TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Elizabeth Corpuz, Director of Planning and Building Services
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to conduct a public hearing to consider adopting Resolution No. 23-02 – A Resolution denying Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center on property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard.
DATE: January 12, 2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 21, 2022, a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was issued for automobile sales on property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard (“Property”). In addition, the Notice identified that an automobile repair center use was not permitted on the Property without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”). A Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was issued because it was determined that automobile sales had ceased operation s for a period of 180 days or more pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 17.92.110. On August 23, 2022, Mr. Eitan Sharaf on behalf of Artesia Enterprises, LLC (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider th e appeal and adopted Resolution No. PC 22 -16 denying the appeal. On November 16, 2022, the Appellant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Appellant’s appeal of the City’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property. On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of the appeal and set the public hearing for January 12, 2023, to consider the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
1) Open the public hearing, take testimonial and documentary evidence and, after considering the evidence, adopt Resolution No. 23-02 denying the appeal; or
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
11-A
1 Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023
PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Herald American (Bellflower Edition) newspaper on December 30, 2022. Public hearing notices were sent on December 21, 2022 to 43 property owners within a 300’ radius of the project area and on December 21, 2022 public hearing notices were posted at City Hall, Brakensiek Library, Bellflower Substation, Thompson Park, Simms Park, and Caruthers Park. Two public hearing notices were also posted on the subject site on December 28, 2022. As of the writing of this staff report, staff received one inquiry regarding the public hearing.
CEQA STATUS
The proposed actions are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.; “CEQA Guidelines”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because they: do not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such action may have a significant effect on the environment; involve an enforcement action of a specific use on the Property; and do not constitute a “project” requiring environmental review.
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2022, the Director of Planning and Building Services issued a written Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales on the Property and identified that an automobile repair center use was not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”).
On August 23, 2022, Appellant filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and, after considering evidence presented by both City staff and Appellant, adopted Resolution No. PC 22-16 denying the appeal.
On November 16, 2022, Appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement. The Appellant’s appeal documentation is attached to the staff report (Attachment B).
On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Appellant’s appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement and set the public hearing for January 12, 2023 , to consider the Appellant’s November 16, 2022 appeal.
2 Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023
DISCUSSION
The Property is located in an “M-1 – Light Industrial” zone. Both automobile sales and automobile repair centers require a CUP to operate within an M-1 zone (BMC 17.44.030).
Pursuant to BMC § 17.08.010, an automobile sales area or lot means an open area or building used for the display, sales or retail of new or used automobiles and trailers and boats. Pursuant to BMC § 17.08.010, an automobile repair center means more than one automobile repair business on a single parcel. Any uses permitted in the C-G (General Commercial) zone also applies to M-1 (Light Industrial) zones. Conditional Use Permits for automobile sales became effective in December 1997 (Ordinance No. 915) and automobile repair centers became effective in December 2005 (Ordinance No. 1097 ).
A legal non-conforming status refers to “uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted dif ferently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments.” Only businesses lawfully operating on the Property qualify for legal non-conforming status. Accordingly, businesses that do not have the requisite California State licensing or do not have a business license with the City are not considered lawfully operating.
A legal non-conforming use can be “abandoned.” Once the use is abandoned, it cannot be re-established pursuant to BMC § 17.92.110:
”A nonconforming use that is voluntarily discontinued or ceases operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more cannot be re-established on the site. Any further use of an existing structure or site must conform to any applicable performance or operational standards provided in this Code. Such use must also comply with all applicable development standards to the maximum extent feasible.”
Automobile sales appear to have been an existing use on the Property before the current zoning regulations governing the Property were adopted in 1997. Accordingly, automobile sales on the Property operated under its legal non -conforming status. “Get Around Auto Sales” is the only business at the Property that had both the required state automobile dealer license and a City business license at any time between 2005 and the present.
However, that use was abandoned beginning in or around 2016 for a period of approximately 4-6 years, at which time “Get Around Auto Sales” did not operate any form of automobile dealership or automobile sales on the Property. This lapse of engaging in automobile sales business amounts to an abandonment of the legal non -conforming status.
While there have been a number of other businesses over the years that have obtained City business licenses for automobile sales, only “Get Around Auto Sales” had a valid automobile sales license from the State of California for the subject property. Accordingly, those other businesses be cannot counted as continuing the automobile sales use since they were not legally licensed.
3 Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023
DISCUSSION – Continued
“Get Around Auto Sales” also operated an automobile repair shop on the Property under the name “Cadillac Head Gasket Fix” with a valid California state automobile repair license. The only other business at the Property with a City business license for automobile repair was “New Auto Axle Exchange,” which operated from 2002 through March 2008, and closed its City business license in August 2009. The City could not locate any record of “New Auto Axle Exchange” ever having a valid California state license for automobile repair.
At best, the Property has maintained a legal non-conforming use for only one automobile repair shop. Even if “New Auto Axle Exchange” did have a State automobile repair license, its closure means any automobile repair center use was abandoned by 2010 at the very latest.
Many businesses have been observed at the Property over the years engaging in what appears to be automobile repair activities. However, none of these businesses obtained business licenses from the City, and none are known to have been licensed by the State of California.
Based on a thorough review of business license records and various State licenses, a Notice of Nonconformity Abatement, pursuant to BMC § 17.92.220, was issued to the property owner. That Notice informed the property owner that legal non -conforming uses at the Property for both automobile sales and an automobile repair center were abandoned pursuant to BMC § 17.92.110. This Notice of Nonconformity Abatement was appealed and a public hearing was requested by the Appellant.
A public hearing to consider the appeal was considered at the November 7, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. The Assistant City Attorney presented business license reco rds and the State of California auto dealership license records. These records indicated that the only legal, automobile sales business on the Property was “Get Around Auto Sales.” During the public hearing, the business owner, Cornelius Chambers, of “Get Around Auto Sales” and “Cadillac Head Gasket Fix,” testified that he stopped selling automobiles for 4-6 years, a period of time exceeding 180 days. The Appellant testified that as the owner of the property, he was not aware that his tenants were not property licensed and therefore any lapse of lawful use should not count as a period of nonconformity. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the appeal and adopted Resolution No. PC 22 -16 (Attachment A).
The Appellant has since appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to deny his Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal.
The City Council must make certain findings outlined in the following subsections:
4 Staff Report – Artesia Enterprises, LLC’s Appeal Hearing January 12, 2023
DISCUSSION – Continued
Bellflower Municipal Code (BMC) § 17.92.230 (Public Hearing):
C. At the close of the public hearing, the City Council must find and determine whether there has been an abandonment of legal nonconforming status, and if so, whether the nonconformity should be abated or whether a time extension should be granted. The City Council must base its decision as to the length of the permitted abatement period on evidence including, without limitation, the depreciation schedule attached to the owner’s latest federal income tax return.
D. The City Council must also find and determine whether the nonconformity can economically be used in its present condition or if the nonconformity can be successfully modified for a purpose permitted by the zone in which it is located.
BMC § 17.92.240 (Findings and Decisions):
B. Findings must be made as to whether or not the balancing of the public interest and the request by the owner for continuance complies with the intent of this Code.
It is recommended the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. PC 23-02…………………………………………………………………..6
B. November 16, 2022 Appeal……………………………………………………………....11 C. November 7, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments) ………...14 D. Supplemental Material Provided at the Planning Commission Meeting……………..33
5
CITY OF BELLFLOWER
RESOLUTION NO. 23-02
A RESOLUTION DENYING ARTESIA ENTERPRISES, LLC’S APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A NOTICE OF
NONCONFORMITY ABATEMENT APPEAL FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES
AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9103-9115 ARTESIA BOULEVARD.
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On July 21, 2022, the Director of Planning and Building Services (“Director”) issued a written Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales on the property located at 9103-9115 Artesia Boulevard (“Property”) pursuant to Bellflower Municipal Code (“BMC”) § 17.92.220. The written Notice also identified that an automobile repair center was not permitted on the property without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”);
B. On August 23, 2022, Mr. Eitan Sharaf (“Appellant”) filed an appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity (“Appeal”) for automobile sales and the determination that an automobile repair center was not an allowed use on the Property, and requested a public hearing be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to BMC § 17.92.230;
C. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, conformity with the BMC;
D. The proposed action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant impact on the environment, it involves an enforcement action of a specific use on the property, and it does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review;
E. The Director completed review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission on October 3, 2022;
F. Notice of a Public Hearing was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law;
G. On October 3, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 7, 2022;
H. On November 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the Appeal including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Appellant; and
6 City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02
I. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff, Assistant City Attorney, public testimony, and the Appellant. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 22-16 denying the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center. Resolution No. PC 22-16 and its findings, were made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its October 3, 2022 and November 7, 2022 hearings including, without limitation, the staff report.
J. On November 16, 2022, the Appellant submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Appellant’s appeal of the City’s Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center on the Property.
K. On November 28, 2022, the City Council confirmed receipt of a timely appeal from Artesia Enterprises, LLC of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal of the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement for automobile sales and automobile repair center and set a public hearing for January 12, 2023 to consider the appeal.
L. Notice of a Public Hearing was duly given and published in the t ime, form, and manner as required by law;
M. On January 12, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to receive and consider public testimony and other evidence regarding the Appeal including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission and City Council by the Appellant; and
N. The City Council considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and the Appellant. This Resolution, and its findings were made based upon the entire administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at its January 12, 2023 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Planning and Building Services.
SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:
A. The subject property consists of multiple lots addressed as 9103 -9115 Artesia Boulevard within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zone. Multiple businesses have operated on the property including, without limitation, automobile sales, automobile repair and automobile storage.
B. BMC § 17.08.010 defines “automobile repair center” as “multiple automobile repair shops within one (1) complex.” City records do not show that there was a legal automobile repair center on the property and therefore, there is no legal nonconforming use abandonment to consider and the use is not permitted on the property without a CUP.
7 City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02
C. BMC § 17.08.010 defines “automobile and trailer and boat sales area or lot” as “an open area or building used for the display, sales or retail of new or used automobiles and trailers and boats.” BMC § 17.44.030(A)(9) requires a CUP for automobile sales.
D. BMC § 17.92.010 states that legal nonconforming uses “are land uses, structures, and parcels within the City that were lawfully established, constructed, or subdivided before the adoption or amendment of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted differently under the current terms of this Code or its amendments.” Business license records demonstrate that an automobile sales and automobile repair uses existed on the site before current zoning regulations took effect in December 1997 and December 2005.
Accordingly, such uses were “legal nonconforming” at that time.
E. BMC § 17.92.110 states that “a nonconforming use that is voluntarily discontinued or ceases operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more cannot be re-established on the site.”
F. Only one confirmed automobile sales business has lawfully operated on the Property in the past 10 years. That business, however, discontinued all automobile sales activities in or around 2016. The last known time that more than one automobile repair shop lawfully operated on the Property (amounting to an automobile repair center) was approximately in 2009. Accordingly, both automobile sales and automobile repair center uses have been abandoned by virtue of a lack of operations for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) days or more.
G. Business that operated automobile sales or automobile repair businesses at the Property, but did not have required California state licenses or a City business license to lawfully conduct such business activities are not considered to have been operating on the Property for purposes of continuing a legal nonconforming use.
SECTION 3. Denial. Based on the findings and evidence presented, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Notice of Nonconformity Abatement appeal for automobile sales and automobile repair center is denied. The Planning Commission’s decision is sustained and the Planning Director’s decision is valid.
SECTION 4. Environmental Assessment. The proposed action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15061(b)(3), 15321(a), and 15378(b)(4-5) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant impact on the environment, it involves an enforcement action of a specific use on the property, and it does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review.
8 City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02
SECTION 5. Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competen t and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Appeal. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 6. Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the Appeal is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating an Appeal that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Appeal will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Appeal is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the lim itations inherent in that framework.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.
SECTION 8. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution's effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTION 9. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the Appellant and any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 12. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix the Mayor’s signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Bellflower, and the City Clerk, or duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto.
///
///
///
9 City of Bellflower
Resolution No. 23-02
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLFLOWER ON THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023.
Sonny R. Santa Ines, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mayra Ochiqui, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43