r Ave. moo VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS Area Description Beach Boulevard bounds the property to the East,Yorktown to the North and the commercially zoned property's to the West and South along Beach Boulevard. Additionally the properties across Beach Boulevard are also commercially zoned. The site is zoned Commercial General (CG) and was used as a Gasoline Service station. Directly adjacent to the property West&South is a strip commercial development consisting of convenience stores and ancillary retail and food services with appropriate parking. Across Yorktown Avenue to the.North are strip type commercial and office uses that face onto Beach Boulevard. Across Beach Boulevard is a Carl's JR and similar commercial uses. Survey of Area Population The properties immediately behind the commercially zoned property's that abut Beach Boulevard are typically residential uses. They consist of Single Family and Multi-family residential lots. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the existing commercial establishments and residential areas. The proposed Sales and Leasing facility will increase revenue to the area uses such as food and retails sales of merchandise. Description of Proiect The proposed project will encompasses the old Mobile Oil Service Station. The site is approximately 140"x140'Or 19600 SF or.449 acres. The proposal will remove the gasoline tanks and soil remidiation will occur to clarify the soil from any petroleum contaminants. Additionally, the proposal is to utilize the exiting building to use for ancillary offices and storage. No .r,air or service of the vehicles Is to be conducted on site. Performance Sales and Leasing prides itself ire carrying only the finest in pre-owned vehicles and primarily supplies the consumer with Sport Utility Vehicles. The site as shown on the site plan will allow for on-site customer parking and on-site. display of vehicles for Lease of Sale. Detailed below are the proposed hours of operation Days Time Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Sunday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Performance Sales and Leasing has four(4)full-time employees Surrounding Use The property is located in the Commercial Generai Zone and is adjacent to similar commercial uses.The property in question is located at the Southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Toxic Waste and or Hazardous Materials Site The site has had some soil contamination from the previous use and is currently going under sai remidiation by the property owner. As to other known toxic wastes and materials we are :rot awara of the presence of any other such materials except for the petroleum remidiation. 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277) , . .................................... TTACHMENT 4.................................................................................. RE: APPEAL OF P C 'ORMANCE SALES AND LEASIN(- PAGE 1 OF 2 IN SUPPORT FOR DENIAL OF CUP ' S #98-62 AND 98-85 1 . DOES NOT CONFORM TO .THE GENERAL PLAN A. DOES NOT CONFORM TO .PROVISIONS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. . B. IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE ELEMENT OF CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) . C. LOT SIZE (APPROXIMATELY ,18 , 000 SQ. FT. ) IS INADEQUATE FOR THIS TYPE AND VOLUME OF BUSINESS ( SMALLEST CAR DEALER IN THE CITY IS OVER 43, 000 SQ. FT. ) . 2 . SAFETY CONCERNS A. TWO SITE ARRANGEMENT INCREASES RISK TO CUSTOMERS AND STAFF. B. "J" WALKING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AND WOULD LIKELY INCREASE DUE TO CLOSURE OF THE DRIVEWAYS ON YORKTOWN THAT ARE CLOSEST TO BEACH BLVD. C. VEHICLE DELIVERY TRUCK PARKS ILLEGALLY AND PRESENTS A SERIOUS SAFETY RISK AS LOT SIZE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR -ON SITE OFFLOADING . D. HIGH PROFILE OF VEHICLES BLOCKS VIEW OF TRAFFIC AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BLVD. AND YORKTOWN . 3 . ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. SOUTH SITE IS CONTAMINATED. B. NORTH SITE ( ALSO A FORMER GAS STATION ) HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED FOR TANKS IN THE GROUND OR CONTAMINATION. C. NORTH SITE IS ILLEGALLY SPLICED INTO CITY SEWER SYSTEM VIA AN ADJOINING BUSINESS ( HUNTINGTON SUITES HOTEL ) . 4 . IMPACT ON SURROUNDING BUSINESSES A. TWO STORY BUILDING AND HIGH PROFILE OF VEHICLES DECREASES VISIBILITY OF ALL OTHER TENANTS . B. PARKING HAS BEEN AND WOULD LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM. C. NOISE AND ODORS FROM REPAIRS , INSTALLATIONS AND PAINTING DISRUPT NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES . D. ALL ADJACENT BUSINESS OWNERS ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. SUMMARY: THE APPLICANT. HAS BEEN A VERY INCONSIDERATE NEIGHBOR TO ALL ADJACENT BUSINESSES . NEITHER LAND OWNER NOW SUPPORTS THI AC ANT N�. .�.= ATT i I kA .......... OL lei L A, s Oep _"1"�e.. _...... ._... ------- _ 4 __ _ bloc, arkat r f f 0 i I� L i i e?,__ i • I , o ra Vo OP- _ = i ATTACHNitti i ;v • , -. . -- ------ ---- - -------�/_P_�n-c_ S_✓ L -2-sir --L�� O e--_.__-..__ -------- o l J --�------- ---Lam`-�-"'�--- .__ ------------- ------------/�? �.r-�.-.o�-=----�..7----. ------- --- - ' h ?- --= ---------- — . 5 - -- fit: C71( ) 96 fl __ CD �J 0� lja CITE OF' -HUNT MGTON SEACII z�O ..........c� r;c'i"o"se'pr on .th�t$y Nofo th item hetied e ..�r h ii Ile�ru�dgc i.. . : 't► eofH c u" hYuaer . cnnneausco .eier rn o.. arearesio . uss ::: -S ;. Th ... : ; ; c . .. ch in c sg scheduled for .. .................................................................................................. .... .........................................?......... ..... ... . . . . . . ? '?� 7.00 PrVI€T . :.:.:.:..::....................................................................................................................:............... .............................................:.................................................:..::::. ......::::::::::::....::: :::::::::::::.::::.:: :::::::....:........:::::.......::: .....:'......::::................_.. .......... :::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.:...:::::: ::.:::;::::::.:;:.:::;.:;:::;.;.._...........:.:... WHERE;::::::::Cite:Cou"ricil:Chambers:Hunfuieton.Bcach Cevcc.Center;2000 ZVI:iiri Street:Huiitiiiitoii� &kh:CA:92648::'€ ::::::;...............................:::::::::s:::::::: s::::::::: :::::::::::::::;:>::::>::s:::::::::::::::::::::>:::::::::_ ' :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::s:>:::::::::::::::......::::::::>::=:::::::::::>:::::::::;:::::::::::::::: . . ALI; PERSONS ere:eritiifedao atteiiilaaulaieann and;ez"'res"s:q mions:or.submit eviilence:foi ::.............................................:..................:....,.........:::::::::::::;;:::::::::::::.....::::...:..::.:b_.:.::;.:.::::....::.::..,..:p.....................::::::::.;::::::::::::::::::::::::::>:::::::::::::;::::::::::::: a...... : ............ .......................... ftii.. ...........:::.:...;.......:.:...: cation is:...0 fife id tlie' I......IIi.....:D......:..... ...... stthe,appl�caEion:as.out[�ne�;belotiy,::A.co . ..of theta li............"......o,...,......................P,.au.....ng....,epart.",•ent2l)0034I�in € . :...$...... :. :.::Py PP ......... .. ...................................:........:.......................: : ....... :Street°IIiirifiri' ori.BeacIi :Califorriie:92fi18>"for.rciierv,t� :Efic:""':gblicIfyou`c6allen""e;tbe:PIaiiriiii""",Gomriiss�ou's.... '. ........ ..:.......... .......:............ .... ...... ... 't..................:..... .;;. .. actiopmcourt: ouma hmitedao:raisfu :.oul:.chose:issuescoy.orsomeone:else;raised;aE;the u[ilicaieainna descntied iri€thi§ c"'otfen:.`cor'res onJenced¢lir-ered:$a,thc Ci• . ato"r:'.rfor;to ahe""ublicaieanri"; :Ifahece € :are:ariv farflier "uestioiis lease call flie'Plaririid' De' artcrient:53C 5271 and:referao:the a- " jp",ti ...Id dw—� : : :: . ❑ 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-79 (THE LEARNING CIRCLE): Applicant: Judith Coglianese &Kellie Gillespie Request: To operate a day care program for up to 120 children within the five(5) classrooms in Building No..3 and an ancillary office in Building No. 4 of the Pleasant. View school. The proposal also includes the use of up to 20%compact parking as part of the re- striping of the existing school parking lot. Location: 16692 Landau Lane (at its intersection with Royal Drive) Project Planner: Ricky Ramos �2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES-PHASE I): Applicant: Corrie Kates Request: To establish a 2,437 square foot, two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-85 (PERFORMANCE SALES-PHASE II): Applicant: Corrie Kates Request: To establish a 1,741 square foot, two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Proiect Planner: Joe Thompson is NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Items#1, #2 and#3 are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. .................... . ................. ....:.....,.................. ::.............::.,..... .>.,:. ........... ...................... ... . ON FILE:: A co ti(thetaff::ce ort ill be aya,table to uttereste�!paTt�es at the City of. Untingtoq$earbliaiing ai'Cmeat_ r:._.the:blamC�t ::Libra ::711>I:Taibert AY`.Ctlut ::iltcr:A' n1:23 f49.::a:::::::::ls;•:: P..................:o..:. X...............rY.(.:::'::••:•:::::.............•• .. ........r....P......................:..............:,,........................................... .........:.........,,..:. .:..... ........... ,.....:.................. ............................................................................:........:...................,.,...................................,.............:.......,..........::.,:::::::::::::::::::::.:...... :..........................................................................................................................................................................:.....:.,.....,:.........................,....................... :..... ................ :::::.., .................................. �2 ::::.....:;:::::: ............................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.::::::::...:..:::: V::: Y .. . Zelef k eel a ...............................:.:...... .......;....................................:......... a�yard:.......: s... . :S....... :::::>:::::::::::::;:::::::::::: ::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::::::;;;::::::::::;::;;.::::: ::: ty................:..........................................................:.....:.................,. . 1...... i mini n:a::::::::r:::: ....: .. ::::.":"::.:::::::::.:.::":::::::::::.:::::::' ":" " ::::::::::::::Huntm ton Beach.p ann n .Co.... ._.ssto.........................:........ :...........:......_............:........:..................... ................................................................................ ..::.::....................-........... ...........................................................:::::::::: :;;::::::::::;;:::::::;::;::::;:::::::.:: ..................... :::::::.::::::.................. ...:.... ..... .........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::;:::::.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::':::::•:::::•::•::::::':":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::: OOO;rt....�.Strcet............:................................:........................................,...:::::::::::::::::;:::::: ::.::::.: :::..........................:...................................................................:::....................... ..................................................:.:....................:. .......................................................................::"::...::::::::'::::::::::;:::: ........... . :: 1 fit o vPL �J:1 NrC,- •fig C r/1�^�L7 �- I W d (99LG0427) V bL�`� �. 1/\1.� 6 Fir Hill 1 Cf J3 a u a w. c-00 � RIVON 64 0 o .. _ 4 IIJIIIILM- 1111 lc�:E-H �ATTAC ENT NO. �_ v� i$ �4. �� a ��, � �� G� i'. � •fir! � .' .. i 0 B © �. . L �I + 3 ono � n g ! lne.i bele' HIM, l�� l fille� P11111 lt�� � i j!e 40flu, Mil Mill), �11fl111 "Orr, IN 0 a � i ii to 1 � j • f 1 _ I Exterior Master exterior Plaster exterior Fleeter m 6mnitxd Dashed Fin smooth fen Daehad rw GownVdid Gownrudte Wore"dta ® leonhW Q wchneM ' il7a7BMaWM ' 1WMaa4xr,GanO D O pgnswn IAaagi/aMrr MOM+- Metal Pipe ttaWng. f Bak-m v 7, Gown we NMI taem . AA.Nal/'e Foothill Project ManagemaM i 661aI g�ehront MetalStake,idstor�iga i`Ib„awe°Mo.aeeo Gown Bhror awe Tint Gobs 9bue ` West Elevation North Elevation s.e�aaar.�wAw wrvasac. Exterior Piaster exterior Plaster Dashed Fin Dashed Fin Gown rodte Gown r4ma roro L u LI "M 1 AO IFn L I L I I I ® as� s. srwieewr•ns I . ® eNearmu ® Exterior Elevallona s Phase 1 O newcaa oast Rear Elevation South Elevation _ r•n � I ® stWord j ® leonherd Ekotrkal Tekplwne ® architects , PaLds namer�wsr.\e . rwrooaaa\me rAtosl+�� i Storage (9 Office 1 � n 1 Sales Area 1 Bathl BAbovvee statrway Above I l I. Storage GabineGs I � , I A1kl�uti+ 1 L 1 � FOOMp PMl-t lI &---=�r�`Jam— -------- } PeAamwm sates 6d�aA\t-W+M . 11a�P\�Ma First Floor scale:l/4-=1-.w PWA>3v CONSULTANre i Ladder to Roof I 1� R"F Aeaess 1 1 I Storage I H— moil�eoaa\ Balcbrry eDON ieiwx"m-ra• 1 1 1 weenme 1 J L————LI —LI——__ Balcony Flom Plan L�-- —— ———— — ——————— Phaset rn Second Floor scale:114-=r-o- J� Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 15305117 . 1INS TQ,r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY HALL HUNTINGTN BCH CA 92646 �alNTr � LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING {{ (( tt t y t ( ! ! REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadline Department: �(„� (� Subject Council Meeting Date:I Ill,lie, Date of This Request: REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): J 1,,J EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): S L4 tj eF 1 AM :. CONSEQUENCES (How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): a �j Y rI G r::4 .w o� T ' sJ Sig S Approved O Denied Z lie pa Head Ray Silver City Administrator ti _ ` � . ;. �C-�i- .. I i ! 6 �X�� ..�_ PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) am a Citizen of the United States and a NOTICE OF proposed requests are on PUBLIC HEARING file in the Community De- resident of the County aforesaid; I am BEFORE THE CITY velopment Department, COUNCIL-OF THE 2000. Main Street, Hunt- over the age of eighteen ears, and not a CITY OF 9264 Beachs California g g y HUNTINGTON BEACH the pu for inspection by party to or interested in the below _ NOTICE IS HEREBY the public. A copy of the staff report will be available entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of GIVEN that on Monday, to interested parties at City H July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM -Hall or the Main City Li- in the City Council brary .(7111 Talbert Ave- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Chambers, 2000 Main nue)alter July.14, 1999. Street, Huntington Beach, ALL INTERESTED PER- ne`vspa er of general circulation printed the City Council will hold a SONS are invited to attend public hearing on the fol- said hearing and express and pu lished in the City of Huntington lowing item: opinions or submit evi- CONDITIONAL USE dence.foror against the ap- Beach County of Orange State of PERMIT NO. 98-62(PER- If yoionas outlined thabove. City , , FORMANCE SALES If you challenge the City PHASE 1) (APPEAL): Ap- Council's action in court, California, and that attached.-Notice is, a pellant/Applicant: Corrie you may be limited to rais- Kates, Foothill Project ing only those issues you true and complete copy as was printed Management'Request:Ap- or someone else raised at peal of'the Planning Com- the public hearing de- and published in the Huntington Beach mission's denial of a re- scribed in this notice,or in quest to establish a 2,437 written correspondence and Fountain Valley issues of said square foot, two (2) story delivered to the City at, or auto sales facility, on an prior to,the public hearing. 18,200 square foot lot.The If there are any.further newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: request includes 19 park- 'questions please call the ing spaces for display vehi- Planning Division at cles and 14 parking spaces , 536-5271 and refer to the for customers. Location: • above item. Direct your 19501 Beach Boulevard_ written communications to (southwest corner of the City Clerk. Beach Boulevard and Connie Brockway, Yorktown Avenue)Project City Clerk Planner:Joe Thompson City of July 8 , 1999 L USE Huntington Beach PERMIT D O 8ITIONA85(PER- 2000 Main.Street FORMANCE SALES 2nd Floor PHASE II)(APPEAL):Ap- Huntington Beach _ pellant/Applicant Corrie .California 92648 Kates, Foothill Project (714)536-5227 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that Management.Request:Ap- Published .Huntington peal of the Planning Com- Beach-Fountain Valley In- the foregoing is true and correct. mission's denial of a re- dependentJuly.B, 1999 quest to establish a 1,741 072-156 square foot, two (2) story auto-sales,facility on an 18,900 square foot lot.The request includes 17 park- Executed on July s 199c— Iles nd13ordisplayvehs i cles and 13 parking spaces at Costa Mesa California. for customers. Location: i 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and .Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner; Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY, GIVEN that the above items are categorically ex-, empt from the provisions of the California Environmen- - tal Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the: Signature' i RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 Performance Sales and Leasing) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable FFindings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: T (Below • . For Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:_:kjl a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 22, 1999 Performance Sales & Leasing 19475 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Bolouriad: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 1999, denied the appeal filed by Mehdi Bolouriad, Performance Sales and Leasing and upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 with Findings for Denial as set forth in (Attachment No.I.) to the Request for Council Action dated July 19, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, G� Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure: Findings and Conditions of Approval Cc: Joe Thompson, Planning Aide Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management g Afol lowu pWte rs\091897 1 Telephone:714536-5227) I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for nineteen (19) display vehicles in conjunction of a 2,437 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. Further, due to the height of 27 feet for the proposed building and the high profile (seven (7) feet) feet of the types of vehicles that are being sold, visibility to the retail center located directly behind the subject site will be greatly reduced. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed drive aisle width does not meet the minimum requirements as stated in the HBZSO. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99sr17)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1.1 r CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: wit: i .. DEP TMENT: In�C-� MEETING DATE: —2 . 14 CONTACT: �� �� PHONE: X S;sti N/A YES ( ) ( ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? r- ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the ` mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? i ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) • Pleas complete the following.. 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published t 3. Number of days between publications _ 21 dam. 7�q NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE I) (APPEAL): Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot ,two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 &ERFORMNACE SALES PHASE II) (APPEAR; Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot _ two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot.. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 14, 1999. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 V Y" CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of aL I f O County of Oe- On NDUEHM )21 before me,SPmf)eA 4-A�St Nmiwy f UAU' & , Date ''''«« Name and Tale of Officer(e.g.,'Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared &-k)ky SAS 1I�TD Name(s)of Signer(s) personally known to me-OR-❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha a he/they executed the same in&Iiher/their authorize capacity(ies),and that by SANDRA KATES is/ r/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), Convnisdcn#1IWM or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, .,� NotQyM434C-Calf OMb executed the instrument. 11 NyCcrmtiB0wJun15.2M2 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: / Q Document Date: 121 /5p7?F Number of Pages: / Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: L�J Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signers) Signer's Name Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual Corporat Officer ❑ Corporate Officer .Title( - dt . Title(s): ❑ Partne —❑ mited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ Ge ral ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Cons ator4,1110 ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ElOther: Top of thumb here " v Signer Is Repres ing: - Signers Representing: to 1994 National Notary Association-8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 5 G �� •• 7 68 '7 S 34@ ~�! Z3 V • 309 eo <a N' GS.k S/• �1G �r lC.el' Q t• � . • � L ANE z 330 T57Z 55 16 oa21@NO 62 9 58` 59 oels'60 Jt'6/ l.'62 la'6J a..,.'64 33 cl' 65 p'66 67 6B w• so' i; 190' 12 0 30 e ° h 0 � t7 05� SCALE: 115 16" = 00' .e m 3 r ::p. r0 AC. 4 5/+... O9 10 n � 2 I 3 AC. r IS AC. 1 49 AC 1.01 AC. ^ O Y O a t r/J-6 I� r Q o �"s 140' le' >e p its -ACH BLVD.) T _ AV[.) BOULEVARD . BEACH — 1 I i ee' -10101 2s IV EAST SIDE r EASE SADE I 21 e ` }1 PAr /09-09 Z./1A, ep +5 ° Oe PAR S 1 dSOB- --'----©----- — ——— — — 1"<—�--- 191 15;I = pc07 BLK. C / Y O u i IV !SJ AC so' I •e• I c 24 •.r u w 1? PAR. 1 PAR. 2 PAR . 1 e• I ... � :< ?° 2 a 8 3t 32 33 8 aP. g to j •° 'E NC. 837 /tMR DEF r. U&,'0 - - --�-- WRACY ORASSn.lUu AN FiORIOA ER US S.NOT T RE[ rRiCHT OR COUNTY A! -- — Y 1948 £AST S/OE m-L.4 :iR MM 1 NO'E - ASSESSORS BLOCK AS:ESSOR'S •uAP R. NO. 44/5 MM. PA.4CEL r;,cFS BOOK 25 PACE 13 a ro ' S yr` r L Ait�. IF OZ519102 02519124 02519125 _ YOUNG,DOUGLAS & STACY - HWANG,ING SEI PUCCILLI,FRANK 4949 WARNER AVE 5712 HIGHGATE TER 2402 FLORIDA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 IRVINE CA 92612 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 02519126 02519127 02519136 MC CLUER,DORA M TR CONTRERAS,HERLINDO VELASTEGUI,MARCO TR Z1211 RICHMOND CIR 2410 FLORIDA ST PO BOX 5Z93 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92615 OZ519144 02519145 APPLICANT O'CONNOR,JIMMIE L VELASTEGUI,MARCO TR MEHDI BOLOURIRAD 29741 JAMAICA DUNES DR PO BOX 5293 19475 BEACH BOULEVARD TEHACHAPI CA 93561 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 02518222 15309105 15309106 CHASE,ROBERT C FREEDMAN,SAM F TR BAIER,BEVERLY A TR 19321 BEACH BLVD 1954Z BEACH BLVD 1200 N HARBOR BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ANAHEIM CA 92801 /3 /c( 15309117 02519103 02518204 HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTER STATE OF CALIFORNIA NO ADDRESS�VAILABLE 301 N NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 SACREMENTO CA Svc Pg,f eh-.Ao NOT /� — Aw 11ySIJPGieleNr RODYe85 17 15305114 15305115 15305116 CLAYTON,ROBERT W TR CLAYTON TRUST WINALL,STATIONS 4234 FLEETHAVEN RD 4234 FLEETHAVEN RD 1338 E 29TH ST LAKEWOOD CA 90712 LAKEWOOD CA 90712 LONG BEACH CA 90806 15305117 02518221 MAP PREPARER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH KOWN HUN S FOOTHILL PROJECT MGT CITY HALL 9442 HYANNIS PORT DR 117-1/2 28TH STREET HUNTINGTN BCH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 7� l4aaager of Vans ( Manager of Newland Cleaners ( Manager of Palmyra Market 19541 Beach Blvd. 19539 Beach Blvd. 19533 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.926478 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Julian's Manager of Larry's Manager of 94 Video 19521 Beach Blvd. 19523 Beach Blvd. 19525 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Von Dutch Manager of Nady's Liquor Manager of 1 st Choice Flowers 712 Yorktown Ave. 19490 Beach Bl vd. 19488 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Rose Cleaners Manager of Fiesta Grill Mananger of Yorktown Barber 19486 Beach Blvd. 19484 Beach Blvd. 19482 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of American motorcycle Manager of Lucky's John Bar Dino's Pizza 19480 Beach Blvd. 19476 Beach Blvd. 19478 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach.CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Dynasty Hair&Nails 19527 Beach Blvd. •025-180-26 025-180-27 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Coker,Robert Cherney,Michael 2567 Danville,Blvd. 1118 Park St. Alamo,CA. 94507 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 025-180-33 Hooker,Lorene 16941 Sims. St.#B Huntington Beach,CA. 92649 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE I) (APPEAL: Appellant/Applicant: Come Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot ,two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Proiect Planner: Joe Thompson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (PERFORMNACE SALES PHASE M (APPEAL: Appellant/Applicant: Come Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot _ two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Proiect Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 14, 1999. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE (APPEAL): Appellant/A�plicant: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot , two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (PERFORMNACE SALES PHASE H) (APPEAL): ADDellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot _ two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 14, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 V Y" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 23, 1999 Mr. Mehdi Bolouriad Performance Sales & Leasing 19475 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Bolouriad: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 1999 denied the appeal for Conditional Use Permit 98-62 and for Conditional Use Permit 98-85 with Findings and Conditions for denial as set forth in (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated July 19, 1999. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have . ninety days from July 23, 1999 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:jc Enclosure: Findings for Denial Government Code 1094.6 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Joe Thompson, Planning Aide Scott Hess, Principle Planner Come Kates, Foothill Project Management g:/fo11owup\)etters190dayhr (Telephone:714-536-5227) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 MDINGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERlNIIT NO. 98-62: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for nineteen (19) display vehicles in conjunction of a 2,437 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. Further, due to the height of 27 feet for the proposed building and the high profile (seven (7) feet) feet of the types of vehicles that are being sold, visibility to the retail center located directly behind the subject site will be greatly reduced. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed drive aisle width does not meet the minimum requirements as stated in the HBZSO. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99sr17)—4/27/99 Attachment No. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FL'DINGS FOR DENLAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 I`Mr1 GS FOR DENLAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction of a 1,741 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (BBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, and other minimum requirements of the HBZSO have been provided 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU S.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2,3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99SR1S)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1.1 '=SO_UTION NO. 4723 A RESO_UTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF . HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING SECTION 1094 .6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH ESTAB- LISHES A TI%W LIMITATION FOR SEEKING REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS t�..' is:^n�a Co:. . Of Ci J= i _ :vCcdur2 Section"HE SAS, 1094 . 6 provides tha_ a time limitation of ninety (90) days may be established for seeking judicial review of administrative determinations of a local agency , or any co nissjon, board, officer or agent thereof; and Section 1094 . 6(g) provides for applicability of the entire section only where specifically adopted by the local agency' s governing board through ordinance or resolution; and The city continually experiences untimely lawsuits which are difficult and costly to defend and which are based on stale and groundless claims ; and It appearing to the Council that adoption of Section 1094 .6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure would result in a sub- stantial cost saving to" the city , -NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it does hereby adopt Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, establishing for this city a limitation of ninety (90) days in which to seek judicial review of an administrative determination rendered by" this Council, or any of the city' s boards , commissions , officers or agents . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March 1979. ATTEST : ' Mayor City Clerk WSA:ahb 1 . 2/16/79 Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1O94.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or i its commission, board, officer, or agent, all ,written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for nio record ns specified in culxlivisinn (c) within 10 tla,ys afleI the d:llr the decision becomes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (b), tlu' tulle within which it petition pursuant to SCCtion 109•1.5 inay he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the ditto on whic:ll the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, if he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined.in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable.... If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976,"c.276, p. 581, § 1.) Forms See West'), Califoruix Code Forma, Civil Procedure. Library References Adritinistnttive Law anti I'rocclurr C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 193. Notes of Decisions " In general I Iimt public cmplovtncnt relatlotts i-onra Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 Iota rxt•Insivu juri,,tliation to dutr.rmine whrt.hrr the unfair itruedce chnrgem were Itistifit•tl: rani, in view of teechers' failure to exhimst their ntltninintrative remedies I. In general under the Itodtla Act. trial court erred in Nchnnl haurd'N "unilntterul frrrr.itig of granting writ of mandate to compel >;uprr- tt•ntlu;r.' Mnlnrivs sifter beginning of nc"• intembvtt of dintricl and olher.4 to"ruixr rrhnnl yenr. while rantrnt•I url;ntill tiortx Knlnri•s of rerrctin trcncheru. Atnndor Val- wery peaQing. nrlombly was no unfair b•v Stv tminry halut•ntorr Axs'u t. NI`wiitt pructice it' vlulutiuu of the ltuddit Act W, (1070) 151 Cul.Itvtr. 724, 88 (..A.3d 25.1. 675 i i i a § 1094.5 S11MAI, PItOCEEDIi\CS Part 3 Note 378 :t.:mdoil for n,•tr Irinl de not:,. Pr•snrnl Initw,l rontr. :..:innt r i:nd ou juri-li,•tion ('ulifortin Viw::'•;,IoYinvut ht . .\l,pvnls 1W. mod ditl not ,ir;rrntiur wvritx, Western Air (l )id) 127 CnI.Rptr, 1700. 57 ['..\.a(l '-'.a. blots lilt•, v. Noltietki (Il)til) 32 cal.ltptr. Trial court's jud;zim-ni ih•u'ing writ n( 71f1, 191 ('.:\: d 3110. n:nntlnre. to t:omipcl director rtf n.rivulhtrc hilt-[ that. letter dixchargiug xenior typ. to set nxi,le hi, lt•visioii rvviiking pothirtil- ist el--rk in offivv n( room) vIvrk stiitctl vr's lict-niv ❑s nircrafr pilot it, hnxiorxs n( Iltnt shr tc::.. �:ttill.y of misrunduct in rc- ;test runtrol u•n, rcrrxrd untl vaso r• utovin;; lmhiiv revurds from thm files and utnndctl In trial court vrilh dir•t•tiuus to nuttilaring u::1 vrrrc::ttz their[ on various rtvnand (-list: to dirt•c-tor fur purposv t,f dutex, wlieno^.x it, hearing heforo county 1 r-nnxiticring the pruult}- pr,•viously im• vicil s,•rvicr commission rtitlrnee tt•n.v ill- posed, where it wns found tiro[ some of tro,luced onl_; Its to whit took Place on rht: charges a;;:urxr petitioner wcrn not one of ihr 1:ites, [lid t,ot require the dis- xol-ported Iry cvi-tcnce. \\'iagfiebl v. I ric•r court ,:' npl,nal on ::1.Iu n1 from ju,t,- Direc•tor of A;riculture (11172) 103 Ual. meat nnvrtii g senior tYpi-t clerk writ of l:ptr.619, n C.A.3d 2W. mandnte. nfrrr rrversing tl:o judgmeut of Proceeding 'of review of rlvnial by rout- the superior ,•nurr, to remind the ntutrer missioner of rorponttions of permit to to the t, n::::issinn for rr-•onsideration, rl:r.ngc votin;; ril;hts of s arnhohlvrs wltcrr•. rhvre was n si.t:;il:trity of facts sur- h would he rctnnr,�lyd to superior court for rounding rrn:mai o,, tiw dot•uments on :ill of the dohs. Prxti v. Loy .\ugeles Uoun- rlcterevide inn whether their. tens suhxt:ut rc Civil ",•rvirc Co:nmixsiou (1902) 238 tiul evidence ro support uinunisaiouer's 1'.3d'3, lUJ C.A:_>d 113. fiudings, wliere court improperly deter- § 1094.6. Judicial review; decislons of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and fiarty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a la[.al agency, other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, of of any commission, board, officer or agent thk roof, may be had pursuant to Section 1091 i ) of this code only if the petition for writ;of mandate pursurint w such section is filed :, ithin the time limits:specified in this section. (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision Ln any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisi,> is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision [or reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsidera- tion can be. sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- ant to.any such provision the decision is final for the purposes.of this ection on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c•) The complete rvvord of the proce,edi.ngs shall lx' prepared by Itle local ;I-elic•,y or' ils [•olmnis!.-ion, bo ird, officer, or agent which mode the decision and shrill he [ir.livered to the petitioner within 90 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record, Such record shall include the tran- Script of tht: proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any Proposed decision by a healing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 A .Z.e.[PFSICY- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9 J. 77)oMOSaJ-PI�4hni�q MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b Y Council/Agency Meeting Held: De rred/Continued to: Ap rov d onditio II A r ved I.-Denied lty lerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: July 19, 1999 Department ID Number: PL 99-40b 7o Ain Y Co�irielnr�L use P e.r» ��" /�p� w,'h` FiN6iN6s >�W CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEr aer�eNrnc�tr of-/�A y4e X0 v-*5` REQUEST FOR ACTION foR L'a Un�i�AeTi O/Y�9-reZ �VaY/9i /?". SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator&fra/ PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director SUBJECT: DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (APPEAL) (PERFORMANCE SALES AND LEASING). Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mehdi Bolouriad, business owner of Performance Sales and Leasing, of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85. This application represents a request to establish an automobile dealership on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. The appeal for the conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with the appeal for Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62, which is located on the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue but is operated as a single business entity. The proposed automobile dealership at this location includes a new two (2) story 1,741 square foot building and exterior parking for 17 display vehicles. The subject conditional use permit is a result of actions taken by the Code Enforcement Division. The Planning Commission denied the request and is recommending (Recommended Action) denial because they determined that the proposed use was incompatible with the surrounding uses and the growing business should relocate to an area where there would be less impacts to adjacent businesses. Staff is recommending denial because of incompatibility to surrounding uses and safety concerns for dealership staff and customers who are required to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both lots. PL99-40B -2- 07/12/99 8:08 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Mehdi Bolouriad, 19475 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 5, 1999 July 5, 1999 (For PC Hearing) The Planning Commission reviewed and denied the request on April 27, 1999, which is in compliance with the mandatory processing date to the Planning Commission. The request was subsequently appealed on May 7, 1999. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 represents a request by Mehdi Bolouriad to permit construction of a new automobile sales building. The proposed two (2) story 1,741 square foot building includes 470 square feet of interior sales space, 171 square feet of office space, 900 square feet of storage space on the second story, and exterior parking for 17 display vehicles and 13 customer/ sales staff on an 18,900 square foot lot. This conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 (19501 Beach Blvd.) and will be presented concurrently. The applicant requests to operate the car sales lot from two separate properties located on the northwest and southwest corners of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. B. BACKGROUND The applicant applied for and was granted a certificate of occupancy for Performance Sales and Leasing located at 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) on July 21, 1997. The certificate of occupancy stipulated that the applicant could not display more than two (2) for-sale vehicles on site at any one time. An initial code enforcement citation was issued to the applicant on March 16, 1998 for the display of eighteen (18) vehicles. The citation required the applicant to remove the excess vehicles within five (5) calendar days or apply for a conditional use permit as required for establishment of car dealerships per Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Due to non-compliance of the initial citation, three subsequent citations and a letter from the City Attorney's office were issued before submittal of the conditional use permit application requesting establishment of an auto dealership. PL99-40B -4- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b On July 20, 1998, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application for the establishment of a car dealership at 19501 Beach Boulevard (southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue). The applicant's intention was to expand the existing dealership from the northwest corner to the southwest corner. The building and site plans submitted with the conditional use permit application reflected use of the existing gas station building (at the southwest corner) and incorrectly stated the lot's property lines, as well as being grossly inadequate regarding scale, circulation, and site and building design. On November 30, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for expansion and establishment of a car dealership on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue at 19475 Beach Boulevard. The applicant requested demolition of the existing single-story office building and construction of a new two-story dealership building. Again, the plans were inadequate in regard to dimensions, on-site circulation, and site and building design. After several meetings with the applicant's agent and insistence by staff to hire a qualified licensed architect, a more acceptable set of revised plans for 19475 and 19501 Beach Boulevard were submitted March 9, 1999. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On April 27, 1999 the Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 as well as the accompanying Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62. The Commission indicated that the proposed site was not in compliance with the General Plan. In addition, it was not the place for the type of growing successful business like the applicant seems to have and that another location would be better suited for the proposed use with less impacts to the surrounding area. The applicant and applicant's representative, Corrie Kates of Foothill Project Management, spoke at the meeting in support of the project. Steve Schumm, a dentist who operates his business in the adjacent office suite at 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) spoke in opposition of the project. His concerns include the car carrier delivery truck parking on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and its adverse impact on safety and traffic, jaywalking between the two (2) dealership lots, the high profile vehicles for sale that presently block visibility to surrounding businesses, and the negative impacts that would be caused by the noise, parking, and aesthetics of the proposed dealership. Leslie Zahedi, owner of the Huntington Suites Motel, located at 727 Yorktown Avenue and adjacent to the lot at the northwest corner, spoke in opposition of the project. Her concerns included the car carrier delivery truck parking on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and its adverse impacts on safety and the limited access to her business it provides when parked in the middle of Yorktown Avenue, and inadequate parking, stating that dealership customers often park in the motel's parking lot. PL99-40B -5- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 3 of 14 and that we were pre-judged without proper advisement and the ability to develop solutions. Nor did the staff develop conditions to respond to the known concerns, or to recommend a continuance to review the additional concerns. It seemed that the PC had closed their minds with regard to the proposed development. Staff Review and Report When we initially started the review process staff was excited and helpful to assist the applicant through this long process. We are also very complimentary to the staff for the help and assistance through the process. However, it would seem that a couple of weeks prior to the meeting that something changed and staff was now going to recommend denial. We are not certain, but we feel as if one of the commissioners led staff to deny versus giving sound solutions to the concerns that would mitigate. any issues. We were not afforded the opportunity to consider and propose alternatives so as to provide possible solution scenarios. Then if these were not technically advisable then we would accept a denial. But we were not given that opportunity. Detailed below are the concerns and solutions for the inception of the proposed development. Commissioner Biddle Commissioner Biddle had concerns with regard to soil clean up. This can be handled as a condition of approval and will be part of the demolition and construction process. Letter from Tenants at commercial center Detailed below are the questions raised by the commercial center tenants as it relates to the site addressed as 19501 Beach Boulevard. Question Display area is limited. Answer/Solution That is true for the current facility. However with the new design and the demolition of the building it will allow for improved circulation, parking, and display area. Thereby, there will be adequate on-site customer, employee and display parking. The City can also impose a condition of approval that will allow a maximum number of display vehicles as part of the CUP process. Question Performance is using the commercial center for parking their vehicles ATTACHI MENT Nth. 2.3 On November 30, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for expansion and establishment of a car dealership on the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue at 19475 Beach Boulevard. The applicant requested demolition of the existing single-story office building and construction of a new two-story dealership building. Again, the plans were inadequate in regard to dimensions, on-site circulation, and site and building design. After several meetings with the applicant's agent and insistence by staff to hire a qualified licensed architect, another revised set of plans for 19475 and 19501 Beach Boulevard were submitted March 9, 1999. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and the Land Use Element designation of Commercial General on the subject property, including: A. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. B. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the CG(Commercial General)Zone. Minimum drive aisle width requirements are subject to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed project does not comply with minimum drive aisle width. The following is a zoning conformance matrix, which compares the proposed project with Section 231.04 (Parking Standards); and Section 211.06 (CG Districts Development Standards) of the HBZSO. > OP 8- :::::; '>:::>:S':::i:i:;:}:::.�;;;::;:•:%;;%x»i>i::i:::<q::i>i>i>>::>i>:.;r::•:::iii;:;y;:::»i:i;::::i:i>i:i:s ::::o:t>;:.::>::.ii>}»i:: �::: yi"::'.'i':i':: Y" �{ 211.06 Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 18,900 square feet 211.06 Maximum .35 (6,615 sq. ft). .09 (1,741 sq. ft. building) Density/Intensity AR 211.06 Minimum Frontage 100 ft. 155 ft. 211.06 Maximum Height 50 feet/2 stories (measured from 27 ft. /2 stories top of curb 211.06 Setback(Front 10 feet 56 ft. building Yard)Beach Blvd. No.Al 11AUMV14- Staff Report—4/27/99 4 (99SR18) C, 211.06 Setback (Side Yard) 10 feet 46 ft. building Yorktown Ave. 211.06 Setback (Rear Yard) Zero lot line 48 ft. (27 ft. from fire access alley easement 231.04 Parking 13 spaces 231.14 Drive Aisle Width 26 ft. min. 27 ft. 211.06 Landscaping All setback areas fronting on or 14% (2,773 sq. ft.) visible from an adjacent street— All setback areas are 8% (1,512 sq. ft.)Planters landscaped. All planters adjacent to streets minimum 10 adjacent to streets are min. feet in width. 10 feet in width. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act states"for urbanized areas, projects are categorically exempt when commercial buildings are built on sites zoned for such use, and if they are designed so that occupant load is of 30 persons or less if not constructed in conjunction with the building of four or more structures and if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed the project on Thursday, April 8, 1999 and continued the item, requiring the applicant to provide a colors and materials palette The item was continued until the first scheduled meeting after Planning Commission has heard the development proposal. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Building, Public Works, Fire, and.Police have recommended conditions should the Planning Commission approve the proposed conditional use permit and that would be incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Economic Development Department has no concerns. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on April 15, 1999, and notices were sent to tenants and property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, the applicant, and interested parties. As of April 20, 1999, one verbal comment was received, not in support of the proposed project. ATTACHMENT NO. 3, Staff Report—4/27/99 5 (99SR18) ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project and has identified the primary issues that are discussed below. Land Use/General Plan Compatibility Due to the relatively small size of the lot(18,900 square feet), as compared to new-car dealerships (ranging from approximately 175,000 square feet [DeLillo Chevrolet] to 280,000 square feet [York Ford]), and used car-dealerships (73,610 square feet [Action Motors] and 43,142 [Enterprise Car Sales]) in the City, inadequate space is available on-site to accommodate the automobile delivery truck. Currently, the automobile carrier truck, delivering additional pre-owned vehicles being offered for sale, must park on the Yorktown painted median between the north and south dealership locations. Newly arrived automobiles are off-loaded from the truck directly on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and driven to either of the two locations. Thirteen (13) customer parking spaces are provided. Currently, there is a sales staff of two employees. The applicant has not provided the projected number of sales and administrative staff they will have when the new buildings are constructed. The General Plan encourages the development of an"Automobile Overlay District"that consolidates existing automobile dealerships and accommodates additional dealerships within the same district. Viable commercial districts necessitate the clustering of compatible uses in limited areas, rather than dispersing them along different parts of a commercial corridor. The General Plan's "Automobile Overlay District" is located on the north side of Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The intent of the General Plan is to afford opportunities for existing and newly proposed automobile dealerships to consolidate within the automobile overlay district provided for in the General Plan. The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan. Safety As previously mentioned, the subject dealership is located on two (2) corner lots separated by Yorktown Avenue. Although each location includes a sales office within their respective two-story buildings, this arrangement requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue in order to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. The dealership's physical arrangement, therefore, poses undue risk to anyone having to leave one location to access the other. Additionally, the automobile carrier delivery truck poses an undue risk to vehicular traffic on Yorktown Avenue. Staff has viewed the truck off-loading automobiles during mid-afternoon, when traffic is especially heavy. t`1Vi iY 1 , Staff Report—4/27/99 6 (99SR18) SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit, based on the following • The project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, which encourages clustering of new and existing automobile dealerships within a defined automobile district. • Because the proposed dealership is divided into two (2) separate locations, undue risk is suffered by customers and the dealership sales staff when crossing Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles being offered for sale. • The site does not have adequate square footage to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck, which must off-load vehicles onto the Yorktown Avenue painted median. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Denial 2. Vicinity Map 3. Site plan and elevations received and dated March 26, 1999 4. Narrative HZ:JT:kjl AT �A ENT NO. 3 Staff Report—4/27/99 7 (99SR18) i ^ t Mer •1 C � - ' i / •� I PROJECT SITE IVO.RA%b GRAN'. Owfl. AVE- •�ATI'@10 " NA7f8 ! . %%ILL'IAIw . : = G LLij TrlfR / �CC y POLK Q 7 rORRTOWN. • 1 r OCA L.•D - VICINITY MAP CONDITIONAL USE PEFMT NO. 98-85, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH T� FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS Area Description Beach Boulevard bounds the property to the East,Yorktown to the North and the commercially zoned property's to the West and South along Beach Boulevard. Additionally the properties across Beach Boulevard are also commercially zoned. The site is zoned Commercial General (CG) and was used as,a Gasoline Service station. Directly adjacent to the property West&South is a strip commercial development consisting of convenience stores and ancillary retail and food services with appropriate parking. Across Yorktown Avenue to the North are strip type commercial and office uses that face onto Beach Boulevard. Across Beach Boulevard is a Carl's JR and similar commercial uses. Survey of Area Population The properties immediately behind the commercially zoned property's that abut Beach Boulevard are typically residential uses. They consist of Single Family and Multi-family residential lots. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the existing commercial establishments and residential areas. The proposed Sales and Leasing facility will increase revenue to the area uses such as food and retails sales of merchandise. Description of Protect The proposed project will encompasses the old Mobile Oil Service Station. The site is approximately 140"x140'or 19600 SF or.449 acres. The proposal will remove the gasoline tanks and soil remidiation will occur to clarify the soil from any petroleum contaminants. Additionally, the proposal is to utilize the exiting building to use for ancillary offices and storage. No :-.rair or service of the vehicles is to be conducted on site. Performance Sales and Leasing prdes itself ire carving only the finest in pre-owned vehicles and primarily supplies the consumer with Sport Utility Vehicles. The site as shown on the site plan will allow for on-site customer parking and on-site display of vehicles for Lease of Sale. Detailed below are the proposed hours of operation Days Time Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Saturday 9,00 AM to 9:00 PM Sunday 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM Performance Sales and Leasing has four(4)full-tirne employees Surrounding Uses The property is located in the Commercial General Zone and is adjacent to similar commercial uses. The property in question is located at the Southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Toxic Waste and or Hazardous Materials Site The site has had some soil contamination from the previous use and is currently going under soil remidiation by the property owner. As to other known toxic wastes and materia's we are not aware of the presence of any other such materials except for the petroleum remidiation. 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277) _.:-- ........................................................................................:..:... A 4 t . ........................................................................................... µENS' 4........ RE: APPEAL OF PC 'ORMANCE SALES AND LEASIN( PAGE 1 OF 2 IN SUPPORT FOR DENIAL OF CUP ' S #98-62 AND 98-85 1 . DOES ,NOT CONFORM TO .THE GENERAL PLAN A. DOES NOT CONFORM TO •PROVISIONS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. B. IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE ELEMENT OF CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) . C. LOT SIZE (APPROXIMATELY •18 , 000 SQ. FT. ) IS INADEQUATE FOR THIS TYPE AND VOLUME OF BUSINESS ( SMALLEST CAR DEALER IN THE CITY IS . OVER 43 , 000 SQ. FT. ) . 2. SAFETY CONCERNS A. TWO SITE ARRANGEMENT INCREASES RISK TO CUSTOMERS AND STAFF. B. "J" WALKING HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AND WOULD LIKELY INCREASE DUE TO CLOSURE OF THE DRIVEWAYS ON YORKTOWN THAT ARE CLOSEST TO BEACH BLVD. C. VEHICLE DELIVERY TRUCK PARKS ILLEGALLY AND PRESENTS A SERIOUS SAFETY RISK AS LOT SIZE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR .ON SITE .OFFLOADING . D. HIGH PROFILE OF VEHICLES BLOCKS VIEW OF TRAFFIC AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BLVD. AND YORKTOWN . 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS A. . SOUTH SITE IS CONTAMINATED. B. NORTH SITE ( ALSO A FORMER GAS STATION ) HAS NOT BEEN EVALUATED FOR TANKS IN THE GROUND OR CONTAMINATION. C. NORTH SITE IS ILLEGALLY SPLICED INTO CITY SEWER SYSTEM VIA AN ADJOINING BUSINESS ( HUNTINGTON SUITES HOTEL ) . 4. IMPACT ON SURROUNDING BUSINESSES A. TWO STORY BUILDING AND HIGH PROFILE OF VEHICLES DECREASES VISIBILITY OF ALL OTHER TENANTS . B. PARKING HAS BEEN AND WOULD LIKELY CONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM. C. NOISE AND ODORS FROM REPAIRS , INSTALLATIONS AND PAINTING DISRUPT NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES . D. ALL ADJACENT BUSINESS OWNERS ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. SUMMARY: THE APPLICANT. HAS BEEN A VERY INCONSIDERATE NEIGHBOR TO ALL ADJACENT BUSINESSES . NEITHER LAND OWNER NOW SUPPORTS THIS ATTACHME-ANT NO. , l PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH CITY CODES AND HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION EVERY DAY SINCE JULY 21 , 1997 AND CONTINUES TO BE IN VIOLATION ASOF THIS D.ATE.- CITATIONS 1_ ISSUED BY.-..'THE CITY ' S CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND NO CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT IN THE ALMOST TWO YEARS THAT THEY HAVE CONDUCTED BUSINESS . I URGE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER TO -CONSULT WITH THEIR PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY' S PLANNING -DEPARTMENT AS TO THEIR REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING *DENIAL OF THE APPLICANTS PERMITS . IN LIGHT OF THE APPLICANTS PAST BEHAVIOR ' AND FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED ABOVE. IT WOULD, IN MY OPINION , BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO DENY THE APPEAL OF PERFORMANCE SALES AND LEASING THAT IS BEFORE YOU. DATE: JUNE 25 , 1999 SINCERELY, STEVE SCHUMM TENANT AT 19471 BEACH BLVD. PS . IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS , PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME AT MY OFFICE. ( 714) 536-9331 AT_rA(; -imL_.fi ; NU. a. 19525 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 April 27, 1999 To the City of Huntington Beach To Whom It May Concern As a businessman in the area, I have some concerns regarding the building in question. First of all, in May of 1998, when the gas station closed down, the new tenant did some construction work that dug the sewer up. This prevented my customers from entering my store. 1 dealt with the owner, and he told me to close my doors. I am concerned that the construction of the new building will create a similar situation. I cannot just close my business at the whims of the new owner. Last year, I asked the city if this was a legal procedure, but I never received a response. Second of all, because of the new business there are not enough parking spaces for customers. There are only 32 spaces for parking, but the new business has over 40 cars everyday. Where do you expect our customers to park? Furthermore, this situation Is worsened during the weekends. How do you expect our business to profit from this? Third of all, there are huge containers in the back of their store, but the front of ours, that contains junk. It blocks our view, and lowers the standards of our store. I creates an atmosphere that is not pleasing to the customers. If the new building is built,there will be more containers. Lastly,the new building will block the view of our stores from Beach Boulevard. The customers will not be able to see our store any more. I hope you take these aspects into account. I oppose the construction of the new building. Sincerely, Charles Tu Owner of Lany"s Chicken I i I I I TLA I E s b(o(::,Lc � - - - - -- �t e o .t s _ vt .. - at Fc, Or 42 c � A T TAC�i�LNT . I --- ---=�S-�-h-�-SSA-----��---= - -- - � O. �_��._�o�C�1!1_- .��..Q•t���Qw _.. _ _ _. -----�--- S LC o CA 4tLt ce n ed i ATTACHMENT NO. e _tt --- - ---- - -- _ � --- '�---f --- v c� ocod � � r ---- 4-a- r(� L- -- —,--� P�.�P v1-----n - _ ot - ----------- ---- ------ - ---------------- a /_ _, ------------�I - h - --- ----- - --- U-UhAt" OWN " «XI ) 96fl - ATTAr ENT No. i CI'z"Y OF IBC---N 'I'O B AC t I I�T'�G }5 OF JB ,ZC y F . :,::,:r'::�:::;.;:::,:.:,,;;::....:.::.. - -..:..::,:.:.•.:.:....:.:...,.,.::.,..::;..:..::..:....:}..:..;5a..at.-:..'r,t52 .::t:..:a:%t;;.:S.,-:.;.::.,;a;:.:•a}S}.:;:5•:;:,5 .:�. $ .: FJL�i.lJL-ia/Y •.V..• ��L�.]til►-Jtii►JA:J• ...t •t: t Y :Y'pu.aretB. � n........thiS.Notice_of—01j. :�ennnebecause.you.:eithcr:o�ti`n`hropertt airc,a resident;or corziluct• usiri ::b... ...ess.::... 21-14 close ro�imity ofabe.etem,checked be7osti, "The Plann�i�g Comnussion.Puhhe 2Iezr2ng is,scLe¢uled.for ' : : s P :.......... ...:.......... ; ...........::: ::•::::..;................;......................................... ..... ....................... ..... esdar:'Anril 27 `1999 € .. . . ... :1YHERE-:: City Counal.Chambers:Hunfineton Beach Genc.Center;2000 M:un Street,�IuntinRtou Belch CA"92G48` ::.. ...................................... . ....................................... .............. .. ................................ .. .o'u::a.."r.•h".t"."i.:s.:.:.:.:no:..::o.:.::.h.•.:.c.:.::..:.:.:.:.:o.::,r.:.:;.:.jm..:.:.:.:;:..:.:,:.:.:..t.,..t...:.:.:.:.:.:. " .....:..}...:..•.:::...."TRSED:PEONS.a :mrZtedto Press;oP:m . lo as:g•r#;sne6pmeu.?iitIier•h� ..a.....:b eehan.n.c..nc:..:.. '.brI0,,.f ::::.::.... PI i '.... e araeiU-20uegharing: :'ek::::::':::::..,..e a Abe a '1'licatiF ...:. f .... tl " :: orez tcbl8 G sion'unfl Bh Ga c . ..........uw m .... c .. ..,•..:.:::::::::: ti.nn............:......:: :.::} di ) . ,. ... h. ePonctenc G R6i h : 5m ' t� ` IitbIfg e haW':1 :-:: n t ne caioue....... m 5a2 ......_.. 131. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-79 (THE LEARNING CIRCLE): Applicant: Judith Coglianese &Kellie Gillespie Reouest: To operate a day care program for up to 120 children within the five(5) classrooms in Building No..3 and an ancillary office in Building No. 4 of the Pleasant. View school. The proposal also includes the use of up to 20%compact parking as part of the re- striping of the existing school parking lot. Location: 16692 Landau Lane(at its intersection with Royal Drive) Project Planner. Ricky Ramos I . j92. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-62(PERFORMANCE SALES-PHASE I): Applicant: Come Kates Re uest: To establish a 2,437 square foot, two (2)story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.98-85(PERFORMANCE SALES-PHASE II): Applicant: Come Kates Reguest: To establish a 1,741 square foot,two(2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. 'Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson is NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Items#1, #2 and#3 are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. C---C,'-� C E+ r.- _ L E c V� - �S PF r ..::. ,.... ........." ..................... ................. ..:.......................... ...............,.,,.... .5.,.. ....,...... .... ON FILES A€co ':hf:thestaft:re oct:isill.b.e available to uiterested part,cs: t::the,City.�sf;Huri'tiri all �ii Ptaiii ing a. 5:::' ...... as. SC`.. to .€A rit .�}. l: �I�•��Tailiei�t��• ,.�"`ii'c�"��f r �:I .g9 :..:.b a' X ,c j: It°. ...a................... ............ ..,.. } s p. ::,s: ]. :_}; ::j:i ::Y: e`b ::Y.: :� 2 i S:l:: •:.}�: ::}:}:::::....}::::}:... of �a- :}:: 7`. S: s >}a::sa:::�: 'ice .�+ .. S.s.et. .5•` ::Y.: ��as' Q Y :: :: "'t ::ach: lane n: ::o ':a: €€ € s€€€'ss 'sags: �•uri•'ri o' •�C sa• .................................................................................... .. ...:..: ::.:::........:::..... ...........................:....................................................... #. � ......... . .. sty..,,...................:.........................:......:.: .. :�: f 0 in` trcet l) a S € 4.. :, .........-..................:...... ......................... r.... }_ :�.. rif .0 u :................. �eac A Q o b.. •::s S s •'s'•. :'•r •3•:'........... 1��•�S 6-5Z�- b�vx,� 4j- ` ii V% c- ATTACHMENT NO. '1 (99LG042 n J U �`„� ,. I Il/1 V�l,\ til_ Z '�� TAC [LED:3 4b s i i gal Co eoo MMON f7 [D EYES 0 w.1�MA Ti ' Q L7- A7ACHMtN-f' Nu- .Q- c c Mid aw- 00 EI S ai 8 r �I gg i . fa�.a.s �IIII El o io 1 � a�!1ION 3E*f� 11 Milli1�1i l �l�1dlr t I ._. -------- ------------------------------------------ 10� � a Q I I m } I I ;' ATTACHMt f NO. exterior Plaster exteror Plaster exterior Plaster Dashed Mn Smooth Pin ColoDashed Pin S12i110rd Color. ¢e- Cofoh wrote ' !° Wh 1e0n118rd 0 BTCIT1 ects ' namerrarm . huxoesEm.ewama , p Paalrnwn O (� rarpgrnsar Metal Min Rating. 4 ``°'er°k we MUMM and.ar� Foothill Project Metal Pipe Rating, Nemgemmd AAam Storefront �n�mrans..+ . � 19akong �r.rons..eareaaar Colon Skm Tekm Tint Golon ewe East Elevation North Elevation PwbTnwm Setae ' e..e�awarru.a. Exterior Plaster exterior Plaster Dashed PN Dashed Pin .01m rtldte Color'nhlte CONSULTANTS _s m ram:aroma are o»4ow aruc:w•.re W avtcrrmc II Emterlor Oavallors Phasa 2 r West Elevation South Elevation o_.._.�..�.q..1 � e mi z C t ; 01 stanford Giecerfcat 1 Telephone M leonhard Fowls © architects r�naew-..wram . IwrsEvm.uaam , paq flaws � ,, r i .Storage FAX oe""ar •in r ofRCo , i 'Unisex ri 9mlz 1 1 r y— .staVu a„ 1 C �II AbOVa sales Area I I 1 iI an*dF 1 FoothM Protect Management _�_- /lftaswar I t Perforl m"Sales e•.e�lwaafrr.��.. Iaw�pma�r�G First Floor Scale:vas=r-oa Duct space CONSULTANTS i i �= _ Ladder to Roof y 1 Roof Access �p,ti.- 1 1 storage 1 *conyraoa aaaoa 1 DATE MUM 61,11E.tw-1.O I! 7EWcorly 61EErTM ;;;: > L�-= 11----- -I Floor Plan '-1 ---- - Phasaz ._ —— 1 Q IEValeltl To[Er rrt Second Floor scale:,/aa=,/-w O r Connie Brockway,City Clerk . City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 15305117 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY HALL HUNTINGTN BCH CA 92646 s �e �al1VT1 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING y y s 4 t 11 lilt!i'!I!�il i!1!!1 li�l!�!Itli�f�kl�!�!4tt�ik!!II It It HIM r REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadline Department 'j?jA a(,,� Subject L �^t ' Council Meeting Date:1 III Date of This Request: REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): �► ADD EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): (�C. / ,J <A SAA— CONSEQUENCES (How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): dL Sig Approved O Denied Z Aw - 1iepa0m'eTrCHead , Ray Silver City Administrator PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OFCAUFORNIA) SS. County of Orange ) NOTICE'OF proposed requests are on' am a Citizen of the United States and a PUBLIC HEARING file in the Community De BEFORE THE:CITY velopment Department, resident of the County aforesaid; I am COUNCIL OF'FHE 2000 Main Street, Hunt. , ington Beach, California CITY OF . over the age of eighteen years, and not a _HUNTINGTON BEACH 92648, for inspection- by the public. A copy of the party to or interested in the below NOTICE IS. HEREBY staff report will be available GIVEN that on Monday, to interested parties at.City entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of July 19, 1999, at ou PM i Hall or the Main City Li- in the City Council brary (7111 Talbert Ave- , 2000 Mainthe HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a Strreet,bers Huntington Beach, n ALL INTERESTE pDPER- newspa er of general circulation, printed the City Council will hold a. SONS are invited to attend public hearing on the fol- said hearing and express and published in the City of Huntington lowing item: opinions or submit evi- CONDITIONAL USE ; dence for or against the ap- PERMIT NO. 98-62(PER- plication as outlined above. Beach/ County of Orange/ State of FORMANCE SALES If you challenge the City .PHASE 1) (APPEAL): Ap- . Council's action in court, California and that attached Notice is a pellanUAppothill: Come you may be limited a ryou / Kates; Foothill Project ing only those issues you true and complete copy as was printed pealMan of he Planning theor public else raised at peal of the Planning Com- the public=hearing de- mission's denial of a re- scribed in this notice,or in and published in the Huntington Beach quest to establish a 2,437 written correspondence square foot, two (2) story delivered to the City at, or and Fountain Valle issues of said auto sales facility on an prior to,the public hearing. Y .18,200 square foot lot.The If there are any.further newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: request includes 19 park- questions please call the ng spaces for display vehi- •Planning Division at cles and 14 parking spaces 536-5271 and refer to the for customers. Location: above item. Direct your 19501 Beach Boulevard written-communications to. (southwest corner of the City Clerk. _ Beach Boulevard and Connie Brockway, Yorktown Avenue)Project City Clerk Planner: CONDITIONAL psUSE Huntington on Beach July 8 , 1999 PERMIT NO. 98-85(PER- 2000 Mam Street FORMANCE SALES 2nd Floor PHASE II)(APPEAL):Ap- Huntington Beach pellant/Applicant Corrie California 92648 Kates, Foothill Project (714)536-5227 Management.Request:Ap- Published- Huntington' I declare, under penalty of perjury, that peal of the Planning Com- Beach-Fountain Valley In- mission's denial of-a re- dependent July 8, 1999 the foregoing is true and correct. quest to establish a 1,741 072-156 square foot,.two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot.The request includes 17 park- ing spaces for display vehi- Executed on July 8 199.s— i cles and 13 parking spaces / for customers.. Location: at Costa Mesa, California. 19475 Beach Boulevard (northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and. Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner; Joe Thompson ! NOTICE IS HEREBY, l GIVEN that the above i items are categorically ex- ` empt from the provisions of the California Environmen- tal Quality Act. -;. ON-FILE: A copy:of.the.. Signature F RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 Performance Sales and Leasing) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attome ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attome ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM• / �,-, ae.L ✓� � Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:_:kjl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 22, 1999 Performance Sales & Leasing 19475 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Bolouriad: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 1999, denied the appeal filed by Mehdi Bolouriad, Performance Sales and Leasing and upheld the Planning Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85, with Findings for Denial as set forth in (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated July 19, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at (714) 536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure: Findings and Conditions of Approval Cc: Joe Thompson, Planning Aide Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management g AfollowupVetters1091897 (Telephone:714-536.5227) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction of a 1,741 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, and other minimum requirements of the HBZSO have been provided 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99SR18)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1.1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 23, 1999 Mr. Mehdi Bolouriad Performance Sales & Leasing 19475 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Bolouriad: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, July 19, 1999 denied the appeal for Conditional Use Permit 98-62 and for Conditional Use Permit 98-85 with Findings and Conditions for denial as set forth in (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated July 19, 1999. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from July 23, 1999 to apply to the courts for judicial review. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:jc Enclosure: . Findings for Denial Government Code 1094.6 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Joe Thompson, Planning Aide Scott Hess, Principle Planner Come Kates, Foothill Project Management gAo11owup\1etters\90day1tr (Telephone:714-536-5227) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT NO. 98-62: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for nineteen (19) display vehicles in conjunction of a 2,437 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. Further, due to the height of 27 feet for the proposed building and the high profile (seven (7) feet) feet of the types of vehicles that are being sold, visibility to the retail center located directly behind the subject site will be greatly reduced. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will not comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed drive aisle width does not meet the minimum requirements as stated in the HBZSO. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99sr17)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1.1 ATTACHINIENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 FINDI\i TGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction of a 1,741 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, and other minimum requirements of the HBZSO have been provided 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99SR 18)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1 A `A ZL _UTION NO. 4723 A RESO::UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING SECTION 1094 .6 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH ESTAB- LISHES A TIME LIMITATION FOR SEEKING REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS I.HEREAS , the Cali=crnia Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094 . 6 provides that a time limitation of ninety (90) days may be established for seeking judicial review of administrative determinations of a local agency, or any commission, board, officer or agent thereof; and Section 1094. 6(g) provides for applicability of the entire section only where specifically adopted by the local agency' s governing board through ordinance or resolution; and The city continually experiences untimely lawsuits which are difficult and costly to defend and which are based on stale and groundless claims; and It appearing to the Council that adoption of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure would result in a sub- stantial cost saving to the city, -NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it does hereby adopt Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, establishing for this city a limitation of ninety (90) days in which to seek judicial review of an administrative determination rendered by this Council, or any of the city' s boards , commissions , officers or agents . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March 1979. ATTEST: ' jx,,; Mayor City Clerk WS A:a hb. 2/16/79 l ' Res. No. 4723 l STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTIVORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March 1979 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Yoder, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic. Siebert NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California r� Title 1 WRIT OF MANDATE § 1094.6 exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. (d) if the petitioner files a request fol• 11w record as specified in ;suhtlivision (c) within 10 days aflor tho date the decision becomes fi- nal as provided in subdivision (b), (hc' (fine within which a petition pursuant to Section 109'1.5 finny he filed shall he extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of rec- ord, If he has one. (e) As used in this section, decision means adjudicatory admin- istrative decision made, after hearing, suspending, demoting, or dis- missing an officer or employee, revoking or denying an application for a permit or a license, or denying an application for any retire- ment benefit or allowance. t (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision (e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision, "party" means an officer or em- ployee who has been suspended, demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit or license has been revoked or whose application for a permit or license has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied. (g) This section shall be applicable in a local agency only if the governing board thereof adopts an ordinance or resolution making this section applicable... If such ordinance or resolution is adopted, the provisions of this section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter. (Added by Stats.1976, c.276,p. 681, § 1.) Forms See West'x califorccia Code Forma, Civil Procedure. Library References Adndii4trntive Law curd Provetihtre C.J.S. Public Adminirtrative Bodies and 0-722. 1'roc:edurc § 193. Notes of Decisions In general I that Ilttblic crolclovincnt rellttlonx boltrtl Exhaustion of administrative remedies 2 lout ext•Inxivb jurisdiction to determine whrlher the unfair pruclice eltnrt;ex were Jnetified: and, in view of teRcherx' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies t. In general tcuder tltc Rodtht Av[. trial court erred in \rhool baurd'x "vnilnt-sntl fri-vAtig of g ranting writ' of nntnclute to compel xulmr- tt•nt•Imrs' xnhtrirx kner brg;irrcting; of ttew intcltdent of dixtrict ltnd olberx to ruixe xt•hnol yenr, while enntrtu•t ❑-gotintianx x:tlnri.•x of vertnilt teachers. Amntlor Vul- wert• pvwling,. ltrllauhly wax tilt unfair I,•s N r'ondnry Ellut•ntorx Axs'u c. Newlin Itructice in vlulutiuu of tilt: Itudtlu ,act so (1070) 151 Cul.Ilptr. 724, M C.A.Sd 675 M § 1094.5 S11ECIAI, PROCEEDINGS Part 3 Note 378 n.:nuh•d for nett trial de no%--. Presru,t v. tniue,l conti: !sinncr hnd no juri.%dicliott t'ulifornin hts. .\i,pcnls lid. and did not th•tcrntlue worits, \\'extent Air (1!)-,11) 127 citI.Rptr. 5-M. 57 ('..\.ad 29. Lines Inc. �. Sobieski (twit) 32 CnI.Itplr. Trial court's judgnttatt d,•nling writ of 71f1, 191 ('.:\:=1311(1. ntwiditte to contpe.l director of ngricultnru leuct. that. letter discharging senior typ- to set nsi,lc hi, decision n•cokittg pvtltintt- ist ch•rk in office of counl� viork seated er's lict•nso its aircntfr pilot in bnxiuemm 14 thnt sit-, a:cs guilty of ntisrunduct in re- lust control was recersrd and (vise rc utovittg puhGc recurd., from rho files and ntnnrlctl to Irinl court with directions to nnttilaring a::tl srcretin; thetn on vnrious remand ruse to din•rtor for purpose of cluteN, wherec.v ill hearing before eounly 1 rcconsideriug the pe.nttlty preciously inl- vivil scnicr cnnunissiun evidence wits in- posed, where it wns found tint Borne of traduced only ns to w1int took place oa the charges against petitioner were. not nnc of tilt ,1::t(,s, did not require the dis- snitported by evidence. \\'ingfield v'. t riot court t,i nitpeal on ❑1.1„•nl front judg- Direc•tor of ACriculture (1972) 1(r) Ua1. ment rtnnrding senior tyl,i-t clerk writ of ltprr.619, 20 C.A.3d 200. tuandnte, after reversing t!;a Judgment of Proceeding for review of drninl by corn• the superior court, to remm�d the matter rnissioner of rorporntions of permit to to the t•,mt;;tission for rc,ronsi on, cltnnge voting rights of shareholders wltcrr. there w'as a sintilarit% of fueclst.9 stir. would he rcntnn!ed to superior court fur rounding rrn:r,tal of the ,h:c•uoicnts on all of the thrles. Prntr v. Los .\uge.les Conn- rlcternt!unrinn whether there ccns suhstatt- tv Civil ttrcice ('ontcnisaiuu (19G2) 23S tiul evidence to support conuniseioner's I'.2d3. 105 C.A.2d 114. fiudings, where court improperly deter- § 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and Marty defined; or- dinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agcmc , other than school district, as the term local agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government Code, or of arty commission, board, officer or agent tilt. roof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed ',."ithin the time limits:specified in this section. (b) Ally such Petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision in any applicable provi- sion of any statute, charter, or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decisi,> is final on the date it is made. If there is such provision for reconsideration, the decision is final for the purposes of this sec- tion upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsider•a- tifln can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursu- arit to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes.of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. (c) The comple(e rv(-ord of the proccedi.ngs shall Ix, prepared by tilt! local ri-elic'y or its t•rnnnlis!;iotl, board, off-el-, or agent which 1n.tde the decision and shrill he delivered to the petitioner within 90 bays rifler he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. Such record shall include the tr'an- Sc-ript of tht.' proccedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any Proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted 674 � r r -- CASH RECEIPT • city of huNTiNgToN loch 2000 MAIN STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 ` ia HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE / ISSUING DEPT. /T t. /�� % DEPT.TELE:# RECEIVED FROM f �f/.•' )l%TJ/�i .f i y%ice r`1 .0 '� / J 1 "�_ v ADDRESS /� `� 7" 3c i/ /, in./✓= �' /;'� u FOR ` r?AV c 4-1-- /9/-� •'r- ! /SLf/ L'fE;c./i ram'/�ri AMOUNT RECEIVED �]CASH ECK CREDIT @ u i 17 PREPARED&Xi.liE,G".{r/ -cr "`'RECEIVED BY Li � EXPENSES FINANCE APPROVAL INITIAL TOTAL$ � �.� 2127/68 2 � 4 T4r40 Ca shRocsixPts Fri may 07. 1999 03319 PP! E93330 41IV . 934241 ISSUING DEPARTMENT. ` / 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF April 27, 1999 Date of Planning Commission Action A TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 5/7/99 City Attorney (1 copy) FILED BY Performance Sales & Leasing 19475 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California (Foothill Project Mgmt & The Urban Design ,; Center) REGARDING: 1. CUP 98-62 APN 025-191-36 19501 Beach Blvd. , & 2. CUP 98-85 . APN 025-180-21 19475 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, California Tentative Date for Public Hearing: Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 I ,� a 7/� �1a a % dA,4F, 711 y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE I) (APPEAL: Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot , two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Pro,Lect Planner: Joe Thompson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (PERFORMNACE SALES PHASE II) (APPEAL, Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot , two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 14, 1998. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk CXJ City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 ,qh P �� i CITY COUNCILlREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: � DEPARTMENT: , EPAR1 MENT: MEETING DATE: CO I ACT: �' So PHONE: X 5 `A YES NO ( ) ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ( ) If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? i ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? . i ( ) ( ) , Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? . _ i Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labaV i If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) y�l Pleas complete the following. 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 1 2. Number of times to be published 1 l - 3. Number of days between publications 21 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE I) (APPEAL): Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot ,two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (PERFORMNACE SALES PHASE ID (APPEAL: Appellant/Applicant: Come Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Project Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue)after July 14, 199 9, ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you-or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City.at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of i County of On before me, o -A ) [ I I'S, le-`>' ,L; D to Name and Title of Officer(e.b..'Jane Doe,Notary Public') per appeared N��R-Y \SRM H b� Name(s)of Signer(s) .personally known to me—OR—❑proved to me on the basis of tisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name( is re subscribed to the.within instrument and ackn aged to me that�iee he/they executed the sa a i0er/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by SANDRAis er/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), � or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, COroftion#1Is7161 1 executed the instrument. Notate►Pubac-C0ftVrrlo *CIXWMB wJun Omwcow&2= WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Nbtary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: 1 f L Document Date: qqy Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Led Above:? Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual I Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Titled Title(s): ❑ Partner ❑ invited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Li /DGeral ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in=Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Co❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Repres%ing. r Signe/Iepresenting: m 1994 National Notary Association-8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876.6827 FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS CERTIFICATION LETTER July 14, 1998 City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 200 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 APN 025-191-36 Site: 19501 Beach Boulevard Legal: A Recorded Parcel Map 82-37 located in Map Book 109 Page 09 as recorded at the County of Orange, County Hall of Records within California. Dear Community Development Department, I certify that to the best of my knowledge the attached Assessor Parcel Map, Ownership /Tenant listing is from the latest approved Tax Assessor rolls.The attached 300'radius map was taken directly from the County of Orange Assessor Parcel listings. Foothill Project Management assists in the provision of title searching, labeling, public notification,radius maps, and development management; if you have any further questions please contact my office. Respectfully; A&07 Henry Sakamoto Project Manager HS:sjg 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277) 319, 05i 13 5 O 10 o13 M, �j 2.70 AC. 4.56AC k. ,, I.t3AC. I?3AC ?.49 AC. L01 AC. AR/,JN.S.Y:Y,; om L 70—.jrs so' its so' to Io ,00' 3 .'1,4 Ps±+Rc AVQ BOUL ARO BEACH iIRiUNTIAcrON MACH BLVD.J 25 of (Al J >s �• i�a^,fit tL4 `.., EAST E. ': .,• I'2 HI 33 16� S 13 - 1a 2a 21 EASTtE ems. O23 3 70 e 16 7 0 I P.A/ I09-09 Q I 13 e. O .o �•. I 24 182 j Asoa 0 — — ——— - - 191 _ e3oa M- --- ---------- / 73 10'P.M. ,63-0 Y 2507 a Z407 —' T/�At�'-- -------- I �P307 CO27 / I i - C K. 1� O /I I I 16 u' ... BLK. C ! v j ' 17 16 I?JAC. I♦ �^ 21 17 /1 0 1J us O 4 .o I 1 I /.J C 16 olsr 1J 114ulo 19 PAR. I PAR. 2 PAR j. I / I 3 1 J �� sc' 7`• G 3< 35 0a 8 31 32 33 b PAR.i, PA. 2 E v b 18 �271 (261 I 25, •.( i I ...�? r�, I i J 3a 1 �' \�Q 19 J I % 1 3 O y I i "I r a ,}�g��',�p P.M.12,7-2,) '6 I �i! ,SS$ AR URN Cn t !--- - --— 1 ------ I NO. 837 E�;dJR DE F.P 0 —�-- I• v' : , rt IiO GU RA - 4WRACY�VOR ASSIIu AN' FLORIDA r— EMPUT R UStS.NOT T RE( _ ?)COPYRIGHTOR COUNTYA! 12 V Y .1948 i; EAST SIDE VILLA M. UAf 4-65 NO rL Ti?. MO. 44/5 NO rf - ASSESSORS SSOR'S ,RL OCK 4 ASSESSOR'S MAP PAW 02519102 02519136 OZ519144 YOUNG,D000LAS & STACY VELASTEGUI,MARCO TR O'CONNOR,JIMgIE L 4949 WARNER AVE PO BOX 5293 1001 W WHITTIER BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 LA HABRA CA 90631 S 02519145 02518004 02518013 VELASTEGUI,MARCO TR HERNANDEZ,LOUIS & MARY 0 LANE,JAMES A TR PO BOX 5293 8331 TYLER CIR 637 FRANKFORT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 � g 9 02518015 02518021 02518022 LANE,JAMES PELOCHINO,JOHN F ZAHEDI,YOUNG J 637 FRANKFORT AVE 192 22ND ST C 727 YORKTOWN AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COSTA MESA CA 92627 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 /0 /oZ 02518023 02518024 02518026 JOSAM RL EST HLDGS LANE,JAMES A TR IMPERIAL INVESTMENTS INC 1801 CENTURY PARK E 2101 637 FRANKFORT AVE 13681 NEWPORT AVE 8-351 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TUSTIN CA 92780 /3 AL /S.. 02518027 02518028 02518031 CHERNEY,MICHAEL J LIGGETT,GARY I TR AGRAWAL,GIRIDHARI 9172 SANTIAGO DR 20432 BRENTSTONE LN 22 HAMPDEN CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 SIMSBURY CT 06070 02518032 02518033 15305110 SHAHINIAN,VAHE G TR HOOKER,LORENE E YEE,YEE S & MARIA L 3414 E ALDERLY LN 5852 SULTANA AVE 29155 BOBOLINK DR ORANGE CA 92867 TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 l9 av a� 15305111 15305114 15305115 LIN,SHENG H CLAYTON,ROBERT W TR CLAYTON TRUST 2340 ROBLES AVE 4234 FLEETHAVEN RD 4234 FLEETHAVEN RD SAN MARINO CA 91108 LAKEWOOD CA 90712 LAKEWOOD CA 90712 as a3 15305116 15305117 15309105 PEARSON,GEORGE A & REGINA M CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FREEDMAN,SAM F TR 16868 A ST CITY HALL 19542 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTN BCH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 as 15309106 APPLICANT MAP PREPARER BAIER,BEVERLY A TR PERFORMANCE AUTO SALES & FOOTHILL PROJECT MGT 1200 N HARBOR BLVD 19475 BEACH BLVD 117-1/2 28T" ST ANAHEIM CA 92801 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BCH CA 92663 a7 02518014 02518025 LANE,JAMES A TR LANE,JAMES A TR 637 FRANKFORT AVE. 637 FRANKFORT AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Manager of Vans Manager of Newland Cleaners Manager of Palmyra-Market 19541 Beach Blvd. 19539 Beach Blvd. 19533 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA. 92648 Huntington Beach,CA.926478 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 1Vlanager of Julian's Manager of Larry's Manager of 94 Video 19521 Beach Blvd. 19523 Beach Blvd. 19525 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Von Dutch Manager ofNady's Liquor Manager of 1st Choice Flowers 712 Yorktown Ave. 19490 Beach Bl vd. 19488 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 IManager of Rose Cleaners Manager of Fiesta Grill Mananger of Yorktown Barber ; 19486 Beach Blvd. 19484 Beach Blvd. 19482 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 i i Manager of American motorcycle Manager of Lucky's John Bar Dino's Pizza .. 19480 Beach Blvd. 19476 Beach Blvd. 19478 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Huntington Beach.CA.92648 . Huntington Beach,CA.92648 Manager of Dynasty Hair&Nails 19527 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA.92648 025-191-44 025-182-22 O'Connor,Jimmie Harboldt,Norman 1001 W.Whittier Blvd. 19321 Beach Blvd. La Habra,CA.90631 Huntington Beach,CA.92648 53-051-16 Pearson,George 16868 A. St. luntington Beach,CA.92647 4-v70 n NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - - BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, July 19, 1999, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 (PERFORMANCE SALES PHASE Il (APPEALI: Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates,Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 2,437 square foot ,two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,200 square foot lot. The request includes 19 parking spaces for display vehicles and 14 parking spaces for customers. Location: _ 19501 Beach Boulevard(southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Proiect Planner: Joe Thompson I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (PERFORMNACE SALES PHASE U) (APPEAL): Appellant/Applicant: Corrie Kates, Foothill Project Management Request: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,741 square foot ,two (2) story auto sales facility on an 18,900 square foot lot. The request includes 17 parking spaces for display vehicles and 13 parking spaces for customers. Location: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) Proiect Planner: Joe Thompson NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above items are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed requests are on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after July 14, 1999. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City.at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Connie Brockway.City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk V P.O.Box 190 ; Huntington Beach,CA 92648 CHINCTONC 8027 NEY IHAEL J � TIN6��', ANTIAGO DR BEACH CA 92646 CHER1%. `LJ6469f02c3 1N 1S' 07 I.J/Ylm; RETURN TO SENDER sm S NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE � UNABLE TO FORWARD RFTI IRN T!l SF'NIt1RG T1 � LEGAL NOTICE.- PUBLIC HEARING .;Y:1 I!! !!ISI!�il'1i3�i3�i!! 1II111!!!II�i�!!�ili!`!Ik!I�Illilll�f Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 "XK 02518204 NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE SIN6tp', c# •�'"'•►., Bee► ANTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r � 02519103 1IN6tQ,r R STATE OF CALIFORNIA SACREMENTO CA v - s Fc�NT� h LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING Y 1 E HE lro� �S Y gar Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 1 1 k ",5. 'r,. x4 �� �•fit = i[yf 1 3e. , CUP No. 98- 62 (Surrouffdins e • North (across Yorktown) Car sales lot and dentist' s office • East .(across Beach) Carl' s Jr. restaurant • S outh Retail Center • West Retail Center e y� } _ � n '+a 't'h+ '�'-'•�- --'�•. 'p ry"i �`r,1* W f&i`. `"� h.i- -1 � t Y�+ - i r�-,.iA- ^t .r-��.,,� S' ✓y �' �[ i {`s»r 't # s�h My ��y^ yi^,Ft ii ��m l hRyF 3 # ,Y twyy _ 1 1 CUP No. 98-85 (Surroundin • North Tile and plumbing store • East (across Beach) Chevron gas station • S outh (across Yorktown) Car lot and retail center • We st Huntington Suites Motel Project-H, � r C of issued July 1997 for M R * 1 .y'. t. • • • • i In number of displayvehicles tllm tg • ,: Code Enforcement cited business March 1998 for display of 18 vehicles. • 2nd, 3rd and 4th citations issued and a letter CityAttorneyto remove vehicles sent b the Y or apply for a CUP. • Applicant submitted CUP request July 1998 . Planning ' lsszon MI, u • April 27, 1999 Public Hearing • 2 speakers opposed project • Visibility . .. . ............. • Parking • non-compatibility • Deny CUP 98-62 and 98- 85 (6-0) Planning issionlStaffo�� Recomme ,�7,-- . ............ �n� onn r Ds p i • DenyCUP 98-62 and CUP 98-:, 5� w Findings for Denial. Finaldings . .oE: l • The project will be detrl ental to Rt x • an taff are ire A1, K a zt x d sq welfare. Customers cross the street and visibility is reduced to surrounding businesses. • The project will not be . compatible with surrounding uses. • Drive aisle widths do not meet minimum standards. • Inconsistent with the General Plan. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40a In addition to General Plan incompatibility, the subject lot is not compatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposed automobile dealership is bounded on the south and west by an existing retail center containing two (2) separate buildings with four (4) retail suites in each building. The proposed two-story building has a 25-foot frontage along Beach Boulevard, is 27 feet high and is located generally in the middle of the lot. In addition, the dealership specializes in selling primarily sport utility vehicles (SUV's), which inherently have high profiles. Due to the increased building height and the high profile of the vehicles being offered for sale, visibility to both of the retail center buildings will be greatly reduced. Although none spoke, all of the retail tenants doing business in the retail building to the west attended the Planning Commission meeting and forwarded a signed letter to the Commission (Attachment No. 4) stating their opposition to the project and their concerns regarding visibility, noise, traffic, and parking impacts. Staff concurs with the business owners in that they would be negatively impacted regarding reduced visibility if the proposed project goes forth. Safety Concerns The subject dealership is located on two (2) corner lots separated by Yorktown Avenue. Although each location includes a sales office within their respective two-story buildings, this arrangement requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue in order to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. The dealership's physical arrangement, therefore, poses undue risk to anyone having to leave one location to access the other. Additionally, the automobile carrier delivery truck, which must park on the Yorktown painted median, poses an undue risk to vehicular traffic on Yorktown Avenue. The two business owners who spoke in opposition of the project at the Planning Commission meeting verified the occurrence of jaywalking by dealership staff and customers on several occasions. Parking/Circulation Due to the small size of the lot, access to seven (7) of the 14 customer parking spaces must be taken through the retail center adjacent to the south of the lot. If the building were to be moved back against the south property line, the dealership would not have adequate space to accommodate the minimum number of customer parking spaces without reducing the desired number of display vehicle parking spaces. The owner of the retail strip center also owns the subject property. Per the retail tenants who attended the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant often parks overflow vehicles on the retail center's parking lot, thereby reducing the number of spaces available to the retail center's customers. The subject site is not in code compliance regarding the minimum drive aisle width on the north side of the lot adjacent to Yorktown Avenue and the minimum parking stall length for all display vehicles abutting the landscape planters along both Yorktown Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Reduction in drive aisle width is likely due to the substandard size of the dealership compared with other dealerships in the City. The relatively substandard lot size also results in a reduced lot frontage, which when compared to other standard dealerships impacts ingress and egress for test driven vehicles. PL99-40A -7- July 12, 1999 1:53 PM ........ ATTACH.. MEN............................ T 1 ...........................X.................................................................... Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 7 of 14 Answer/Solution The lease of a tenant is a private matter between the tenant and the property owner. Question Concerned about the repair of vehicles on-site Answer/Solution The proposed development will not have vehicle repair on-site. All repairs will be completed at a remote service facility. Minor accessories are proposed to be installed on-site such as Radios, TVs VCRs, alarms, etc. Question Concerned about the on-site temporary trailer. Answer/Solution The trailer was for a 24-hour security service. The applicant has had some theft, as does every dealership and desires to protect the investment. However, if the City desires the temporary trailer to be removed we would be more than happy to comply. Conclusion There were no issues raised that could not be met by the proposed development or with appropriate conditions of approval. In every case an appropriate condition of approval could be placed on the proposed use. Questions raised by the Hotel Owner The hotel operator is located directly west of Phase II or site addressed as 19475 Beach Boulevard. The owner stated that they were concerned about construction noise. Construction is typically a short-term problem. Additionally, the hotel owner raised questions about persons jaywalking. Jaywalking is a moving violation and is enforced by the vehicle code. We are of the understanding that persons from the Hotel are jaywalking to the liqueur store across the street. The intersection of Yorktown and Beach is controlled by a signal that allows for pedestrians to traverse across at an identified location. The Commission and staff stated that jaywalking is dangerous. We do not disagree. However, this is not a reason to deny the development. We feel that staff should provide recommended conditions of approval that would mitigate the concerns. For example, It can be required to install pedestrian oriented directional signage that states jaywalking is not allowed and to direct person(s) to the controlled intersection. Additionally, with the 10 foot widening along the South side of Yorktown there maybe the possibility to Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 9 of 14 allow for adjustment to the design that would increase the allowable driveway width. This could have been a condition of approval. Land Use / General Plan Compatibility Staff stated that the site is not adequate is size or shape to accommodate the development. Even though there are larger commercial dealerships. The proposed use will not be providing on-site repairs and does not maintain a large inventory; therefore a larger site is not necessary. The proposed site(s) adequately service the proposed use. Staff mentioned that the applicant never provided a projected number of employees. This is untrue, we advised that there would be no more than four per site, but until development occurs there will be no more than two persons at each site. Staff states that the General Plan encourages auto dealerships near Warner and Beach Boulevard. The General Plan is a living document and is not set in stone as is the zoning development standards for property development. The City advised us that the site is appropriately zoned and is an allowable use for dealership at Yorktown and Beach with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP is a tool to provide appropriate review and to develop conditions of approval to mitigate any concerns raised during development review. Staff stated that the proposed use is incompatible with surrounding uses. The use is compatible to the existing area uses. The proposal does not introduce the heavy dealership uses as seen with a full service facility. The development is in keeping with the scale of the developments in the neighboring developments. The proposed development will increase foot traffic to the retail center and the development will encourage redevelopment in the area. Additionally, the proposed development will not reduce views from the current retail center. Currently, the Gasoline Station blocks the views from the tenants. The proposed building and the vehicle display area would actually open views to the retail center. Contrary to the service station; if rehabilitated the building would remain and the fueling pumps roofing would block views because these structures would be closer to Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue then the proposed development. These roof structures would stand approximately 20 to 26 feet in height. Whereas, a sport utility vehicle may stand only 6 to 7 feet in height. Therefore, the proposed use would actually open views versus the current use. PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH CITY CODES AND HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION EVERY DAY SINCE JULY 21 , 1997 AND CONTINUES TO BE IN VIOLATION AS OF THIS DATE.- CITATIONS ISSUED BY -.'THE CITY ' S CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN IGNORED AND NO CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT IN THE ALMOST TWO YEARS THAT THFY HAVE CONDUCTED BUSINESS . I URGE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER TO .CONSULT WITH THEIR PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY' S PLANNING -DEPARTMENT AS TO THEIR REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING 'DENIAL OF THE APPLICANTS PERMITS . IN LIGHT OF THE APPLICANTS PAST BEHAVIOR AND FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED ABOVE. IT WOULD, IN MY OPINION , BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH TO DENY THE APPEAL OF PERFORMANCE SALES AND LEASING THAT IS BEFORE YOU. DATE: JUNE 25, 1999 SINCERELY, STEVE SCHUMM TENANT AT 19471 BEACH BLVD. PS . IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS , PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME AT MY OFFICE. ( 714) 536-9331 I i ATTACHMENT NO. � . z 19525 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 April 27, 1999 To the City of Huntington Beach To Whom It May Concern As a businessman in the area, I have some concerns regarding the building in question. First of all, in May of 1998, when the gas station closed down, the new tenant did some construction work that dug the sewer up. This prevented my customers from entering my store. I dealt with the owner, and he told me to close my doors. I am concerned that the construction of the new building will create a similar situation. I cannot Just close my business at the whims of the new owner. Last year, I asked the city if this was a legal procedure, but I never received a response. Second of all, because of the new business there are not enough parking spaces for customers. There are only 32 spaces for parking, but the new business has over 40 cars everyday. Where do you expect our customers to park? Furthermore, this situation is worsened during the weekends. How do you expect our business to profit from this? Third of all, there are huge containers in the back of their store, but the front of ours, that contains junk. It blocks our view, and lowers the standards of our store. I creates an atmosphere that is not pleasing to the customers. If the new building is built,there will be more containers. Lastly,the new building will block the view of our stores from Beach Boulevard. The customers will not be able to see our store any more. I hope.you flake these aspects into account. I oppose the construction of the new building. Sincerely, Charles Tu Owner of Lary"s Chicken ATTACHM ► i AT � � a �VIEN�', 5t 'FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS CERTIFICATION LETTER November 12, 1998 City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 200 Main St. Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 APN 025-180-21 Site: 19475 Beach Boulevard Legal: Tract 837, Block 2508 of Recorded Map Book 25, Page 27 as recorded at the County of Orange, County Hall of Records within California. Dear Community Development Department, I certify that to the best of my knowledge the attached Assessor Parcel Map, Ownership /Tenant listing is from the latest approved Tax Assessor rolls. The attached 300' radius map was taken directly from the County of Orange Assessor Parcel listings. Foothill Project Management assists in the provision of title searching, labeling, public notification,radius maps, and development management;if you have any further questions please contact my office. Respectfully; Henr Sakamoto Project Manager HS:sj9 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277) Res. No. 4123 S'rKrE OF CALIFOKNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WEtv'vom, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the Whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March 1979 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Yoder, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic, Siebert NOES: Councilmen: Thomas ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b The appeal asserts the project should be approved (Alternative Action No. 1) for the following reasons: 1) The project is compatible with surrounding uses; 2) Off-loading of vehicles will occur entirely on the subject property; and 3) Safety concerns regarding dealership staff and customers having to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both dealership lots can be mitigated. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 with Findings for Denial (Attachment No. 1)". Planninq Commission Action on April 27, 1999: THE MOTION MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62), WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER, BIDDLE, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LAIRD MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 (In conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62) to the August 2, 1999 meeting and direct staff to prepare Findings and Conditions of Approval" (Applicant's Request). PL99-40B -3- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b Two (2) letters, submitted to the Planning Commission during the meeting, and signed by all the tenants operating businesses in the retail center adjacent to the proposed project to the west, were read aloud. The letters advised concern over-the high profile of vehicles for sale, which blocks visibility to the tenants businesses, and the applicant's record of parking overstocked vehicles on the retail center's already inadequate parking lot. D. APPEAL: An appeal to the Planning Commission's denial was filed by the business owner's representative on May 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 2) pursuant to Section 248.20 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. A summary of the appeal is as follows: ■ The opportunity to properly present the goals and the vision of the project was not given at the Planning Commission meeting. ■ Staff did not develop conditions to respond to known concerns or to recommend a continuance to further review the concerns. ■ The opportunity to consider and propose alternatives so as to provide possible solutions was not given. ■ The Planning Commissioner who also acted on the Design Review Board application for the subject property prejudged the project and led the Commission to its ultimate decision. Based on Section 248.20.D of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Conditional Use Permit is reviewed by the City Council as a new matter. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The project proposal is fully analyzed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 27, 1999 (Attachment No. 3). The major issues with respect to this request include compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, land use compatibility, safety concerns for auto dealership staff and customers who are required to cross Yorktown Avenue to access both lots, inadequate lot size to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck, and traffic/circulation issues. General Plan and Land Use Compatibility The General Plan encourages the development of an "Automobile Overlay District" that consolidates existing automobile dealerships and accommodates additional dealerships within the same district. The General Plan's "Automobile Overlay District" is located on the north side of Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard. The intent of the General Plan is to afford opportunities for existing and newly proposed automobile dealerships to consolidate within the automobile overlay district provided for in the General Plan. The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan. PL99-40B -6- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b In addition to General Plan incompatibility, the subject lot is not compatible with other land uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposed automobile dealership is bounded on the west by an existing motel. The motel owner who attended the April 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting stated she has had problems with the dealership's customers parking their cars on the motel parking lot while'they shop for a vehicle on the project site, as well as concerns regarding the safety of her tenants. Safety Concerns The subject dealership is located on two (2) corner lots separated by Yorktown Avenue. Although each location includes a sales office within their respective two-story buildings, this arrangement requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue so to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. The dealership's physical arrangement, therefore, poses undue risk to anyone having to leave one location to access the other. Additionally, the automobile carrier delivery truck, which currently must park on the Yorktown painted median, poses an undue risk to vehicular traffic on Yorktown Avenue. The two business owners who spoke in opposition of the project at the Planning Commission meeting verified the occurrence of jaywalking by dealership staff and customers on several occasions. Additionally, the motel owner has complained that the automobile delivery truck, which parks on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and directly in front of the motel, poses a risk to motel tenants entering and leaving the motel and pedestrian and vehicular traffic passing the truck as vehicles are being off-loaded. The motel includes many long term tenants who use the bus system as their primary means of transportation. The motel owner is concerned for the safety of her tenants, who must negotiate the car carrier truck and test driven vehicles as they walk to the bus stop. The automobile carrier truck, delivers additional pre- owned vehicles that are to be offered for sale. The truck typically parks on the Yorktown painted median immediately west of,the dealership locations, as the subject lot is too small to accommodate the truck on-site. Newly arrived automobiles are off-loaded from the truck directly on the Yorktown Avenue painted median and driven to either of the two locations Parking/Circulation Due to the relatively small size of the lot, access to nine (9) of the 13 customer parking spaces must be taken through the fire access easement bordering the west property line. The Fire Department has stated concern over gaining access to the fire easement if cars are parked adjacent to or encroaching on the easement. Currently, the applicant has placed a chain across the entrance to the fire easement and is using the space to park display vehicles and a recreational vehicle. PL99-4OB -7- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b Appeal Issues: The applicant has known for several weeks in advance of the Planning Commission meeting of staff's concerns and recommendation for denial. The staff report was prepared and available five (5) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant and applicant's representative both spoke during the meeting and indicated their concerns regarding the issues brought forth by staff, the staff report, and public testimony. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon inconsistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as well as technical site design issues. Given the size of the subject lots and physical separation between the Phase I lot and Phase II lot, staff determined that there were no sufficient design solutions. F. SUMMARY Staff is continuing to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on General Plan, land use compatibility, safety, and traffic concerns as follows: ■ The location for the proposed use is in contrast with the intent of the General Plan, which states "new and existing automobile dealerships be consolidated within the Automobile District Overlay." ■ Due to the relatively small size of the lot, access to seven (7) of the 14 customer parking spaces must be taken through the retail center adjacent to the south. The retail tenants have concerns with the applicant using parking spaces reserved for the retail center as overflow parking. Further, due to the dealership's proposed two-story building and the high profile of the vehicles being offered for sale, visibility to the adjacent retail suites is substantially reduced. The retail tenants attended the Planning Commission meeting and forwarded their concerns regarding compatibility issues in a letter signed by all the tenants. ■ Because the dealership is divided into two (2) non-contiguous parcels, customers and dealership staff are required to cross Yorktown Avenue in order to access all vehicles being of offered for sale. Undue risk is incurred due to the physical separation of dealership lots. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act states " for urbanized areas, projects are categorically exempt when commercial buildings are built on sites zoned for such use, and if they are designed so that occupant load is of 30 persons or less if not constructed in conjunction with the building of four or more structures and if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances." PL99-40B -8- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 19, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 99-40b I Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Findings for Denial for CUP No. 98-85 (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation 2 Letter of Appeal from Corrie D. Kates (Applicant's representative) dated May 7, 1999 . ... so . . . 3 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments dated April ................................... --..... . 27, 1999 4 Letters opposing project from retail tenants adjacent to subject ro ert . ........ 5 Site Plan and Elevations dated March 26, 1999 MSF:HZ:SH:JT:kjl PL99-40B -9- July 12, 1999 4:40 PM TAC................................................................................. H, - ` " 1 r" ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85: 1. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the automobile sales lot with parking for seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction of a 1,741 square foot two-story building will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations requiring customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot will not be compatible with surrounding uses due to the increase in height of the proposed building and high profile nature of the vehicles being offered for sale. The intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. At its present location, the car lot has limited points of ingress and egress for customers, vehicles being test driven, and vehicles being delivered from other locations. Currently, the automobile delivery truck must park on the Yorktown Avenue painted median to off-load vehicles for the subject site. 3. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. Setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, and other minimum requirements of the HBZSO have been provided 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will adversely affect the General Plan. It is not consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG (Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is inconsistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8.1.1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. B. (LU 15.4)Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. C. (CE 2.3.1)Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. (99SR18)—4/27/99 Attachment No. 1.1 ........................... ........... ........................... ........................... A MENT ;2............................ ............................. ............................ ............................. ............................ ............................. .......... . .............. FOOTHILL PROJECT MANAGEMENT & THE URBAN DESIGN CENTER FINANCIAL CONSULTING, REDEVELOPMENT, ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION MGT, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, EIR, & GENERAL PLAN SERVICES, SPECIFIC PLAN & ZONING ADMINISTRATORS May 7, 1999 Mr. Joseph Thompson, Planner City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department 200 Main Street LJ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial on April 27", 1999 for CUP 98-62 at APN No. 025-191-36, addressed as 19501 Beach Blvd and for CUP 98-85 at APN No. 025-180-21 , addressed as 19475 Beach Blvd Dear Joe: The issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting were good topics for discussion and can be resolved with proper mitigation measures as adopted as part of the Conditional Use Permits for the proposed use. We were very disappointed that we were not allowed to rebut the concerns raised by speakers and the Planning Commission. It seemed as if they had predetermined their decision and were closed to solutions. Detailed below is our justification for the appeal and recommended mitigation measures to allow to coexistence of the commercial retail tenants, the hotel and the dentist located at 19475 Beach Boulevard Overview of the Process While the City paints a poor picture of the process, we see it as a transition for the betterment of the community and the City. First proposal In the first proposal the applicant was requesting to maintain the exiting gasoline building for temporary storage and vehicle accessory installations. - 117-1/2 28 TH. STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PO BOX 4403, COSTA MESA, CA 92626-4403 p� (714) 434-9228 - (800) 651-MAPS (6277ATTACHMEEN IT NO. i Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 2 of 14 The reason the building had remained was that the property owner did not desire to demolish the existing building. However after a meeting with the City that included the property owner, we were all advised that the City. wanted the building demolished. Therefore, concept 2 was submitted. Second Proposal With the gasoline station being demolished, we submitted a concept proposal that would mirror the existing retail center. Our thinking at .the time was to have an architectural style that blends with the exiting environment, rather than a total departure from the exiting form. However, the City advised us that the concept was not acceptable. We were advised to mirror the existing dealerships in form and that is what .the City is looking for. After consulting with the Huntington Beach in-house architect (Amie) we were advised that a modern architecture was what the City wanted in this location. Therefore, we then engaged our in-house architectural consultant to develop a more comprehensive design. Final Proposal This lead to the third and final conceptual design that was accepted by the City and approved in concept by the Design Review Board (DRB) minus a few corrections such as inclosing the exterior stairwell and additional landscape berming along Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue and to provide a material sample board. We stated at the meeting that we would be more than happy to modify the design to conform to the City's request. However, the DRB wished to continue the item following the Planning Commissions actions. The third conceptual proposal also included both corners of Yorktown and Beach Boulevard. The reason both sites are now considered is because the business owner was able to obtain an "Option from the property owner to purchase the property and expand the business. Design Review Board It would appear that the PC member representative of the DRB had a couple bad experiences with the property while the use is being processed. Therefore, it seemed that we were pre-judged and that the PC DRB representative was leading the Design Review Board. Planning Commission We feel we were not allowed to voice our goals and the vision to the Commission. When the PC or the audience raised questions we were not given the opportunity to discuss and provide solutions. It seemed that the Commissioner that sits on the Design Review Board also led the Commission ATTACHMLENT N0. 2�Z-� Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 4 of 14 Answer/Solution All vehicles for the auto sales business are kept on their property and they do not use there parking spaces. Currently there exists reciprocal access for both property's since there is one property owner and the two properties share driveways. Question There is not enough parking currently in the shopping center Answer/Solution The proposal will increase the number of available spaces even though technically the commercial center has adequate parking and they should not be parking on somebody else's property unless allowed. Additionally, as with any shopping center it is the business owner's responsibility to require their employees to park in remote locations so as to leave the closest parking available for customers. As with this existing commercial center there are approximately a dozen remote stalls available for employee parking that is rarely utilized. Question There has been no consideration for employee parking for the proposed use. Answer/Solution Both sites have been adequately designed to accommodate customer, employee and display vehicle parking spaces. Detailed below are the total stalls provided. Parking type Site 1-19501 Beach Blvd Site 2-19475 Beach Blvd Customer 13 13 Display 19 17 Total 32 30 Question .Vehicles have been towed because of these disputes Answer/Solution No vehicles have been towed that are related to the Performance Auto Sales . and Leasing. Question The development will block the views of our businesses. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 5 of 14 Answer/Solution The signage for the center tenants is well above the line of site for potential customers. Additionally, if the service station was rebuilt the roof- and fueling pumps would block views to the retail center. Conclusion The tenants were miss-informed. The new development will actually increase the number of spaces available to the entire center. Additionally, the proposed site located at 19501 Beach Boulevard is a separate parcel that stands alone. The City did not incorporate this fact into their report. The circulation and parking issues are not relevant to the proposed development. The issues raised about views are erroneous. The tenants do not own views to beach Boulevard. The proposed development will assist the economic vitality of the existing commercial center by creating foot traffic. Questions raised by the Dentist The dentist states that he was not advised of the proposed use. As part of the public record, the City was provided with the Occupant/Tenant listing as well as Property Ownership's for the public hearing noticing labels. Additionally, as stated by the proposed business owner, the lease is up for renewal. We feel that this is a private matter with regard to rental/lease contracts and not the City's concern. The dentist would have ample time to plan for relocation. Question Concerned about deliveries Answer/Solution The property owner has stated that he will not be renewing the dentist lease. The dentist can relocate to an available space in the neighboring center(s). The "applicant does not have control over the property owner desire for selling the property to the applicant. Question Concerned with the closure of the driveways Answer/Solution Closure of the driveways is required by the City and is part of the Conditional Use Permit. The closure of the driveways will remove existing conditions that will improve site circulation and the ingress and egress of vehicles from the properties. Question Concerned about appropriate signage ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 6 of 14 Answer The applicant will submit a completed sign program for the development. Until approvals are completed for the proposed development, the applicant does not want to prepare signage plans until approved. All signs proposed will meet the City adopted sign criteria. Question Concerned about deliveries Answer/Solution When the development is completed there will be adequate on-site circulation to allow vehicle deliveries. Question Concerned about vehicle size and the blocking of views to the commercial center Answer/Solution The signage for the center tenants is well above the line of site for potential customers. Additionally, if the service station was rebuilt the roof and fueling pumps would block views to the retail center. Question Concerned that there is a parking problem. Answer/Solution The proposed development will create additional parking that is not currently available. The proposal is to demolish the two buildings and provide an improved on-site parking and circulation pattern. This is being completed by: the closure of four (4) driveways and relocating building(s) so as to improve the circulation and parking for customers, employees and display vehicles. Question Concerned that the property is not connected to sewers Answer/Solution All new development will be required to connect to domestic sewers. Question Dentist said his lease is not up until September 2000 ATTACHMENT NO. 2�. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 7 of 14 Answer/Solution The lease of a tenant is a private matter between the tenant and the property owner. Question Concerned about the repair of vehicles on-site Answer/Solution The proposed development will not have vehicle repair on-site. All repairs will be completed at a remote service facility. Minor accessories are proposed to be installed on-site such as Radios, TVs VCRs, alarms, etc. Question Concerned about the on-site temporary trailer. Answer/Solution The trailer was for a 24-hour security service. The applicant has had some theft, as does every dealership and. desires to. protect the investment. However, if the City desires the temporary trailer to be removed we would be more than happy to comply. Conclusion There were no issues raised that could not be met by the proposed development or with appropriate conditions of approval. In every case an appropriate.condition of approval could be placed on the proposed use. Questions raised by the Hotel Owner The hotel operator is located directly west of Phase II or site addressed as 19475 Beach Boulevard. The owner stated that they were concerned about construction noise. Construction is typically a short-term problem. Additionally, the hotel owner raised questions about persons jaywalking. Jaywalking is a moving violation and is enforced by the vehicle code. We are of the understanding that persons from the Hotel are jaywalking. to the liqueur store across the street. The intersection of Yorktown and Beach is controlled by a signal that allows for pedestrians to traverse across at an identified location. The Commission and staff stated that jaywalking is dangerous. We do not disagree. However, this is not a reason to deny the development. We feel that staff should provide recommended conditions of approval that would mitigate the concerns. For example, It can be required to install pedestrian oriented directional signage that states jaywalking is not allowed and to direct person(s) to the controlled intersection. Additionally, with the 10 foot widening along the South side of Yorktown there maybe the possibility to ATTACHMENT N0. 2 Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Pale 8 of 14 install a small median in the center to direct traffic and discourage jaywalking from any source. Question Concerned about delivery times Answer/Solution The Commission seemed not to want to consider solutions. The solution is to condition the development with appropriate .delivery times as seen with other developments throughout the City within commercial developments. Question Concerned that Parking is a problem. Additionally, that the applicant uses the hotel parking area. Answer/Solution The proposed development provides for its own parking facilities. According to the applicant they maintain all vehicles on their property and do not park in the hotel parking area. . Question Concerned about construction noise Answer/Solution Once again construction is temporary. The City has specific codes that control construction noise and the time of operation. We would expect to have appropriate conditions of approval that will restrict the construction hours. The applicant will comply with all development standards set-forth. Conclusion There were no issues raised that could not be met by the proposed development or with appropriate conditions of approval. In every case an appropriate condition of.approval could be placed on the proposed use. Zoning Compliance The proposed development meets and or exceeds all development standards within the City. With the one concern raised about drive aisle width. There is adequate property to adjust the drive aisle width to 26 feet versus 25 feet. The plans can be modified and a condition of approval can be added for assurance to the City for compliance. Conclusion The proposed development meets and or exceeds all standards as set-forth in the Huntington Beach Zoning Code. As noted above, the site dynamics AT TACK MENT N0. Z.3 Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 9 of 14 ,allow for adjustment to the design that would increase the allowable driveway width. This could have been a condition of approval. _ Land Use / General Plan Compatibility Staff stated that the site is not adequate is size or shape to accommodate the development. Even though there are larger commercial dealerships. The proposed use will not be providing on-site repairs and does not maintain a large inventory; therefore a larger site is not necessary. The proposed site(s) adequately service the proposed use. Staff mentioned that the applicant never provided a projected number of employees. This is untrue, we advised that there would be no more than four per site, but until development occurs there will be no more than two persons at each site. Staff states that the General Plan encourages auto dealerships near-Warner and Beach Boulevard. The General Plan is a living document and is not set in stone as is the zoning development standards for property development. The City advised us that the site is appropriately zoned and is an allowable use for dealership at Yorktown and Beach with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP is a tool to provide appropriate review and -to develop conditions of approval to mitigate any concerns raised during development review. Staff stated that the proposed use is incompatible with surrounding uses.. The use is compatible to the existing area uses. The proposal does not introduce the heavy dealership uses as seen with a full service facility. The development is in keeping with the scale of the developments in the neighboring developments. The proposed development will increase foot traffic to the retail center and the development will encourage redevelopment in the area. Additionally, the proposed development will not reduce views from the current retail center. Currently, the Gasoline Station blocks the views from the tenants. The proposed building and the vehicle display area would actually open views to the retail center. Contrary to the service station; if rehabilitated the building would remain and the fueling pumps roofing would block views because these structures would be closer to Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue then the proposed development. These roof structures would stand approximately 20 to 26 feet in height. Whereas, a sport utility vehicle may stand only 6 to 7 feet in height. Therefore, the proposed use would actually open views versus the current use. ATTACHMENT NOa &1 Appeal Case Cup98-62&;98-98-85 Paue 10 of 14 Conclusion • There will be two sales offices, one at each building. This will reduce the number of persons traversing across Yorktown Avenue. • There will be more than adequate patron/employee parking at both sites • The General Plan is a living document that is meant to guide and is not intended to be the final decision for land use. The General Plan does not state nor does the Zoning Code have a prohibition against this use as proposed for the site(s). Jaywalking / Safety Concerns There were concerns raised about jaywalking and public safety. Detailed below are the answers/solutions for the proposed development. • Infrastructure improvements over the past several months have caused much disruption. • The sidewalk was closed for pedestrian movement • The project proposal is subject to a CUP and specific conditions of. approval • We would recommend adding a condition for pedestrian signage to use signalized / controlled intersections for pedestrian movement. Pedestrians will always cross the street whether they are going to the Liqueur_ Store, the Bus Stop or looking for vehicle(s). • Each site will contain its owns sales team. Completed sales can be executed at each site without crossing the street. Concerns about unloading of vehicles • Many auto dealers unload vehicles in the street. That does not make it safe or correct. This is also enforceable through conditions of approval and through code enforcement. Once a person is ticketed for such a violation then they would re-route their drop-offs. • Additionally, once the site is improved there will be plenty of room for on- site drop-off of vehicles. • . Appropriate conditions.of approval can be implemented such as limiting . the size of.delivery vehicles or restrict the use to on-site deliveries. Revenue Generation The revenue generated by the old Gasoline Station would never reach the revenues that the proposed facility is generating to the City and the State. Additionally the Dentist shop tenant can be relocated within the current retail center at Yorktown and Beach Boulevard because there is a vacancy. The revenues generated by the medical office are minimal. The revenues generated by the proposed development will be substantial. Detailed below are those revenues generated to date. ATTACHMENT NO.-z to Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 11 of 14 1 st Qtr 1999 Revenue Sales Tax Sales Tax to City Ending March 1999 $ 4,825,000.00 $ 373,939.50 $ 75,000.00 2nd Qtr 1999 Starting Aril $ 1,568,318.00 $ 121,520.00 $ 24,300.00 4 Qtrs 1998 CalanderYr $ 10,430,190.00 $ 801,360.00 $ 160,270.00 Totals $ 16,823,508.00 $ 1,296,819.50 $ 259,570A0 --A Average Mo Revenues $ 1,085,387.61 $ 83,665.77 $ 16,746.45 This proposed use will be an attractive use and will not burden the City. As the use grows so will the income to the City. At such time that the business needs to move the proposed buildings will be an attractive office professional building due to easy convertibility because of the small-scaled nature of the development. As with larger dealerships up and down Beach Boulevard, when these buildings become vacated the larger buildings are vacant longer and become a nuisance to the City. Whereas this building would convert to an office professional building easily. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 & 98-85: 1 . Install pedestrian oriented signage that will rely that it is unsafe to jaywalk. This direction signage shall be incorporated into the overall landscape plan that is subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 2. Redesign the exterior stairwells so as to be interior stairwells. Revised plans are subject to the review and approval of the of the City Design Review Board. 3. Obtain a circulation study from a qualified traffic engineer that will provide a report that the proper turning movements can be made by the delivery trucks. If large loaders cannot successful maneuver on-site and safely leave the site than smaller deliver vehicles will be required. This study must be submitted prior to Building permit issuance. 4. Construction hours shall conform to the adopted municipal code section. Violation of the noise section of the municipal code will subject to fine. Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 12 of 14 5. Site 1 known as CUP 98-62 (Performance Sales — Phase 1), APN No.025- 191-36, 19501 Beach Blvd will be limited to 19 display vehicles. Site 2 known as CUP 98-85 (Performance Sales — Phase II), APN No.025-180- 21 , 19475 Beach Blvd will be limited to 17 display vehicles. Violation of this condition will lead to revocation of CUP 98-65 and CUP 98-85. 6. The proposed driveway isle where appropriate will be redesigned to a minimum width of 27 feet and will comply with the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-62 & 98-85: 1 .The establishment, maintenance and operation .of the automobile sales lot with parking for nineteen (19) at one site and seventeen (17) display vehicles in conjunction with a 2,437 and a 1 ,741 square foot two-story building will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The automobile sales lot is divided into two (2) separate locations with its own sales team and the ability complete a sale at each location will reducing the need for customers to cross Yorktown Avenue to get from one location to the other. Further, that the proposed building will assist in reducing street noise to the hotel development and re-orient the building design to allow for increase views into the existing shopping center. Additionally, a service station roof that sits approximately 18 feet high and pumps would sit higher than the high profile (seven (7) feet) vehicles that are being sold, visibility to the retail center located directly behind the subject site will not be greatly reduced. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 and 98-85 for the establishment of the automobile sales lot(s) will increase pedestrian. traffic to the retail center and will be compatible with surrounding uses. Additionally, the building profile will be consistent with the two (2) story building and will ad diversity to the area with regard to the new design as recommended by the City to improve the image to the area. Even though the intent of the General Plan is to locate automobile dealerships further north along Beach Boulevard and to the north side of Warner Avenue. The long-term usage of the building type can double as a future professional office building. The parking area and building massing would be consistent with a small residentially scaled development. ATTA *' St x'ij+1 1e0. 2 �Z Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 13 of 14 3. The site design and circulation will allow for safe ingress and egress from either property. The removal of the inferior driveways will improve off- site circulation of pedestrians, vehicles and improved safety for the'-Bus stop with the removal. of a service station entrance within 5 to 10 feet of the intersection of. Yorktown and Beach Boulevard. . The proposed development will allow for on-site delivery of vehicles. Additionally, with the added condition of approval the City can require smaller delivery vehicle if deemed necessary. 4. The proposed automobile sales lot will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and a specific condition has been added to ensure plan development revisions that will increase the driveway isle widths from 26 foot to 27 foot drive aisle widths will meet the minimum requirements as stated in the HBZSO. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit for the proposed automobile sales will not adversely affect the General Plan. It will meet the intent and is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG .(Commercial General) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. (LU 8. 1 . 1) Create a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors through the use of distinct functional roles, activities, and/or through the form and scale of development. In that, the proposed development will create interrelated activities for sales in commerce within the adjoining commercial center. The scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding buildings and is related to retail s as is permitted in the base zone for which the proposed development is proposed. B . (LU 15.4) Encourage the development of an automobile district that consolidates existing and accommodates additional automobile dealerships. In that, the proposed development is a new dealership and will add to the sales force along Beach Boulevard. The Scale and massing of the area development are such that lend itself to locating a smaller scaled dealership as proposed to the area. Additionally, at such time that the dealership relocates to a larger site as his business grows, the development lends itself to a high end small scale office professional building in the area that will service the retail businesses. AT i 'CHMENT NO.?.�3 Appeal Case Cup98-62&98-98-85 Page 14 of 14 _ C. (CE 2.3. 1) Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to _the maximum extent feasible. In that the proposed development will remove four (4) existing driveways that are unsafe for vehicular and pedestrian movements along Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Additionally, the development will increase the roadway width by approximately 10 feet along Yorktown that will improve vehicular circulation to the area and assist in reducing jaywalking in the area to the increased road width. Additionally, the existing signalized intersection has appropriate pedestrian controls to assist pedestrians and with the added directional signage will discourage jaywalking in the area Summary The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and meets or exceeds all development standards as set-forth in the Zoning Code. We have developed additional conditions of approval to mitigate issues raised during the Commission Hearing. There will be two sales teams so patrons will not necessarily need to use the pedestrian and vehicle controlled intersection. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and when developed all deliveries can be .met on-site. Lastly, the proposed improvement plans can be modified to meet the minimum driveway aisle width. I look forward to discussing solutions for the proposed development. If there are any question I can be reached at (714) 434-9228. Sincerely, Corrie D. Kates Foothill Project Management, LLC President Cc: Property Owner (s) Applicant SJG:CDK ATTA�IWENT NO.Z ............... A EN :, x. Hunting on Beach D part W o C mmumt�yEDevelo" ent TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning D' c r BY: Joe Thompson, Planning Ai e DATE: April 27, 1999 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-85 (Performance Sales,Phase II) LOCATION: 19475 Beach Boulevard(northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 represents a request by Mehdi Bolouriad to permit construction of a new automobile sales building. The proposal includes construction of a two (2) story 1,741 square foot building, which includes 470 square feet of interior sales space, 171 square feet of office space, 900 square feet of storage space on the second story, and exterior parking for 17 display vehicles and 13 customer/sales staff on an 18,900 square foot lot. This conditional use permit is being processed in conjunction with Conditional User Permit No. 98-62 (19501 Beach Blvd.) and will be presented concurrently. The applicant requests to operate the car sales lot from two separate properties located on the northwest and southwest corners of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue. Staff recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for the following reasons: • The project is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, which encourages clustering of new and existing automobile dealerships within a defined automobile district. • Because the proposed dealership is divided into two (2) separate locations,undue risk is suffered by customers and the dealership sales staff when crossing Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles being offered for sale. • The site does not have adequate square footage to accommodate the vehicle delivery truck, which must.off-load vehicles onto the Yorktown Avenue median.. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." ATTACH ENT NO. ,3 � - C ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 and direct staff accordingly." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Mehdi Bolouriad, 19475 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: John F. Pelochino, 192 C 22nd Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 REQUEST: Demolish an existing office building and establish an automobile sales lot with a new two (2) story 1,741square foot building. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 5, 1999 July 5, 1999 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: :. RAL. L : >::>:::>:>» ZOO]TNG:::>::::>::::»::::>::::>::::;»>:>::::.;>:<::<:::.:: :;>:....:>::>::>::::::: N . ........................................................................................ ........ ..........................:.:..:....:... ................. ...: .::::::::.::::::::.:::::::.::. .:::::: .: :. .. ::.:. Subject Property: CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Professional office General) building North of Subject Property CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Retail tile building General East of Subject Property CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Chevron Service Across Beach Blvd. General Station South of Subject CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Retail Center(and Property: General) Phase 1 proposed car Across Yorktown Ave. dealership West of Subject Property: CG(Commercial CG(Commercial General) Motel General PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 represents a request to demolish an existing office building and establish an automobile sales lot with a new two (2) story 1,741 square foot building pursuant to Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The proposed 1,741 square foot building will be located on the north property line and will be approximately 50 feet away from the retail tile building to the north and 40 feet from the motel to the west. The building includes 470 square feet of interior sales space, 171 square feet of office space and 900 square feet of storage space on the second floor on an 18,900 square foot lot. The second story is AT iAC�MB4- NO. Staff Report—4/27/99 2 (99SR18) accessed by an exterior stairway on the north side of the building. All pre-owned vehicles offered for sale will be displayed outside and there will be no interior display of vehicles. Seventeen (17) display vehicle parking spaces have been provided. The 470 square feet of interior sales space will be utilized to display optional or add-on equipment provided by the dealership. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 2,773 square feet of landscaping to the site, install stamped concrete at the site entrances, and close the existing driveways on Yorktown Avenue, closest to the intersection of Beach Boulevard. Although the automobile dealership is a single entity, the physical arrangement of the dealership is divided into two (2) lots owned by two (2) different property owners and separated by Yorktown Avenue. The applicant has defined the southern location as Phase One development, and the northern location as Phase Two. Subsequently, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-85 for Phase Two is being processed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 98-62 for Phase One, located to the south, directly across Yorktown Avenue at 19501 Beach Boulevard. The physical arrangement of the dealership requires customers and the dealership's sales staff to cross Yorktown Avenue to access additional vehicles that are being offered for sale. In addition, the automobile carrier truck, delivering additional pre-owned vehicles to be sold must park on the Yorktown painted median, which is located between the north and south dealership locations. Newly arrived automobiles are backed away form the truck and driven to either one of the two locations. The applicant has advised that no repair of newly arrived pre-owned vehicles or existing display vehicles will occur on- site. Proiect History The applicant applied for and was granted a certificate of occupancy for Performance Sales and Leasing located at this site on July 21, 1997. The certificate of occupancy stipulated that no more than three (3) for-sale vehicles could be displayed on site at any one time pursuant to the HBZSO. Initially, a code enforcement citation was issued to the applicant on March 16, 1998 for the display of eighteen(18) vehicles. The citation required the applicant to remove the excess vehicles within five (5) calendar days or apply for a conditional use permit as required for establishment of car dealerships per Section 211.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (More than three vehicles displayed). Due to non-compliance of the initial citation, a second citation was issued on June 18, 1998 requiring the removal of eighteen (18) vehicles within seven(7) calendar days. Due to non-compliance of the second citation, a third citation was issued and forwarded to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. The City Attorney issued a letter to the applicant shortly thereafter, advising the City's intention to prosecute. On July 20, 1998, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application for the establishment of a car dealership at 19501 Beach Boulevard (southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue). The applicant's intention was to move the existing dealership from the northwest corner to the southwest corner. The building and site plans submitted with the conditional use permit application reflected use of the existing gas station building (at the southwest corner) and incorrectly stated the lot's property lines, as well as being grossly inadequate regarding scale, circulation, and site and building design. A correction letter was mailed to the applicant on August 11, 1998 advising of the inadequacies. On August 21, 1998, staff received revised plans, however, many of.the issues stated in the correction letter had not been addressed. Staff Report—4/27/99 3 (99SR18) mw . • Pro ect is inconsistent with the oasa J g � . P olicies of the General Plan. • Project is unsafe to sales staff and customers due to its physical p separation. • Car carrier delivery truck must park on Yorktown Ave. painted median due to small size of car lotsS • Incompatible with existin surrounding uses. g gi M ., :?„:n i ...k. r;°� 4. • The o opportunity topresent the oapp ty g vision of the was not givenat the project meeting. g • Staff did not respond to known concerns. • The opp ortunity to consider and propose alternatives was not given. 9 The project was prejudged.