t�C� 0-F BELLP.Lo
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
ATTENTION: Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager
FROM: Elizabeth C. Oba, Director of Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to set a public hearing for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Case No. ZOTA 23-01 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 23-01.
DATE:
September 11, 2023
E)CECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA 23-01) to amend the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC") to reduce the minimum distance requirement between automobile repair shops/centers and a Conditional Use Permit (CU 23-01) to allow an automobile repair shop and a spray booth within an existing building located at 9638-9648 Artesia Boulevard. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 23-04 and PC 23-05 recommending denial of the IOTA and the CUP to the City Council. In the staff report and at the public hearing, staff informed the Commission that it was acting as an advisory body only to the City Council and that its action for approval or denial would be a recommendation to the City Council.
However, the information provided to the Planning Commission and the applicant was incorrect and the Planning Commission's action for denial of the ZOTA and CUP should have been final unless an appeal was filed pursuant to BMC § 17.104.070(b). To address this error and allow the applicant the opportunity for its application to be heard by the City Council, the City Council should consider setting this matter for a public hearing on September 25, 2023.
1) Set a public hearing for IOTA 23-01 and CU 23-01 for September 25, 2023; or 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
None.
—1—
Staff Report — Set Public Hearing e IOTA 23-01 & CU 23-01 September 11, 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action, by itself, is exempt from review under C3 Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and constitute an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, the proposed action does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15378(b)(4-5)).
DISCUSSION
On August 7, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an application from Roderick Graham for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (IOTA 23-01) to amend the BMC to reduce the minimum distance requirement between automobile repair shops/centers and a Conditional Use Permit (CU 23-01) to allow an automobile repair shop and a spray booth within an existing building located at 9638- 9648 Artesia Blvd. within the Light Industrial ("W") District.
In the staff report and during the public hearing, the Planning Commission was informed that it was acting as an advisory body to the City Council and that its action to approve or deny the application request would be a recommendation only to the City Council.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. PC 23-04 and PC 23-05 recommending denial of the IOTA and CUP applications to the City Council. The applicant was informed its application would be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council at the next available meeting.
Following the public hearing, staff discovered that BMC � 17.104.070(b) indicates that if a zone change, which includes a text amendment, is denied by the Commission, then the action is final unless appealed to the City Council. Therefore, staff provided incorrect information to the Commission and the applicant that the Commission's action to deny the application would be a recommendation only to the City Council. The Planning Commission's action should have been final unless appealed. To address this error and to allow the applicant the opportunity for its application to be heard by the City Council, staff recommends the City Council set a public hearing for September 25, 2023 to consider ZOTA 23-01 and CU 23-01.
A. Resolution Nos. PC 23-04 and PC 23-05
_2_
C G TY U) I(= L L6� L oJL"v t V-,
Rt=SULU9 � G cJ N 0�JU)a PC = J�u&u�.
• * •!
ON ING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT CASE
iEGARDIOG THE •
.
REDUCE THE .111NIMUM DISTANCE
COMMERCIAL3ETWEEN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SHOPS I CENTERS WITHIN THE .•-
G��
�E��'iON 1 o Recifals. The Planning Commission finds and declares as follows:
A. On fVlarch 27, 2023, Roderick Graham ("Applicant") filed an application and plans for a Conditional Use Permit and a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment.
The application was deemed incomplete on April 26, 2023. Revised plans and documents were submitted on June 12, 2023, and subsequently deemed complete on June 22, 2023;
B. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the BINK;
C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code C.I. 21000) et seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Environmental Guidelines ("Bellflower Guidelines"; CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and Bellflower Guidelines collectively referred to as "CEQA Regulations"); D. The Director completed review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for July 17, 2023; E. Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was duty given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law; F. The project was scheduled for the July 17, 2023 Planning Commission fleeting, .however, due to staffing issues the meeting was cancelled and continued' for the August 7, 2023 Planning Commission meeting; G. On July 17, 2023, a Notice of Cancellation and a notice of Continuance were posted at City Hall, Thompson Park, Simms Pariz, Caruthers Park, the City's website, and on July 13, 2023 at the Brakensiek Library, and H. On August 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing fo receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Applicant, and
-3-
City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 23=0zll
I. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and the Applicant. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its August 7, 2023 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Planning and Building Services.
SECTION 2. Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds that the following facts exist:
A. Subsection H of B1�1C � 17.44.160 (C -G —Automobile Repair Center) states "Location of any automobile repair centers shall not be within five hundred (500) feet of another automobile repair shop or center." B. Subsection G of BIv1C § 17.44.170 (C -G —Automobile Repair Shop) states "Location of any automobile repair shop shall not be within five hundred (500) feet of another automobile repair shop."
G. The Applicant is requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to amend the §§ 17.44.160 (C -G — Automobile Repair Center) and 17.44.170 (C -G — Automobile Repair Shop) of the BIVIC to reduce the minimum distance requirement between automobile repair shops / centers within the C -G Zone from 500 feet to 300 feet.
SECTION 3. Environmental Assessment. -The Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3) because the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not result in any development or changes to the physical environment, and following an evaluation adverse impacts, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that Df possible
the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Findings. The Planning Commission does hereby find, determine, and declare that it is unable to make three of the findings for approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as required by the Bellflower Municipal Code § 17.104.030, as follows:
A. IiVhether there are changed conditions since the existing zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning
There are no
changed conditions since the existing requirements for
automobile repair shops became effective that warrant the proposed zoning amendment, in that, among other things, the City already has ample automobile repair shops / centers to meet the needs of the community.
B. Proposed change of zone will not
adversely affect adjoining property as to
value or precedent, and will not be defrimental to the area.
As it currently stands, there are already an average of 22 automobile repair shops / centers per square mile in the City of Bellflower. Allowing additional —4—
City of Bellflower
(Resolution No. PC 2304
automobile repair shops and centers in C -G and (VI -1 areas will exacerbate these areas already saturated by said uses.
C. The change of zone t/vill be in the interest or fitfherance of public health, safety and general welfare.
As it currently stands, there are already 136 active business licenses for automobile repair shops within the City. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment will not be in the interest or furtherance of public health, safety and general welfare because reducing the minimum distance requirement between automobile repair shops and centers will allow additional automobile repair shops / centers in all C -G and M-1 areas throughout the City, resulting in further proliferation of said use.
SECTION 5. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby adopts this resolution recommending the City Council deny Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Case No. ZOTA 23-01.
SECTION 6. Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the Planning Commission's intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.
SECTION 7. Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 3. Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. ft is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commission'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 limitations inherent in that framework.
SECTION . Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of carr�petent jurisdiction, the Planning Commission 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 10. 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 —5—
City of BellfW,11,Y9v
Resolution No. GSC 23=04
it will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTION 11. This Resolution is the Planning
become effective immediately upon adoption, and will
by a subsequent resolution.
Commission's final decision, will
remain effective until superseded
SECTION 12. The Planning Commission Secretary is directed to mai! a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 13. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution
electronic signatures in
accordance with Government Code
signatures will be treated in all respects as having the i
sgnature.
may b
§ 15.5.
same effec
e executed with
Such electronic
t as an original
SECTION 14. The Planning Commission Chairman, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Bellflower, and the Planning Commission Secretary, is directed to attest thereto.
Eliz b�th C. Oba, Secretary
Approved as to
Timb#h�i E� C'��ifipen, Assistant City �����©��r�c���
-6-
Bill 6Vlendes, Chairman
�0T Y CJS L` L L U Win
La6ULUT0OGI 611)0 r 2) m ,�J!
a Reeitafs. The Planning Commission finds and declares as follows:
A. On March 27, 2023, Roderick Graham ("Applicant") filed an application and plans for a Conditional Use Permit and a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment.
The application was deemed incomplete on April 26, 2023. Revised plans and documents were submitted on June 12, 2023, and subsequently deemed complete on June 22, 2023;
B. The application was reviewed by the Director for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the Bellflower Municipal Code ("BMC"); C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 21000, It seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Environmental Guidelines ("Bellflower Guidelines"; CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and Bellflower Guidelines collectively referred to as "CEQA Regulations"); D. The Director completed review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for July 17, 2023; E. N
otice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was duly given and published in the time, form, and manner as required by law; F. The project was scheduled for
the July 17, 2023 Planning Commission
Meeting, however, due to staffing issues the meeting was cancelled and continued for the August 7, 2023 Planning Commission meeting; G. On July 17, 2023, a Notice of Cancellation and a Notice of Continuance were posted at City Hall, Thompson Park, Simms Park, Caruthers Park, the City's website, and on July 13, 2023 at the Brakensiek Library, and H. On August 7, 2023, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by the Applicant, and;
—7—
City of Bellflowev
Resolution No. PC 23m65
I. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and the Applicant. This Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its August 7, 2023 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Planning and Building Services, as well as the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 23-04 recommending denial of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to reduce the minimum distance between auto repair businesses from 500 to 300 feet, which must be approved by the City Council before any granting of the requested Conditional Use Permit, SECiI®N 2. Facfual findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds that the following facts exist:
A. The Applicant seeks a Canditionai Use Permit to allow an automobile repair shop and a spray booth within an existing 9,970 -square foot building located at 9638-9648 Artesia Boulevard ("Project Site") within the Light Industrial ("M- 1 ") District;
B. The Project Site is accessible from Artesia Boulevard, a 100 -foot wide right- of-way, and a major arterial;
C. The Project Site is located within the Light Industrial ("M-1 ") District, with a General Plan Land Use Designation of "I" (Industrial);
D. The Project Site is bounded to the north, separated by Artesia Boulevard, by a plumbing business and a vacant storefront in the General Commercial ("G -G") zone. To the south, the property is adjacent to a condominium development and a multifamily residential use within the R-2 medium density residential zone. To the west is a used car dealership in the M-1 District, and to the east is a residential care facility also within the M-1 District; and, E. The Project Site is composed of two adjacent Iats located at 9638 Artesia Boulevard (AFRI: 7161-009-012) and 9648 Artesia Boulevard7161- 009-011). Each lot measures 17,390.16 square feet (0.39 acres) in area. The subject site is currently developed with one commercial building and parking lot. The owner has indicated willingness to merge the two lots into one, which would meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 100 feet and provide sufficient parking for the proposed use.
SECTION 3. Environmental Assessment.
Because of the facts identified in
Section 2 of this Resolution, the Project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA because it consists of minor alterations in land use: the Project results in minor alterations to existing private facilities involving no significant expansion of the existing use. The Project is not anticipated to have any significant impacts with regard to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. There are adequate utilities and public services to serve the project. The Project, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15301.
SECT 6O��1 �o Conditional Use Permit Finding
s. The Planning Commission does
hereby find, determine, and declare that it is unable to make two of tl�e findings for
City of Bellflower
Resolution No. PC 23�05
approval of a Conditional Use Permit, as required by the Bellflower Municipal Code �
17.96.040, as follows.
A. Whether the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is not properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by Title 17 (Zoning) of the Bellflower Municipal Code.
BMC §! 17.44.160 (C -G — Automobile Repair Center) and 17.44.170— Automobile Repair Shop) require a 500400t distance between an automobile repair shop or center and the subject site is located within 500 feet of another automobile repair shop. In addition, the subject site is located adjacent to a residentially -zoned parcel but does not provide an 8400t high wall between the properties.
B. l�/hether the said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the district in which the site is located.
The said use is not necessary for the development of the community in that there are already numerous automobile repair shops (HDL business license data shows a total of 136 business licenses) within the City that have active business licenses.
SECTION 5. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby adopts this resolution recommending the City Council deny Conditional Use Permit Case No. CU 23-01.
SECTION 6. Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the Planning Commission's intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.
SECTION 7. Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTIO! 8
. Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the Planning Commissio'n'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 limitations inherent in that framework. -g-
of Bellflower
Resolution f ~ 0
■ • of
f
SECTION V. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Planning Commission 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 10. 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 11 o This Resolution is the Planning Commission's final decision, will become effective immediately upon adoption, and will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.
SECTION 12. The Planning Commission Secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 13. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.6. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 14. The Planning Commission Chairman, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the Planning Commission of the City of Bellflower, and the Planning Commission Secretary, is directed to attest thereto.
•� :� , ` � � / �� ;� •- , '� �� �. .� � , k*: _ k1 L � �'. 1. �.` � �:. • r0 i
r
Elizab�th a aE��y �c��et�
-10-